Conference 7.286::digital

	A lot of the more effective training is very topical.  Just getting
    a small group of people togeather who are working on the same kind of
    thing so they can discuss and share problems and solutions is very 
    effective training - it's known as a seminar or mini-seminar now that
    seminars have grown to the point where the often don't fill their original
    function.

    re: .0
    
    Thank you for caring enough to start this topic.  The fact that you
    started it rather than someone else will hopefully make people view
    this as something other than another 'whining' topic.
    
    I don't know if has just been my misfortune, or what, but in the last two
    classes I've taken, the course material was for the previous version of
    the product.  In one, we received a printed list of what was different
    between the 2 versions.  In the other, it was photocopies of the
    instructors hand-written notes on the differences he had been able to
    find between the 2 versions.  The latest version I'm referring to, was
    SSB, not FT.  To make matters worse, this was in a customer training
    class, not an employee-only class.  It seems that the product teams
    need to get people like you involved earlier in the process, so that
    updated training materials can be ready when SSB starts shipping
    product.
    
    I'd like more exercises that are more challenging.  I don't consider
    myself a genius by any means, but I've never used all of any lab
    period.  I'd like to learn more, but I often don't know enough to know
    what I should investigate next.  The end result is that I usually end
    up helping the instructor with one-on-one's with the students having
    trouble.  This is good for the students, good for Digital, and I enjoy
    it, but I feel like I'm not getting as much out of the training as I
    feel I should.
    
    I do have a question.  Do you design the internal training differently
    than the customer training?
    
    Bob

    I'd also like to see more CBI/CAI.  For example, I'm attempting to
    teach myself C from the K&R book.  I have heard that your new VAX C
    course is very good.  However, due to the nature of my job, ACT system
    manager, all my training usually must be done in Q1 and Q2.
    
    Bob

    
    My group (VIA Support in Colorado Springs) had a dilemma
    
    - lack of training dollars
    - EDU Services not providing the courses or focus we needed,
    
    so we are trying seminars, and if you ask me they are working really
    well. A date and time is publicised, and the product to be discussed is
    specified, then interested folks send in questions. Somebody gets a day
    off and researches in depth the subject. Then they get an hour to
    present their findings to the group.
    
    Result?
    - we don't lose much time from the phones (ie 1 hour not 1 week)
    - presenter gains new knowledge and expertise
    - highly focused to what we need to know
    - don't lose any money to EDU
    - usually get some technical articles written by presenter, so other
      CSC's benefit
    - especially good for interop, where for a example a DBMS needs to
      know more about CDD/PLUS, but only the interface, not the whole
    thing!
    
    this is really working for our group, perhaps it can for others?
    
    Simon

    I'll try to interject answers when I can - but please do keep in mind
    that Ed Services is a big organization and that the way my organization
    (ESDP, Ed Services Development and Publishing) and my sub-group
    (Technical Software Course Development) does things may not be the only
    way.
    
    Other Ed Services people should feel free to contribute other points of
    view...
    
    We are indeed plagued by version skews.  I think this is one of the
    most important things to work on.  Some of us have been lobbying hard
    to get involved with new products at Phase 0 so that new courses are
    ready when new products are issued.  We need to become more aggressive
    about the updates, too.
    
    Let me explain a little about how people in my group are funded to
    write courses.  This may shed some light on the issue.  There are
    'training funders' from various organizations who have a certain amount
    of money to work with each fiscal year.  I have been funded by funders
    from Ed Services Corporate Marketing (customer courses) and by internal
    funders from (formerly) SWS.  I've also been funded by DIS (now DIM&T)
    to do course development.  If I don't have funding from someone, I
    don't have a job.  I have to always be billing a funder unless I'm sick
    or on vacation.  This keeps my supervisor quite busy making sure I'm
    billable as I transition between projects ;-)
    
    Sometimes a customer funder and an internal funder will team up and
    co-fund a course that they both need.  ESDP's high level managers are
    working very hard to try to reduce redundant course development right
    now in order to maximize return on training dollars, and maximize the
    number of products we can support.  Sometimes we use VAX Document to
    conditionalize parts of the course materials if there is data that is
    only appropriate for the internal audiences.  (My first DECdesign
    lecture/lab course was 3 days for customers, 5 days internal).
    
    Unlike documentation, we do not currently assume there will be a course
    for every product.  Our funders have areas of specialization, and they
    have to figure out how to best allocate the limited resources they have
    to cover many new products in their area.  They also make the decision
    about whether they want to fund a self-paced course, a lecture/lab
    course, or a CBI/online training type course.
    
    				. . . 
    
    (Hint:  the product manager I work the most closely with also works
    closely with my funder.  She always tries to pass on customer and
    internal training requests to the funder!  Find out if the product
    manager of the product you're interested in knows who funds their
    software courses, and if they have a working relationship!
    
    2nd hint:  Attend a p-team meeting and get training on the agenda
    if you are closely involved with a product and have training wishes.
    Find out from the product manager who funds courses in that area, and
    invite that person to that meeting.)
    
    				. . .
    
    I can give funders input, but they have to manage a business and show a
    return on investment, and they make all final decisions.  Let me also
    say that I have great respect for and excellent working relationships
    with almost all of the funders with whom I've worked, and we make
    decisions as a team as often as we possibly can.  
    
    Anyway, suppose funder A funded a lecture lab course 18 months ago for
    a V1.0 product called "widgetX".  V1.1 is going to be ready in Q4, and
    the customers would really like an updated version of the training. 
    From the funder's point of view, s/he has 8 products all getting
    upgraded, and only enough money to fund 5 updates.  This person has to
    do a little 'triage' at this point.
    
    If the V1.0 course for widgetX was really good, and the changes for 1.1
    can be summarized in a handout, but the changes for 1.1 for product
    "gadgetY" has completely changed the user interface, guess which of the
    two products is more likely to get the training dollars, assuming that
    both products are of equal importance?  
    
    On the other hand, suppose product widgetX is supposed to really take
    off, but product gadgetY hasn't been doing as well as expected?
    These can be hard decisions, and it always comes back to limited
    resources.
    
    People often call me and ask me to explain why I haven't updated a
    course for which I wrote the original training.  I would love to be in
    a support role for one product where I play a role like the doc writers
    do.  If engineering funded us the same way they do CUIP, that might be
    possible.  But until a funder allocates dollars for an update, my hands
    are tied -- although I've been known to do a little midnight support on
    the side for an instructor who is really feeling desperate for some
    material on something I happen to know about.
    
    I'm neither defending nor complaining about this funding structure,
    just trying to give a picture of something that has perplexed many DEC
    employees.
    
    I see some really good trends happening in ESDP, especially in the area
    of reducing and managing redundancy.  There's nothing worse than
    slaving for months on a course, only to find out someone in another
    organization has done exactly the same thing for a different funder, 
    and you just didn't know it.  
    
    Hope this helps.  Please keep the suggestions and input coming!
    
