Running Head: PHILOSOPHY OF TRAINING 1

EDAE 620

Philosophy of Training

Jeff Thomas

Colorado State University - Fort Collins

PHILOSPHY OF TRAINING 2

Introduction

I had a moment of clarity a few months into my first job as an instructor when I was

training Microsoft Word. There was a lot of material to cover with the new users, so I wrote all

the topics on a chalkboard and mentioned that we would cover them through the next two

days. I made a point of marking each topic with a checkmark as we finished each one. I

successfully got through all the material.

That should not have been my definition of success.

I received my student evaluations once the course concluded. While the scores

indicated that the training went well, the comments belied otherwise. There were people who

were frustrated at the speed with which we moved through the material (some blamed

themselves). Others felt the speed was fine, but felt the exercises weren’t appropriate for their

position. Some users who felt that other material should have been included. The evaluations

effectively forced me to re-evaluate myself.

Philosophy of Training

There are three primary take-aways from that experience that are core to my philosophy today:

1) Training sessions are a safe space for discovery and discussion. With some relief, my

PALS score was high in the area of climate building; it is something I’ve long considered

an important component of successful training. Brockett (2015) mentions the

importance of a “safe space where learners can explore and try on different

perspectives” (p. 38). Maintaining such an open, friendly environment is deeply

important to me. Even with topics as straightforward as software functionalities, there is

PHILOSPHY OF TRAINING 3

still trepidation and even resistance. Performing mail merges, formatting nested tables,

building tables of contents – these are complex, multi-step intimidating word functions.

Providing the time and room to allow students to be active learners that access the

software with mock documents frees them to click around, make mistakes, and

generate errors without fear of transgression. Providing demonstration serves as a

model that they can follow and allows for questions as we go through the material.

Dewey (1938) discussed the concept of freedom and by extension, the inhibiting nature

of rote, controlled learning. Of all the comments I received in those evaluations, the

ones where students blamed themselves for their inability to keep up with the class

were probably the most disheartening. Not only did their comments indicate that they

did not learn, they were possibly disincentivized to try another course. Further, it added

unnecessary anxiety to the classroom atmosphere. It was a critical learning experience

for me. Discussion became a crucial component to make sure everyone was clear about

the functionality of the software.

2) Let the students dictate the material. Students in that initial course indicated that they

had left the session learning things they might not find applicable to their job. I

redoubled my efforts to support a generative strategy as to how and why my students

would use certain features within the software. I realized my courses should be more

job-focused than just merely point-and-click classes. Building on that, in this past year,

I’ve been most informed by Dewey’s (1938) thoughts on the criteria of experience – that

experiences serve to build on one another - a building block provided today becomes a

PHILOSPHY OF TRAINING 4

recollection for the next building block of tomorrow. This idea does not mean the

training sessions become a free-for-all completely directed by the learner, but that their

shared experiences inform me as to what tools in the software will be most salient to

them. In practice, I engage students by asking them what their job functions require,

what their own objectives are, and what their familiarity with the software is. Rather

than use the preset lesson plan from which I had previously steadfastly refused to

deviate, my classes evolved to include more collaboration. If attendees mentioned that

they needed more help with creating large queries, we refocused the course to attend

to that functionality. If there wasn’t a strong need for a topic, I disregarded it.

3) I am a learner within my own session. Brockett discusses how the experience that a

learner is willing to share can be a valuable resource (2015). Not only does it slant the

training a specific direction, but it can provoke ideas that may not have been discussed

otherwise. Students may provide information about the software I hadn’t previously

known or considered. For example, a student might discuss an error they received in

the system, and provide a new workaround. Davis (2012) talks about the important of

respecting the learners and encouraging their feedback simply because of the breadth

of information they can bring into the session. I see respect not just as a matter of

professionalism, but of basic human interaction and my training sessions are the better

for it.

PHILOSPHY OF TRAINING 5

References

Brockett, R. G. (2015), Teaching Adults: A Practical Guide for NEW TEACHERS. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, B. G. (2012), Encouraging Student Participation Retrieved from http://teaching.berkeley.edu/encouraging-student-participation.

Dewey, J. (1938), Experience and Education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Lieb, S. (1991). Principles of adult learning, Phoenix, AZ: Vision – South Mountain Community College, Retrieved from http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/adults-2.htm

Tate, M. L. (2012), Sit and Get Won’t Get Dendrites: 20 Professional Learning Strategies That Engage the Adult Brain: Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Publishers, Inc.