TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: CBT vs. Stand up From:Scott Gray <scotty -at- CM -dot- MATH -dot- UIUC -dot- EDU> Date:Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:26:32 -0600
Cool. Now we are where I want to be. There is (almost all) really bad
CBT. In fact, I currently know of only two examples of what I consider
The first, and the one on which I learned my design principles, is a
calculus course written by Jerry Uhl (U of Illinois) and Bill Davis (Ohio
State). This course is completely contained in Mathematica documents.
It uses socratic like principles and asks students to experiment by
copying mathematica code and making their own mathematica code. It is
in this way that the Mathematics is taught much the same way experimental
science is taught. The instructors do not lecture, but instead coach the
course. They also are encourged not to answer questions directly but to
attempt to lead students to their own conclusions by asking them to
The power of this method becomes evident when one enters the "lab" and
sees students discussing mathematics and creating their own principles
and demonstrations for hours on end. One does not generally see this
in a standard "stand up" calulus course.
The secret of this course, is embedding the materials in a program which
gives the students the SAME editorial and programming power that the
author has. This gives students a wide range of creative freedom
in the medium to ask and answer their own questions.
This is more than "interactive" it is "USERactive".
The course is embedded in an evironment (online editor) in which students
can experiment and create on their own as well as follow the tutorials'
"I hear and I forget, I see and I forget, I do and I forget" -- confused.
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Jason Willebeek-LeMair wrote:
> Gosh. I guess you never met my wife. She remembers everything she
> hears, which makes it nearly impossible to win an argument. 8-)
> More to the point, what do you consider CBT. When I think of it, I
> think of a (perhaps multimedia) application, developed in something like
> Authorware, that can instruct and, in a limited manner, provide
> If that is the case, why bother with CBT? Why not just train directly
> on the application?
> For example, I went to a Visual Basic class. It was a combination of
> lecture (this is a method, here is what you can do with it, etc.) and
> hands-on programming. The instructor was invaluable because I tend to
> ask a LOT of questions (what if. . ., what about. . ., can you. . .).
> I tried a CBT version of Visual Basic training, which was okay, but it
> could not anticipate all of my questions, which I found to be very
> frustrating and limiting.
> If you consider CBT to be hands on training (like my VB class), then of
> course I agree -- that way is best. But if I recall correctly (and I am
> not my wife, so my recollection may not be accurate), the original post
> had to do with eliminating the instructor in favor of CBT, which I think
> is a BAD THING (at least for the level of detail I usually demand).
> I must say, though, that I have never been to a class on computer
> software that was not hands-on.
> > ----------
> > From: Scott Gray
> > Reply To: Scott Gray
> > Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 1:02 PM
> > To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> > Subject: Re: CBT vs. Stand up
> > Who on this list disagrees with the following saying?
> > I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand"
> > -Chinese Proverb