    Holly

    
    
    We need quality courses and quality instructors.
    
    1.  First, for ANY technical training, the course needs to be WRITTEN 
    by someone who knows and understands the material!  We had an unfortunate
    experience in CS lately where a course was presented that had less
    information in that the basic documentation!  And much of the
    information was DEAD wrong.  I was told the course was written by someone 
    who was not knowledgeable in the subject. 
    
    Students in the course asked for their money back.  (Of course, it is
    impossible to get refund for wasted days and travel expenses.)
    
    2.  Second.  The technical courses need to be TAUGHT by someone who 
    knows the subject in depth.  Not just someone who happens to be
    available that week and can only read from the teaching materials in 
    front of them!  
    
    There have been many times I have talked to a customer right after they 
    came back from a DEC Training class.  They will call in and ask some 
    downright frightening questions!  I have started asking for the names
    of the instructors so maybe we can start seeing a pattern to how some 
    of the misinformation gets disseminated.  
    
    An example of how courses SHOULD be done is the new Rdb Internals
    Course.  It was written by someone knowledgeable who took the time to 
    make sure the material was accurate.  Plus that person also taught it
    many times.  A wonderful combination.
    
    

    Re .4
    
    Seminars sound like an excellent way to meet a specific need for a
    specific audience.  The training I write has to be addressed to a more
    general audience, and isn't going to be geared as well to specific
    interests.
    
    Now if we can figure out a way to work together and be resources for
    one another...!
    
    Seriously, I did a very satisfying project with some people at the CSC
    last year, thanks to a funder who was thinking long-term.
    This is kind of a tangent from the seminars, but represents a way that
    we can partner productively with you.
    
    I spent 4 days at the CSC last spring with people who were going to be
    supporting DECdesign.  They installed the online training I wrote that
    is bundled with DECdesign, but instead of trying to do it at their
    desks, they brought their workstations to a conference room and worked
    with me as a resource.  
    
    BENEFITS:
    --------
    There was lots of lively conversation among all of us and feedback 
    that I tried to capture for the product engineers back in NH.
    
    The support specialists identified some support and training issues we
    hadn't thought about -- *before* V1.0 shipped.
    
    I collected data from the support specialists about what we need when we
    write a support course from the product.
    
    The support specialists got to evaluate the online training format, and
    tell me ways that it would be more or less useful when working with
    customers on the phone.
    
    The support people learned DECdesign.
    
    The support people and their manager were delighted that someone from
    'central engineering' came out to CO to collect data from them about
    *their* needs and perspectives.
    
    I was delighted to work with such knowledgeable experts.  I think I
    learned more than they did.
    
    I liked working with them directly even more than having them mixed
    with customers in a pilot because we could focus on support issues
    without feeling like we were boring the rest of the class or talking
    inappropriately about internal issues.
    -------------------------
    
    Unfortunately, these kinds of pilot projects are more the exception
    than the rule.  It's my hope that we will see more of this kind of team
    work in the future between all the people who play support roles,
    including ed services.
    
    Holly

    Re .6
    
    I think you summarized the complaint I hear most often.  
    
    You'll be glad to know that in the past 3 years, at least in my group,
    we have been encouraged to become specialists in an area much as you do
    at the CSC.  (I have been working in the CASE area for almost 4 years,
    and I've come a long way.)
    
    In the old days, we used to get moved from a language to a tool to an
    operating system course depending on who needed what when.  I think we
    were seen as interchangeable resources.  Some of us begged to focus on
    one area and claimed that it would directly impact QA if we did.
    I think we are seeing good results from that.
    
    Another good trend is that more engineers are coming to work for ed
    services, at least in my group (software course development).  For my
    last project I (master's in education and lots of OJT at DEC as well as
    some university computer courses) worked closely with an engineer with
    an extensive background in analysis and design of real-time systems. 
    She completely rewrote some of the technical examples where I had
    reached my limit.  I helped her think about instructional design
    issues.  I loved it.
    
    In my current group, I get a lot of support for telling my manager what
    my limits are.  I'm not encouraged to pretend I know about something
    when I don't.  I think this is a really good trend towards integrity in
    the courses.
    
    And I agree with you, we have a LONG way to go in this area.
    
    Holly

	First:	Thanks for starting this topic Holly.  Not long ago I was
	still a customer, and I still live on customer sites.  I've had
	my own ups and downs with our courses and hear more comments
	from my current customer associates.  This is a nice opportunity
	to provide a little feedback.


	Too much course documentation is very superficial.  I attended a
	course in DECwindows a couple months ago *DECW II* and found the
	student guide to be not much more than a list of topics and syntax.
	In some cases where there is additional hardcopy material provided
	that is acceptable (i.e. VMS Internals) but it was only marginally
	useful in this case.  Now that I am trying to use what I learned
	I find very little of use in my student book.

	In addition, many instructors do not seem to be current on the material
	they are teaching. Too many times recently my customers have told
	me that "This can't be done in <product x>" or something of similar
	ilk, and someone in the class has to straighten out the confusion.
	If this happened once or twice in a class on some esoteric point
	then I could understand it.  Unfortunately, it happened several
	times a day on fundamental capabilities of the product being discussed.
	This problem appears to be worst at the fundamental skills level
	(Languages, Intro to VMS, etc.)

	Most of the courses I've been to are paced too slowly.  With a couple
	notable exceptions (VMS Internals 3 years ago, DECdesign last fall
	(which we compressed to 4 days), and an occasional seminar) I've felt
	that we should have covered more material or taken less time for the
	course.  When I took DECwindows II we took the whole 4.5 day course
	in 3.5 days and it didn't feel rushed.  As matter of fact we still had
	plenty of time to sit around and shoot the breeze during lab. I haven't
	taken any introductory-type courses, but my customers have. They report
	the same problems.

	In this time of restricted travel budgets and the shortage of people
	for important (or billable) tasks can we afford to have students waste
	many hours in a class ? Could we not take many of these 4.5 day classes
	and compress them to 4 days by reducing the unused lab time slightly ?
	We did this with DECdesign and I was able to get home in time to bill
	$450 to the customer for 4 hours work instead of wasting the whole day.
	If I'd known earlier I would have changed my hotel and plane reserva-
	tions so that I could get back and bill the customer for a whole day's
	work.
	
	In summary I think that maybe half of the problems with our courses
	could be addressed by increased attention and thought by our course
	writers.  However, the most severe problems are usually the result of
	poor instructors.  Even if the course material is lacking the instructor
	should be experienced enough with the material to be able to carry
	the course over the rough spots.  The instructor should also be able
	to answer reasonably specific questions on the topic without completely
	misleading and/or confusing the class.


	Once again, thanks for giving me the opportunity to get some of this
	out.  I have attended courses ranging from the suberb to the mediocre
	and, more often than I would like, hear horror stories from customers.
	I'm glad that someone has expressed an interest in getting some of
	these issues out in the open.

