Re: CBT v Training Redirect (Long)

Subject: Re: CBT v Training Redirect (Long)
From: Jon Leer <jleer -at- LTC -dot- MV -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:07:05 -0500

Kind uv reminds me of the early 80's when I commented to another writer
that the hardcopy book could eventually be replaced by an electronic
version. The other writer simply laughed, "Ya right!"

Jon

----------
> From: Brenda Ruetschi <Bruetschi -at- ALPHA88 -dot- COM>
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: CBT v Training Redirect (Long)
> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 11:20 AM
>
> *Snip from the Original*
> Is it *impossible* to build a CBT that can replace stand-up
> training?
>
> *Snip from most recent*
> I think that within the next ten years (my own speculation of
> course) most everybody will be "comfortable" with computers, enough to
> embrace technology in a way we have never seen.
>
>
> *Exposition on my theory of learning*
>
> Elissa-
> I agree that increased comfort with computers will raise
the
> ability of the general populace to learn via computers. I also believe
that
> the generation now in elementary and junior high school will almost all
be
> comfortable with computers. However, there is still a problem with CBTs -
> they are static.
>
> A CBT cannot answer a natural language query outside of
its
> realm of expertise. It cannot intuitively make cross-topic connections,
nor
> can it adjust its method of delivery to compensate for audience specific
> inquiries, specialties, or deficiencies. It can be programmed or written
to
> attempt these actions, but there are limitations to what even the most
> experienced and forward thinking curriculum development specialist,
> technical communicator, and programming team can predict.
>
> A CBT is a great training tool and will continue to be
one -
> especially since the technology is constantly and consistently improving.
> However, I believe that CBTs are best suited for task-specific learning.
> Mathematics, laboratory sciences, and factual content can be adequately
> addressed in CBTs. Looking back at my time in college, there are a number
of
> professors I would have loved to replace with a CBT that would remain
> focused, stay on topic, and concentrate on what the course was supposed
to
> teach. However, for the most part, the in-class discussion, the challenge
of
> expressing and defending ideas based in political, legal and economic
fact
> and perception prepared me for my job.
>
> So - in answer to the original query - can CBTs *ever*
> replace instructor-led training - the answer is not completely. Can I run
> math drills, learn to read, and memorize the steps to adding a user to
> secure group in NT server using CBTs? Absolutely. Can I learn to learn,
> connect distinct topics and analyze the hidden meanings, distill the
truth
> from a biased news report without human interaction - doubt it.
>
>
>




Previous by Author: Re: QUESTION: CBT v. Training
Next by Author: Training Seminars: RoboHelp and Macromedia Authorware
Previous by Thread: Re: CBT v Training Redirect (Long)
Next by Thread: research on non-knowledgable readers


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads