quote:

Most of the time I am trying to teach people to think differently.

John,

Do you think this enhances their motivation to learn? Or do they meet this with resistance? i.e., do they really want to think differently, appreciate what they are learning more, enjoy it, etc., or do they just want to "get on with it" and learn the material? Just wondering, since adult learners are so pragmatic regardless of culture.

It is not that it enhances their motivation, per se, it is that the goal of the intervention (generally a four-day training course) is to teach them to think differently. That is the desired outcome. It is the bulk of the material.

Let me give a concrete example. Most of the computer security tools are fairly easy for system administrators to deploy. Some are complex, but most are pretty straightforward. I do not teach how to deploy the tools. What is important for the classes I teach is how to think critically about computer security and the issues. How to evaluate threats and countermeasures is an important task and it takes a mindset that is new to most participants. If, for example, an organization perceives a threat of someone's computer password being discovered because it is written down near his or her desk, no amount of complexity (upper/lower case, numbers, etc.) will solve the problem. It might even contribute to the problem. Developing that mindset and the associated analysis techniques I what I often teach.

Part of the material includes some particulars such as how different password systems work, but a major goal is to teach the thinking process. So we present information about lots of tools (both good-guy and bad-guy), techniques and so forth, but my job as instructor and instructional designer is to get the particiants to evaluate those tools, etc. and be able to know how they fit in the whole threat/countermeasure thinking.

I also teach other topics where a new though process is required.

Sometimes I teach classes where the goal is to inform: no particular performance or behavior change is expected. The goal is to populate the brains of the participants with general concepts and particulars so that when they learn additional topics, tasks, etc. they will have the necessary mental anchors. For some this may sound crazy, but it is very valuable. One example is that I teach a class where people learn the fundamental concepts of computer communication systems: what does DSL really do? what is a T-1, really? how does wi-fi work inside? and so forth.

I hope I was not too rambling with this.
HTH

Thanks for the explanation John. Interesting stuff.

Such different needs. I suppose that is what makes the world go 'round. There is a definite need for this type of training...but I have seen it cut both ways.

In my world, this type of training has saturated people, to the point, where they are so tolerant of it they don't realize it is actually happening, sometimes to the detriment of the process.

So much to the point, that I believe that they have lost sight of sticking to basics of work standards. For example, if I have eight inspectors that do the same job, I can pretty much guarantee there are eight methods used. Why? I believe, but can't attribute it to an actual training session, that over time we have conditioned people to come up with ways to do things in innovative ways, to take ownership of their job. This is a good thing. But this approach has unintended consequences.

Ask and you shall receive. People come up with their own ways. What is the effect on quality? What about cost? Is the job done right? Are there really eight "right" ways to do the job? Perhaps, but there is really only one best way, that is, until someone comes up with a better way, which is a different skill set that is separate from training.

This is why I think there is a definite, rational need to separate training people in how to do a job from the training of how to improve the way to do the job. Mixing the two into one training session may lead to poor workplace standards, poor communication, and poor morale.

I'm not saying that is what you are doing, your circumstances may be different; this is just my personal experience in manufacturing and thought I would offer here. At any rate, it is a common problem that I see across cultures.

quote:

Originally posted by Lundbird:
Such different needs. I suppose that is what makes the world go 'round. There is a definite need for this type of training...but I have seen it cut both ways.
...
I'm not saying that is what you are doing, your circumstances may be different; this is just my personal experience in manufacturing and thought I would offer here. At any rate, it is a common problem that I see across cultures.

Yes, my circumstances are far different. In fact, sometimes "best" may change depending on the task at hand. It is totally unlike making a million widgets that must all be the same.

I can understand how different teaching people to find creative solutions must be from teaching people to perform a task in a pre-defind way.

In terms of the question that started this thread, I would think that these two different training types may need to be approached differently in different cultures. I have never taught any "work standards" oriented training outside the US, while I have done the other type multiple times.