	Marshall Wiley - PSS
	Washington, D.C.

    These responses are great!  Much better than if I tried to do a 
    formal survey...    (Don't stop here, keep 'em coming!)
    
    Several of you have mentioned pace and depth.  The problem with doing
    anything with a group of people is that there is no such thing as a
    pace that works for everyone.  (I'm usually either bored in class 
    or hanging on by my fingernails; rarely in the middle.)
    
    This is one of the reasons we started experimenting with the concept of
    Bookreader based online training for DECdesign and DECplan.  The kinds
    of users I was meeting in my DECdesign classes tended to have a great
    deal of expertise, but often they had very different needs and goals
    from one another.   Whatever I do in a lecture lab class is sure to
    please some and annoy the rest!
    
    I started feeling that we needed a training approach where you can take
    what you want and leave the rest; go at your own pace; and that
    supports an *expert* user as the 'typical user'.  Someone recently
    called it cafeteria style training - I don't know if that was a
    compliment or not ;-)
    
    I got a user who had recently come to DEC to work with me on developing
    a case study from a customer point of view.  It has its limitations,
    but it works.
    
    The basic goal of the online training is to create a complete 
    systems analysis and design model based on this case study through
    creating 14 individual components.  The good part is you can start
    anywhere and go in any order and do only the parts that interest you 
    because we provide data files that allow you to do that.
    
    Expert users can fly through the training while less experienced users
    have to pop open extra windows giving them hints, solutions, what it
    should look like, how to manage your windows, and so forth.  
    Novices get enough handholding to make it through, but it takes a lot
    more time.  Several people claimed to have developed proficiency in
    DECwindows as a side benefit.
    
    My point is, I can do this sort of thing pretty well in online courses.
    I can create a simulated hypertext environment that gives the user a
    sense of various paths through the material.  But a class is a totally
    different story!  And some learners claim not to be able to learn from
    self paced materials - they either have too many interruptions, can't
    stay focused, or just want a person in front of them talking about the
    subject.  
    
    I'd be really interested in your thoughts on how we could meet more
    *differing* sets of needs simultaneously in a class.
    
    I made my DECdesign lecture lab class about 80% lab and 20% lecture. 
    When I teach, I annoy all the training center managers by *insisting*
    that each student have his/her own workstation for the duration of the
    class.  If a student is really struggling, I can divert them to the
    online training.  Other students can go through the labs pretty much at
    their own pace.  I see myself more as a resource than a lecturer.
    My philosophy is that you'll remember what you *do* far longer than
    you'll remember anything I *say* unless I'm making a point you're very
    motivated to know more about.
    
    This works reasonably well when training students on a tool.  But it's
    not as easily applied to operating systems; tuning; or other vaguer
    subject areas.
    
    Comments?
    
    Holly

    re: .11
    
    I think your idea is great.  For example, I know how to program, how to
    compile and link programs, how to use the debugger, but I don't know
    how to program in VAX C.  It would allow me to skip the part of the
    course that describes the difference between call-by-value,
    call-by-reference, and call-by-descriptor and simply to be told that
    in VAX C, arguments are passed to functions by value, with the
    execption of character arrays which are passed by reference.  In 30
    seconds, I've covered what the instructor in a lecture/lab course may
    have to spend 15 minutes covering, depending upon the level of the
    class.
    
    On the other hand, I have a very good understanding of VMS, but I don't
    know anything about Ultrix.  I probably need a good lecture/lab with
    conversations with the instructor who hopefully can tell me how various
    Ultrix concepts relate to VMS concepts.
    
    Bob

    I took a Rdb/SQL course last week with adiverse group of people who
    ranged from novices to senior people.  I am an ex-professor so I have
    some strong opinions on instruction and instructional style. 
    
    OBSERVATIONS:
    
    1) The course was selected based on subject matter without
    consideration of what was needed.  Problem belongs to the person who
    chose this course.  I don't know whether a different level of course is
    available or not.
    
    2) Some students had already taken more Rdb/SQL but had not applied
    what they studied.  These were mixed with people with extensive
    ancillary background and others who didn't even know what a relational
    database was.  Problem belongs to the person who grouped all of these
    diverse people into a single course.  I doubt that the budget would
    have supported two offerings.
    
    3) A number of the students were interested in implementation and
    operating efficiency issues.  These were not part of the course agenda
    and it was made clear up front that the course would probably not help
    them much.  Problem belongs to the students.  When one finds oneself
    not getting the benefit from a course, it doesn't seem to make much
    sense to continue.  On the other hand, they can help the less
    experienced if so motivated.
    
    4) The instructor was a substitute, hastily prepared.  The planned
    instructor was out consulting with a customer on an urgent problem.
    
    5) I did not return after the second day, since I found that I could
    learn the material on my own without tying up specific hours.  By
    leaving early, I lost the opportunity to support less experienced
    colleagues.  I took the selfish route consciously.
    
    CONCLUSIONS:
    
    1) Seminars in which advanced students bring the least experienced
    colleagues up to speed using the same materials could have been more
    effective.  We could economize the time of a formal instructor and
    oblige the students to be more active.
    
    2) We often don't set support for colleagues as a goal in our
    organizations.  That lets people like me off the hook when they act in
    accordance with their own needs only.
    
    3) We often don't read or interpret correctly the information about
    intended audience when we select courses for others.  This means a lot
    of mismatching goes on that can be avoided by more self-paced
    materials.
    
    4) I noted the lack of basic reference material in this (admittedly
    elementary) student guide.  I felt that this was an unfortunate course
    design decision.  My preference is to provide the student with more
    information in the written materials than one wishes to cover in the
    class.
    
    
    PERSONAL ASIDE:
    
    Although I was not very happy with this experience, I know there are
    many players in the process, all of whose contributions are critical to
    successful training.  It was obvious that the poor matching of course
    to students in this case was the root cause of my dissatisfaction. 
    Compromises must be made.  Nobody has a right to expect a tailor-made
    fit.  But I think we could have done better.
    
    regards,
    
    Dick

    I have been to quite a bit of lecture/lab training over my eleven years
    with Digital, some of it excellent, most mediocre, and some extremely
    bad.
    
    The best courses came as a result of a clear match of course objectives
    to my expectations and personal needs.  The worst came when the course
    definitely did not deliver what was advertised and the instructor was
    not knowledgable in the material being taught.  In that experience, a
    DEC-10 Batch Language course, I had checked to make sure that it was
    not an entry level course and that the instructor would be knowledge-
    able about some esoteric details since I had just completed writing
    a batch command stream generator and was interested in some esotoric
    issues.  Like Mr. Beldin, the instructor was changed at the last minute
    and the new person knew almost nothing about the subject matter, the
    course immediately reverted to less than elementary level as the course
    examples dealt with no exception conditions or optional command para-
    meters.  Without adequate training exercises and written support ma-
    terial, the instructor was unable to deliver even rudimentary knowledge
    about the subject.  I too left the class, but on the second day after
    it became clear the instructor would not/could not get me access to
    someone who knew more about the subject.
    
