Conference kernel::csguk_systems

    HI BOB,
          MY OPINION OF TRAINING THESE DAYS IS THAT FAR TOO MUCH ATTENTION
    IS PAID TO HOW THE KIT WORKS....I BELIEVE FAR MORE ATTENTION SHOULD
    BE PAID TO HOW IT BREAKS.....MORE THEORETICAL EXERCISES RELATED
    TO REGISTER INFORMATION...HOW TO "@CRASH"..DECODE DBL-ERR-HLTS ON
    ALL CPU'S (INCLUDING MICROVAXES)....ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS A 6XX0 PASSES
    SELF-TEST BUT WONT BOOT...WHAT NEXT ETC ???
    
    REGARDS
    
    NIGE
    

    
    Bob,
    
    It would help in the "trees", if relevant experience could in
    some cases, take the place of formal courses. I'm thinking of
    say, engineers who have worked on the bugcheck desk, but haven't
    done all the pre-requisite courses for say "Int & Data Structures"
    
    I agree with Nigels points, on teaching what to do when it fails,
    rather than spending all the course on how it works. I think from
    comments from Dave Wrighton, re courses that he has taught, using
    field experienced people in training, is a very good idea. Most
    of the "Instructor Sellotape faults" just prove that the diagnostics
    usually will find a problem. It's what happens when they don't,
    that is most useful to the broad base of engineers. Save the real
    heavy level 2/3 stuff for board (Sorry - TCD ) candidates.
    
    Also, as one of the groups to see new products first, any info on
    up and coming courses/new products would be appreciated, and the
    earlier the better.

    Given  the  2  replies  to the base note, it might be interesting to 
    learn that VAX9000 training is a good deal different  from  previous 
    CPU offerings.

    Instead  of having the the traditional approach of Level I, followed 
    by (and a pre-requisite to) Level II  courses  etc,  we  are  aiming 
    Courses  at  the  Job  requirements  of  the  Students.  There's  an 
    "Installation and Maintenance Course"  (aimed  at  Installation  SDU 
    people  and  AR's),  there's  the "Fault Isolation Course" (aimed at 
    Remote Service  delivery  people),  and  the  "Theory  of  Operation 
    Course"  (for  CSSE  and  Country  Support  people).  None  of these 
    courses are pre-requisites for each other; they are stand-alone.

    Could this be the shape of things to come??

    On Brian's comment; students will always warm to a  fellow  engineer 
    instructing  them  because of the understanding of each other's job. 
    Obviously this is NOT a knock at Instructors on EDU SVCS!!

    Chris
    P.S. Now that you know about VAX9000 training, I'll  rip  yer  heads 
    off if I hear you talk of "Level I Vax 9000 Courses" :-)

    
    Having attended a couple of courses myself, (I did, honest..)I agree 
    that the most memorable and useful were the ones given by the likes 
    of Chris and Glenn etc, but these chaps can't be expected to be
    involved with every course that's delivered.
    
    In an ideal World, Instructors would have the same experience and
    ability as Product Engineers however this will never be as they
    have a differing environment. The next best step is the idea that Chris
    mentioned previously, and that is to target courses at more specific
    audiences...as he said, it's the way VAX9000 training will be  done
    and I would think all large (expensive..) VAX training will follow
    the same idea.
    
    As far as the content goes, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here...is 
    it not true that the better you understand how a machine works the 
    more likely you are to be able to fix it? HEY NIGE, WHEN DID YOU
    LAST HAVE SELLOTAPE ON A MODULE ????? (We have to shout for the
    old boy...sorry about that..)

    Seriously though...a training course will never give all the answers
    but should provide an approach to fault-finding a particular product.
    If you come away from a course with an idea of how it's structured
    mechanically, electrically and logically (module functions), how to 
    drive the console, what the register contents mean with a few
    descriptive books about it then what more is needed ? The course will 
    have been successful because it will enable an Engineer who met the 
    pre-reqs to go out and fix most problems on it. Any other knowledge 
    will be obtained by experience and sharing of information. 

    Obviously, this course alone is not sufficient to maintain the product.
    There still has to be Support for problems that are not
    straightforward and 'how it works' is crucial. 

    Ref Brians point about pre-reqs..maybe we should do away with ALL
    pre-reqs and as part of the request to attend a course should be
    a completed test signed off by an Engineers TCD advisor ?
    
    Cheers for now
    Bob
    

    
    Bob,
    
    I'm not sure how much data is kept on each engineer, but maybe the
    training booking system, could cross reference the TCD database
    when taking course bookings, rather than have to get the Advisor
    together with the "student" for a test.

    In some cases, the course   subject will be new material, as part of 
    the engineer's developement,  so would a test be relevant ??

    Which ever way it is done, this seems like a good idea worth pursuing.
    

    This  may  be  a bit dynamic here, but couldn't we use an Electronic 
    Multiple Choice Q and A system  that  a  prospective  student  could 
    fill in back in his Service Location (that's Branch to you Nigel).

    Think  of  the  shock  to some people, though; "What, you mean we've 
    actually got to use COMPUTERS??!!"

    		:-)

    Hello,
    
    My experience has been that there is a very high level of resistance
    within EDU to post-testing on training. The argument goes that people
    don't always go on courses to learn all that is presented - some
    go on them for in-depth overview, some go for awareness, some go
    to learn the whole thing down to the ground - ie the interest levels
    vary enormously. This is bourne out by my experience of teaching
    classes, some people wanted to know both of the bits of info that
    I could teach them, whilst others just wanted the concepts.
    
    To apply a uniform post-test would be unfair and would not reflect
    the effectiveness of the course. 
    
    I go some way towards supporting the above proposition, but I think
    that it could be worked out. Perhaps the manager who signs for you to
    go on the course could indicate what level of benefit he/she expects
    you to gain from it (ie awareness, overview, in-depth) and different
    post-tests could be devised.
    
    Also,  I think - as been said - that you can't judge how useful a
    course has been until you've used what you learned. The ideal time for
    a post-test would be some weeks -  maybe months - after the end of the
    course. 
    
    The "Strongly Agree" forms that get handed out at the moment are
    farcical and should be done away with since the students typically have
    little idea of how useful what they have learned will be until they come
    to apply that knowledge (or not). Its a sad fact that those forms are
    virtually the only measure that is applied to the performance of
    instructors, therefore bad accomodation, bad facilities etc all reflect
    on the instructors (since the individual sections are not broken out at
    all) and adversely affect their job progress. 
    
    <Flame on>
    These factors mean that - to a great extent - EDU is run as though it
    were a branch of showbiz, with those instructors who are good
    presenters - whilst not necessarily being technically excellent -
    rising to the top. Like the TRB system it is self perpetuating,
    those who have gained most from the status quo don't acknowledge
    its shortcomings. The turnover of Instructors at Highfield is very
    high, and they often leave for very similar reasons.
    
    <flame off>
    
    Alan (Don't start me off on EDU  8-)) Trevennor.