    I think the pace and content of a lecture can be varied slightly if
    the instructor is knowledgeable and skillful.  The diversity of the
    receiving group complicates attempts to add details and/or alter the
    pace of delivery.  A knowledgeable and skillful instructor can teach
    with poor materials but noone can handle a group which spans from no-
    vice user to internationally recognized expert.  We need to pay at-
    ention to detail and offer courses which focus on the needs of segments
    of the audience.
    
    The internal community tends to require greater detail, after all, our
    customers expect us to be the experts when we get on site.  This does
    not mean the standard lecture portion of a course needs to change.  It
    does mean the exercises and examples need to deal with more of the op-
    tional features and exception conditions which can occur.  It also
    means the instructor must be able to answer questions outside of the
    standard course material.  The lenght of the course need not change,
    if it can become more interactive and allow knowledgeable people to
    expand on relevant points.  If the instructor does not have the know-
    ledge and someone else can not be made available to expand the detail
    to the level required by the internal or experienced audience, then
    the course should be shortened and advertised as an entry level course.
    
    In the lab portion of these courses, adding complex examples which
    demonstrate conditional and optional features would assists even the
    novice at a later date once they have mastered the routine subject
    matter.  These should be designated as optional exercises and might
    be left out of novice courses.
    
    The biggest mistake we make is trying to be all thing to all people
    in our lecture / lab courses.  We must insists that the person being
    trained meets a minimal level of knowledge.  Otherwise, every course
    becomes a training session on how to use a VAXstation, terminal, DCL,
    etc... in addition to trying to teach the subject matter of the course.
    
    The course outline and assumptions should be available to everyone
    seeking to register.  The prerequisites should be clearly identified
    so that students and registars can limit the diversity of the group
    being taught.  The course objectives and any specific non-objectives
    should be clearly stated so that students and registrars can assists
    in screening the classes they plan to attend before they discover they
    are in the wrong place on the first day of class.
    
    This is basic stuff, but my experience is that we do not have access
    to it when we are looking for a course.  This results in a lot of
    frustration and loss opportunity.  When my expectations are not met
    than my evaluation of the course is not positive.  As Mr Beldin said
    above, sometimes that is my fault for not determining if the course
    will deliver what I am looking for and/or if I am not prepared to
    learn it because I did not have a prerequisite.  Sometimes that is
    the deliverers fault for not making it clear what was being offered.
    
    I expects our instructor/trainers to be as knowledgeable and flexible
    as possible.  I do not expect them to be miracle workers, so they
    need help with the diversity and adequate training materials.
    
    I'll keep taking training, because I need to grow.  I hope our custo-
    mers will keep taking training after bad experiences, because Digital
    need to sell services.  I hope training continues to improve, because
    the more we and our customers know about how to use our technology,
    the greater will be the demand for our solutions.
    
    
    

    Holly,
    
    Please forward this (slight tangent) to the people who handle
    distribution list updates.  I received one in the regular mail last
    week.  It said:
    
    	"You are on a distribution list to receive Self-Paced Instruction
    and Digital Press product information.  In an effort to update our
    distribution list, we are offereing you an opportunity to continue to
    receive this informationm in one of two ways,... or be removed from the
    distribution list.
    
    CONTINUE    If you want to continue to receive this information, do
                nothing...and you will remain on the distribution list.
    
    ELECTRONIC  If you would like to receive this same information
                electronically, send your name, badge and node address to:
                SPIDP@BUO or ESMAIL::SPIDP.  Please state that you would
                like to be on an electronic distribution.
    
    REMOVAL     If you would like to be removed from this distribution list
                altogether, send your anme and badge number to:
                SPIDP@BUO or ESMAIL::SPIDP.  Please state that you would
                like to be removed from the distribution, and please use
                "Removal" as the memo subject.
    
    
    As a concerned employee AND STOCKHOLDER, I thought that removal should
    be associated with doing nothing, so I called the office of VP of
    Educational Service and was passed off to someone else who hasn't yet
    returned my call.  I also sent a MAIL message to ESMAIL::SPIDP to
    please call me and have not received a call.
    
    Those who want to stay on distribution should have to ASK for
    electronic distribution (or paper) by sending MAIL.  The do-nothing
    default is in the wrong place.
    
    george
    
    Secondarily, perhaps everyone who
    wanted to continue to stay informed 

  Here's what I want from DEC's educational services:

   - Access to all materials for non-hardware technical courses. I'm
     not asking for expensive printed documents but simply files
     available on the network -- something I can view or print and read
     at leisure.

   - Window-based interactive instruction for suitable software
     products.  By this I mean interactive teaching software that: 1)
     shows you application windows, 2) describes how you might manipulate
     things in order to accomplish a task, 3) lets you attempt to do
     those things, and 4) pats you on the back and/or corrects you,
     depending.

   - A "cold-line" service where you could either get questions answered 
     or referred.  It doesn't have to be a hotline in the sense that a
     caller would expect an answer immediately.  An answer or a referral
     within a week would probably be sufficient.

  The "suitable software" mentioned above is somewhat subjective -- my
  take on it would include things like all of the DECwindows
  out-of-the-box applications, any word processing application
  including DECwrite, etc.  The more open-ended a software product,
  the less suitable this approach becomes.  E.g., I don't think this
  sort of instruction would be a great help in learning a compiler or
  a database management system.

  JP

        Seeing as how it was my comment which intially spawned this note,
    I suppose I should offer my two cents as well.  I might begin by stating
    that I have an interesting perspective in this discussion, as during my
    7-year career with DEC, I have had the priviledge of bouncing back and
    forth between working in both Ed. Services, as well as Engineering.

        First of all, when discussing the subject of internal training,
    there are a couple of subtle issues involved which typically go either
    undetected, or at least unspoken:

        1.  A successful internal training program provides its own
            undoing as employees eventually learn everything they need
            to know causing the internal training program to become redundant.

        2.  Successful internal training programs train lower paid professionals
            to do jobs which were previously limited to the domain of very
            highly paid professionals causing the corporation to reassess
            the need for the highly paid professionals.
	 
	...as such, one constantly needs to address the question of
    "Do we really want a successful internal training program?"  Assuming
    the answer is yes (thinking for the corporate good, as opposed to the
    good of certain individuals or empires), then we can proceed to define
    what a successful internal training program for a High Tech company
    such as DEC consists of.  In a word: the answer is CBI.

        When I first joined DEC, it seemed like a really "High Tech" place
    to work.  Why?  Because it seemed like I was able to learn almost
    anything I needed to know *instantly* via the various CBI and IVIS
    courses that were available from my VAX/VMS user account.  I can't
    tell you how much time these courses saved me: for example, the VMS
    Utilties and Commands CBI course which, brought me from that of VMS
    novice, to being quite up to speed in a matter of days.  There were
    many other courses as well (just last year, for example, I took the
    Data Communications IVIS course in which I was able to learn a good
    deal about DECnet internals and now I have a job working in Telecomm
    & Networks - and what's amazing is that this course was written and
    produced 8 years ago!).  The fact that these courses are/were on-line
    and ready to use when I needed them (24 hours a day, 7 days a week),
    as well as allowing me to train on the job and between interruptions
    was what helped me the most.

	My first job at DEC was that of a programmer of IVIS courses.
    Few people utilize these courses much anymore since they are anchored
    to the Professional Series computer (Pro-350 & Pro-380), but there
    are still to this day over a hundred such courses out there in use
    at Field Training Centers worldwide.  Has anyone ever stopped to
    wonder why it is that the Customer Services organization seems to
    have survived so well over the years?  Could it be because they are
    perhaps the only organization which continues to invest in IVIS and/or
    CBI types of training?  Given there are now problems associated with
    the IVIS technology due to its shrinking [almost extinct] hardware
    platform causing students to have to travel to take an IVIS course
    (I was able to take IVIS courses at my desk since I had a Pro/IVIS
    system), but it used to be that you could take an IVIS or CBI course
    from most any location at most any time.  As such, the results would
    undoubtedly prove to be even more dramatic if the hardware platform
    for the IVIS technology had ever evolved beyond the Pro, but that is
    now history.

	My main point is that I am blown away by the apparent lack of
    high tech vision in developing newer replacement technologies for
    IVIS (or even simply CBI) courseware by Ed. Services.  The IVIS
    technology peaked way back in 1985, and almost to the day that Del
    Lippert left as VP of Ed. Services, internal courseware began its
    long slow slide back into the low tech world of lecture/lab alone
    (we used to call this the "Back to the Future" approach to training).
    Why is it that DEC has no on-line internal training strategies?
    Furthermore, why is it that a perfectly good software platform
    which was designed years ago with portability in mind (VAX Producer)
    has been allowed to die such a cruel death (along with the many
    people who were once trained in this product)?

				   -davo

	The better courses I have been to, inside and outside of DEC, all
    provided more material in the writen part of the course than was covered
    by the course itself.

	It might also be useful if we included our Ed Services people as a
    formal part of the phase review process.  There is suposed to be a training
    plan in place before a product goes out the door, but we really need much
    more than that.
	Would it make sense to REQUIRE that one of the internal field test 
    sites for any product be the Ed Services group that will be responsible 
    for writing/updating the course(s) about the product?

    re .17
    
    Doug, it's not a 'program' yet, but have you seen the online training I
    put together for DECdesign?  I would really welcome your feedback on
    what you think the potential of this format is compared to the CBIs you
    thought so highly of.  (We can take this off line if you prefer.)
    
    
    re .18
    
>>	It might also be useful if we included our Ed Services people as a
>>    formal part of the phase review process.  There is suposed to be a training
>>    plan in place before a product goes out the door, but we really need much
>>    more than that.
    
    
    YES!  I agree.  We should participate in the phase review process, and
    be accountable to it as well.
    
    In terms of training plans...CSSE usually puts those together, at least
    in my experience.  They come to me, and come to p-team, and talk to the
    funder if they can.  What gets written usually does not resemble
    reality much after about 6 months because engineering changes their
    plans, something changes in the funding, marketing decisions get made,
    etc.
    
    Sometimes, it all seems like everything comes down to
    
    	-managing complexity
    	-funding
    
    Holly

    
    
    Great topic, Holly!
    
    As an instructor (mostly customer), let me add my $0.03 worth.
    
    I've now been in Educational Services almost 5 years.  During that time
    I, honestly, have seen the quality of the course materials take a
    serious slide and, only recently, begin the uphill climb to level of
    quality I expect (and the customers expect).  
    
    In my opinion, their are three problems which seem to pop their ugly
    little heads up all too frequently.  
    
    1.  Course developers that don't know the product.  (Another instructor
    in the Chicago training center and I once had the "opportunity" to
    spend a couple days at Spitbrook, about 3 years ago, talking with the
    developers of the U&C I and System Manager I classes.  The developer of
    the U&C I course as a new-hire to the department and didn't know VMS. 
    The developer of the System Manager II class was a contract employee
    who didn't really understand the goals behind the class.  Most
    instructors who taught from materials which were developed by these
    people will tell you of the nightmarish quality of said materials.  It
    didn't seem to matter that these two courses are the bread-and-butter
    of most Ed. Servs. customer training centers.)  
    
    2.  There is the ever present problem of keeping up with the ongoing
    (and ever increasing rate of) change of VMS.  For no reason that is
    obvious to me the course materials, except in their finished form, are
    NOT available on line.  Were they available on line, changes could be
    done on an as-needed-basis and the corrected/updated pages/modules
    would be immediately available.  As it is now, it is sometimes weeks or
    months before corrections are made or changes in the product are
    reflected in the course materials.  (A worst case scenario:  the
    current version of the VMS System Security Course really reflects V4 of
    VMS, with only a few "patches" thrown in to make it appear that it's a
    V5 course.)
    
    3.  The course developers often do not get the chance (or are not
    forced to) teach from their own materials.  I've said many, many times
    that even the most technically knowledgeable person does not
    necessarily have the ability to write materials from which other
    persons will be able to teach.  Course developers need to be
    instructors, also.  I grow increasingly tired of course materials which
    contain little more than pages from the documentation or, worse yet,
    pages and pages of prose.  The instructor's job is to fill in the
    details.  The "job" of the course materials is to be provide an outline
    of the topics, references to appropriate documentation, and room for
    note-taking.  (I'm amazed from the number of customers, and employees
    that take customer classes, that have no note-taking skills or that
    even REFUSE to take notes.  People evidently aren't aware of the fact
    that one of the best ways to learn something and REMEMBER it is to
    write it down.)
    
    Finally, I'm also amazed by the number of customers that come into a
    class not meeting the pre-requisites and expect to be brought up to
    speed on the materials they should have "gotten" in other classes. 
    For example, one of the other instructors in our training center taught
    the "Utilizing VMS Features from C" course last week at a customer
    site.  Several people in the course didn't know C.  In such a situation
    the instructor has to punt.  Our job often is that of giving our warm
    fuzzies to everybody in an attempt to achieve customer satisfaction
    from all parties.  Unfortunately, I don't ever see this problem (of
    pre-requisites) being resolved.  Let's face it, when a customer hands
    "us" a check for a training class, we're going to take that check.  The
    problem is compounded even more by the Unlimited Training (or, as the
    instructors call them, the "all you can eat") packages.  More and more
    people are being sent to training who are not prepared for that
    training.
    
    	Greg

    I am in favor of the training being even more involved than being in
    the Phase Review process.  I think it should involved in the product
    design process, along with the documentation writers.
    
    If engineers are allowed to push back on requirements by saying "that
    is too time consuming to implement well", then writers and course designers
    should be able to push back on engineers and say "that is too time
    consuming to document well" or "that is too confusing".  The QFD
    process provides a clean way to integrate these concerns during design.
    
    I also see a great deal of similarity in what the Ed Svc organization
    does and what CUIP (the technical doc people) do.  Perhaps these
    organizations should be merged rather than having turf battles.
    They should at least have similar accounting practices for how the
    writing is paid for.  My project's doc writer sits right here among the
    engineers.  Our course designer sits a 20-minute drive away.  At least
    Holly is in the same facility as her customer.  As the duration of
    product development shortens (and our VP tells us that it *will*
    shorten) the time it takes to develop the course will be more in line
    with the time it takes to develop the product.
    
    The vast majority of desktops that have access to our products are not
    equipped with workstations.  Many with PCs can not run X servers or
    do not choose to.  (An X-server requires more resources on the PC than
    most complete PC applications do!)  We need to look at ways of
    delivering CBIs that are not tied to a single display technology.
    We could make non-DECwindows versions of Bookreader.  Or we could
    import the software that can run more complicated kinds of CBIs than
    we now have.
    
    There are also self-paced technologies that do not use computers at
    all.  (The ultimate in platform independence.)  Some (not all) courses
    could be handled with a book and an audio tape.  Some (even fewer)
    might just need the audio tape, though this is probably not so
    applicable to hard-core technical courses.
    
    How about if it was easier to attend the "seminars" discussed in
    previous replies?  Perhaps a way to listen in from your desk if you
    can't afford the time to go to the lecture hall, or drive to where
    it is being held, yet still be able to ask questions?
    
    Perhaps Ed Svcs can offer a "service" of helping to facilitate such
    seminars, or there could be a self-paced course on how to run them.
    [Remember, if you don't make yourself obsolete somebody else will
    do it for you.]

    .14 > The course outline and assumptions should be available to everyone
        > seeking to register.  The prerequisites should be clearly identified
        > so that students and registars can limit the diversity of the group
        > being taught.  The course objectives and any specific non-objectives
        > should be clearly stated...
    
    In VTX ESCOURSES this information is available for most courses
    (admittedly some are missing). Is this the kind of thing you're looking
    for?
    
    					Val

    Re. The last few
    
    The instructors comments reminded me about something that made a recent
    presentation much more deliverable.
    
    	We sometimes forget what we are supposed to use each medium
    	for.  Overheads which try to tell it all!!!  Course manuals
    	that are really refabrications of the Technical Guides!!!
    	Exercises which simply duplicate the examples in the Reference
    	Manuals!!!
    
    	I had the fortunate advantage of getting slides and crib notes.
    	An instructor's guide of sorts which explained the purpose of
    	each slide and gave hints about what to discuss but not a script.
    	It also noted where additional material existed in the Technical
    	Document Set so I could look it up or refer the students to it.
    
    Then .21 raised the issue of access, push back, and coherence of the
    material developed for training.  My wife was a trainer at Digital
    who was taught "Criterion Referenced Instruction" ?sp techniques.
    These techniques force you to develop goals and objectives to decide
    what needs to be taught and to focus on the best means to achieve
    these objective.  When you can document what a course is supposed
    to deliver and can measure the results of delivering the material,
    you have a much better chance of satisfying the customer.  You also
    have the material which helps the customer screen courses for content
    and satisfaction of perceived needs.
    
    Finally the issue of funding.  I expect Ed Services to be in the
    business of developing custom solution.  Naturally if a customer
    is willing to pay we will take his money.  Lets just make sure that
    we are also recovering our costs and making our planned margins when
    we do so.  We have a habit of under estimating the cost and over
    estimating the reusability of training solutions, thereby pricing
    the service at a loss.  With the advent of account focused teams
    and business units, we run a greater risk that funding will not
    be available for traditional product training.  It is very impor-
    tant that we learn how to share development of training and in-
    crease the reusability of material developed for training and for
    presentations.  The closer we can put training development to the
    product development, the higher the likelyhood it will be reused.
    Unfortunately, we also need to assure that customer feedback and
    suggestions get incorporated quickly to training materials.  We
    have OPAL as a means to share presentations, I wonder if their
    is not a similar solution potential for training materials, especially
    instructor guides and crib sheets.
    
    It occurs to me that having a training topic in each products' Note
    File with wide spread knowledge of its existence among the training
    community might provide a support mechanism for new instructors.
    
    Good luck, we need more training and higher quality training if
    we are to succed in the solutions business.
    

    re .22
    
    Val,
    	Yes that was a good pointer and it has the potential to contain
    	everything I was looking for.  Since I only checked a few entries
    	I can't speak to how effectively it meets my need, but the entries
    	on CASE seemed relatively complete.
    
    	Now how do we use it with customers and development of custom
    	training.  If the entry had a means to pointing you to more
    	detail, e.g. getting you to electronic copies of course material
    	or contact people who knew course details!
    
    	VTX is a powerful tool.  We need to learn how to implement its
    	power as an integrating technology.  We need to spread the message
    	about how to look for information we have developed and stored
    	on the network.  We will succeed together.
    

    	Greg

You mentioned that Course dEvelopers should teach their courses:
I agree 1000%! I just left ESDP, the heavy duty course
development arm of Ed Services. I developed courses, using
various mediums over the last 7 years. I sure miss the teaching
of the courses and also am concerned about the quality of the
delivery of my course.

I might add that instructors or course developers should do some
time in the customer support space; to give them some credibility
in the technical space.

My new job will take me to the students and the customers after I
develop the course.

calvin

    
>>       -< instructors/developers should also work in the CSC a while... >-
    
    Absolutely, and I don't see it happening.  It all has to do with the
    fact that Ed. Serv. and CSC are seen, accounting-wise, as separate
    parts of the company.  Both could benefit from the sharing of
    personnel, ideas, and expertise.  What a concept!!??!!
    
    	Greg

re: .19,

	I can't say that I have seen your DECdesign course in bookreader
    but I do recall that a few people had begun to use this approach in
    their courses before I left ESDP.

	The only problem I can see with a bookreader-based course is
    that while bookreader provides a good means of referencing a document
    quickly, the burden is still always going to be on the student to
    read the material from a "book".  If making books more accessible
    to students were the only trick to teaching, then we could solve
    the nation's education dilemma by simply locking students in libraries!

	Here's another analogy: imagine a person is dying of thirst.
    Obviously, they need water quickly in order to survive.  One thing
    you could do to achieve this goal is to toss them in a lake.  The
    better approach however would be to pour them a glass of water and
    help them drink it.

	Without actually seeing your DECdesign course, it's hard to guess
    whether bookreader is an optimum medium for course instruction or not
    (certainly it will help).  I get the feeling however, that merely
    providing massive amounts of information to a student (whether through
    bookreader, or by locking them in a library, or whatever) is a little
    like getting thrown in a lake of knowledge.  Either they'll sink or
    swim (but at least they won't be thirsty any longer).
    
				    -davo

    I think the interesting thing about it is that it *is* instructional, and
    is based on skillbuilding, not reading.  It's more like hypertext
    than it is like reading a book - it doesn't really have many
    paragraphs.
    
    If you're ever up at ZKO, come have a look.  I'd be interested in your
    feedback.  
    
    Holly

    We find, here in one of the Corporate Libraries, that our clients
    prefer the videocassette format (1/2") for instruction, learning,
    information, etc.  We have a series of tapes on C programming, another
    on UNIX.  Each has a long waiting list for borrowing.  Another video
    that comes to mind is one on Open Systems (OSI) -- it delineates what
    open systems are, how they are used, etc.  
    
    Some of the videos have floppy disks and instruction books.  Feedback has 
    been nothing but positive.  Many people take the videos home and can
    learn at their own pace on their own schedule.
    
    For those who prefer seminars, the seminars could be videotaped and
    duplicated for wide distribution.  
    

re: .28,
    
>    If you're ever up at ZKO, come have a look.  I'd be interested in your
>    feedback.  

	Ok, fair enough.  I'll refrain from further comments regarding
    the substitution of bookreader for CBIs until I see it myself.  At
    least bookreader is a DEC product - that's a win if nothing else is!

re: .29,

	Yeah, too bad we are no longer in the video business (rumor
    has it that the media services group has or is being cut drastically).
    I suppose this is yet one more example of how we tend to use what
    we don't sell (symptomatic of U.S. consumerism?).

re: general,

	Likewise, DEC is also no longer in the CBI business (at least
    not the CBI tools development business).  See the ESRAD::AUTHORING
    notesfile for more information on how far we have come (and/or where
    we ended up) with regards to our current CBI strategies (IconAuthor,
    EASYAUTHOR, etc.).

				   -davo

    You don't need Media Services any more.  With the new desktop video
    technology any course developer can do their own productions.  (You
    still need someone to do the graphics.)
    
    Doing it yourself is a lot, lot, cheaper.   Apple does a lot of their
    training this way, with delivery on CDROM, videotape, or both.

    I believe it would be beneficial, not only to look at current
    carricular, but also future products. When I heard about the Vax 9000
    two years ago, my introduction to product was taking a 8800 level 2
    course. Ofcourse, there are similarities, however I wish we had
    seminars on the 9000 earlier. Now, with alpha and some of the other
    products, is there any kind of training taking place? Reading specs can
    be most iritating.
    
    -Harvey

    
    Well, I must be the only person who thinks you can't beat
    a book, printed on paper.  It has the highest information-
    delivery bandwidth I've seen, has remarkably low access
    time, pretty reasonable capacity, is non-fatiguing
    in use, and is readily portable.  Self-paced, too, and
    integrates text and graphics.
    

Re: .32:

   If it's any comfort, you're not alone.  I find the bookreader an
interesting novelty at best.  At worst, when cost-cutters don't allow for
printed documentation, I'd rather see it just go away...

   Get me a workstation I can take into my bedroom at leaf through
at night, and with as much screen space as all the horizontal surfaces
within arm's reach of my chair, then we might be talking.  Maybe, because
at least with printed manuals/documentation you can still do something
useful if the power goes out...

					-mjg

    An obvious conclusion to much of this discussion is that there are
    remarkably many effective ways of learning and many remarkably
    effective ways of teaching. Any plan that ignores that misses the boat.
    
    What a person learns is the next thing they are ready to learn-- that
    which they have all the necessary preparation and understanding to
    assimilate into their mental order. To hang up a coat, you have to have
    a hook; to "get" a new concept, you have to have a framework for it.
    Unfortunately, no one yet, at any level of instruction to my knowledge,
    has determined precisely what the prerequisites are for a given bit of
    knowledge, because those prerequisites have an uncanny way of varying
    from person to person. That means teaching and learning are inherently
    somewhat messy businesses.
    
    That's why the best courses are never separate from the best
    instructors and why the best instructors are distinguished by an
    ability to make the same point eleventy-seven different ways. 
    
    No one asked, but I don't think CBI, self-paced, video, just getting
    the book and reading it are any complete answers. I don't think it is
    possible to beat for cost or quality a well-delivered course by a
    **teacher** who knows his/her material, audience, and craft.
    
    John H.

    The last few points are VERY important.
    
    People vary greatly in their needs and learning styles.  The point of
    this note is decidedly not to pick THE best format for training, but
    to discuss and describe and define all the things the work well...and
    to identify the ones that aren't working so well and why.
    
    I hope we don't abandon paper documentation in the near future.  When I
    want to immerse myself in something conceptual, I need a book and a
    highlighter.
    
    On the other hand, when I'm actually working on line and want an
    *answer*, I like Bookreader manuals just fine.
    
    When I can go to class ($$ and time permit) AND the instructor is
    excellent AND the pace is appropriate for me AND the materials are well
    written - it's a great experience.
    
    When any one of those factors is substandard, I'd much rather work at
    my own pace on a workstation with a well designed CBI based on a case
    study / demo.  I don't want to struggle with the online material, I
    want to be led through it in a way that allows me to make choices about
    my needs within that framework.  I want it to be strong and thorough
    technically, and care somewhat less about pretty graphics and other
    bells and whistles - although anything that truly enhances learning
    may be very useful.
    
    People have very different learning styles.  Some understand well how
    they learn best, yet others don't seem to have a clue.  
    
    I like the phrase that has been going around about 'delighting' the
    customers.  If training that I develop delights the customer, then I
    feel successful.  Usually when a customer is delighted by training,
    they are very involved and caught up in the flow of it.  They are not
    spending an undue amount of time being frustrated or bored, and they have a
    clear structure for getting help and answers.  It should emphasize
    active involvement with clear correct information, whatever the form.
    
    Holly
    
    

Re: .36:

   Right on the nose.  What I was commenting on was the apparent trend
to look for one (and only one!) way to convey information.

					-mjg (an ersatz educator myself)

Harvey,

I don't know your particular situation, but around Sept. 89 we had developed
enough hardware information on the VAX 9000 to hold seminars in MRO. In Jan. 90
until present, there are 3 different levels of courses being presented in BTO. 
I'm not sure of what the training curriculum is like in the Ireland plant.
There are various notes conferences set up regarding the VAX 9000; from 
performance, to training, to EIS/Sales Support. Some of which are monitored
by the instructors.

 VAX 9000                           BTOVT::VAX_9000
 VAX 9000 Performance               GWYNED::VAX9000_PERFORMANCE
 VAX Vector Processing              GWYNED::VAX_VECTORS
 VAXclusters                        ELKTRA::CLUSTER
 VAXcluster Console System          GALLO::VCS
 VAX 9000 EIS/PSS Issues            CARTUN::9000_PSS_FORUM
 Customer Configuration Document    BTTOVT::VAX9000_CCD
 VAX 9000 Troubleshooting           LEGUP::VAX9000_TROUBLESHOOTING
 VAX Performance Advisor            VINO::VPA

8800 Lev. II training does not take the place of VAX 9000 training in any way
shape or form. The only similarities are, they're both a VAX. Management is
the planner (along with you), of your trainning. But when I was in the field,
I know that "the plan" was sometimes formulated in a matter of moments, (if any
at all).

This doesn't solve your problem, but it may help others from falling into the 
same trap in the future. That is, sharing information. Knowing that there is a
course catalog, an Education Services Registrar representative and a number you 
can call who can find the information you're seeking regarding a training need.

Sit down with your manager and plan your future training (between fires). If you
don't, no one else will. It will be O.J.T. as usual.


						Paul

    All;
      
    As I enter my fifth year in customer education at Digital I would like
    to see all instructors, course developers, and managers come to
    understand what it is that prevents a student from learning.  The
    assumption is being made that we can know the common barriers to
    study that affect "all" students in "any" learning environment.
      
    I believe that I do know and understand that there are three principal
    barriers to study:
      
    1. The misunderstood word or symbol - 
    
       You say that "The children became quieter as the crepescule
       approached".
      
    2. A lack of mass -
      
       The mass of what you are studying, describe an elephant to one
       who has never seen one.  Now try it with a picture.
      
    3. To steep a gradient -
      
       The student needs System Manager 0, and we are trying System Manager
       I
    
      
    Arnold Tarling, DTN 4834325, DLO10::TARLING, Arnold Tarling @SCA
    

    Arnold,
    
    Can you say more about this?
    
    I infer that you want the course developers to do a better job of
    defining terms.
    
    I also infer that you prefer visuals to text (or in addition to text) 
    wherever possible.  I do too.
    
    Every one in my cost center is being trained in Information Mapping.
    At first I thought rather cynically, "the latest gimmick to keep us
    from doing our work, grumble, grumble".  As it turns out, I am
    delighted with Information Mapping.  It helps a course developer
    analyze and organize their information very systematically.
    
    Each piece of information is analyzed by information type according to 
    the standards of Information Mapping.  
    
    Each 'chunk' of information is analyzed in turn to see if it
    could best be presented as a graphic, a table, text, or a combination
    of the above.  Nothing is 'text by default'.  There are no endless 
    run on paragraphs if it is done correctly.
    
    I have seen lots of supposed panaceas come and go, and I believe that
    Information Mapping truly has the potential to make our courses
    clearer, cleaner, more teachable, and more accessible to the user.
    
    Holly

    As an instructor, it would be beneficial to also be trained in
    information mapping.  I know that the courses where I was involved in
    review and development and knew the intention of a particular course
    design were better taught, more effective and more successful.  While
    not all instructors in a given course string may have the time or
    opportunity to be involved with said course design and review, the
    training staff across the country if not worldwide would benefit from
    some enhanced skills in understanding how our students learn and how
    the materials are directed.
    
    Secondly, most instructors become involved in customization and course
    development (usually as an after-hours fix) to some degree, all of
    which reaches the customer/student.  Thus updating course design skills
    is not just a developers need.
    
    Irene

    
    Someone mentioned having instructors and course developers stand a
    stint in the CSC... What about EIS and Sales Support? As I understand
    it aren't Edu part of EIS now? If that's the case it shouldn't be very
    difficult to develop a lend-lease program of bi-directional activity.
    Nothing helps an instructor more than being able to stand up in front
    of a class and say "I've done it!".
    
    -Ray
    
    

    What kinds of things are you thinking of specifically?  
    
    I do demos and presentations for customers pretty regularly on
    the product I've worked on for 3+ years.  I wish more course
    developers had the opportunity to be involved with direct product
    support outside the classroom.
    
    I don't know if I could fill in for someone at the CSC...I suspect I
    have more depth in one product than most of them, while many of them
    have a very wide but not quite as deep knowledge of a group of
    products.  I know I learned a lot working directly with them when I had
    the opportunity, and from sitting with them and listening in on some of
    the calls that came in.
    
    Holly
    

    Holly et all;
      
    Yes, better definitions.  Ideally each Instructor Guide/Student Guide
    would contain a glossary of all pertinent terms, acronynms, and
    symbols.  This would make the students job much easier.  It is simply
    not possible to comprehend without definitions!  The terms etc could
    also be defined in footnotes.
      
    And yes do include drawings whenever possible.  Some student guides do
    an excellent job of this currently.
      
    The gradient approach is also important.
      
    Arnold Tarling, DTN 483-4325, DLO10::TARLING
    

re: alternative learning methods (a few back),

	Back in my former life when I was programming IVIS courses for
    Digital Sales Training, we had developed a means of conveying the
    same material in four different ways, and then we would allow the
    student to chose which approach they felt most comfortable with.

	The Digital Difference IVIS course (for example) allowed you
    to chose to view the material in:

	a) Motion Video format (straight video-disc play).
	b) Audio/graphics (audio track synched with Draw graphics).
	c) Text (pure text graphics on screen which are read at any speed).
	d) Workbook (simply read the hardcopy provided).

	These four approaches were combined with all the latest in
    technology (touch screen menus, etc.).  Unfortunately, that was the
    last course we ever released for Sales Training before our group was
    disolved.

				  -davo

I have attended many internal training courses over the four plus years at
Digital.  I have yet to find one internal training course contain something of
any real added value, at most, these courses are abbreviated versions of the 
customer's course.

I would like to see more courses on Relational DB Design or data base design 
from a data modeling viewpoint.  Sometimes theory is more important than 
mechanics. A class on relational data base design and modeling would have
prevented many customer problems I am currently involved in trying to resolve.
A Relational Design course for Customers would be a great course to sell too!

In addition, I would like to see us do a better job of integrating our 
programming tools and the software development environment.  Some of the 
classes being offered by the TP ACES (old SWS/E  - new CIS-EIS/E) on the TP
Toolkit are excellent examples of the integration methods that we need to
compete effectively. I've found many Digits that know alot about one layered 
product or another but most can not entertain questions like how do you get 
DECform data declarations entered into the CDD.  

I'd like to endorse Video Tape as an effective training mechanism for the
front line people who can't afford the luxury of a 5-day lecture lab or
even the time to play with CBI courses. However, the last video that I saw
on DECForms was horrible! It cost over $100 and was more of a commercial on
DECForms and FIMS than it was an instructional aide.  It spent too much time
explaining the differences between FMS/TDMS and DECForms that it told you how
to program in the complex IFDL language and interface the forms to a 3GL program


PS. VTX ESCOURSES has been a great help, graphic training plans added would be
a great addition to this useful tool.

        I've set notes .47 through .49 hidden, as requested by a
        reader.  The author of .47 and .49 is out of town, and this
        will be pursued when the author returns.
        
        Jim Stratton,
        co-moderator, DIGITAL conference