Are You Getting Enough Say In Your Training?

DrEducator asks: "Has your company ever contracted external instructors to train its programmers? Have you been satisfied with the lecturer's level of expertise? I think we all have a good grasp of how vital the role of training is to both a corporation and its employees, but given its importance should you have more of a say in selecting or evaluating instructors before they deliver training? I firmly believe in the tenet that 'geeks should train geeks'. Moreover, I think that the geeks themselves have to take a more active role in the whole process. So, I'm curious - do you think you have enough say in your training? Do you actively refer instructors that you've seen at conferences or previously taken courses from (university, college, or adult ed)? If not, have you had the opportunity to interview an instructor, or at least review their qualifications? Share your experience - how much input do you want/need/have?"

Comments

I have pretty good control

[JoeWalsh]

Every year, I get a personal training budget. I can spend that money on whatever technical training I want, from whomever I want. Obviously, if I choose to take courses out of state, the money will go much less far due to travel expenses, so I mostly take them locally. It usually works out to about 4 weeks of training per year.

I guess you could say my company treats me like an adult - or maybe like a member of the family. It gives me the money I need to get good-quality training, then trusts me to decide what training I need, where I should take it, etc.

It's a really good situation, and one of the reasons I've been working at the same company for nearly 10 years now.

-Joe

You assume we get any training at all

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past 4 years working for Company X, I've had 4 hours of company-paid-for-it training. Those 4 hours were for training as some massive quality control initiative (1984 Motorola Technology, now known as Six Sigma).

The training consisted of the instructor reading aloud overhead transparencies.

Every other request has been denied.

So, getting some training in the first place would be wonderful.

Training?

[ChuckDivine]

Perhaps I've been exposed to too many of those "intensive, hands on training" short courses that purport to teach everything about a topic in a few days. Generally, though, I've found such courses to be of little value. Personally, I'd rather learn by reading a book, interacting with peers and trying things out on my own. This style of learning is more incremental -- and I think it leads to better knowledge of the subject.

While I'm aware of the problem of using universities as a model, it's interesting that rather than two (or more) eight hour training sessions over a few days, universities will stretch the same amount of class time over several months, with practice time (homework) and discussion interspersed with the formal lectures. Practice, to me, is essential to really learning something. And "hands on, intensive" training just doesn't provide enough time for practice.

I have taught a few, very short courses myself. The approach I used was 2 or 3 two hour sessions spread over multiple days. There was plenty of time for practice during the training sessions. Students could also practice on their own between sessions. Some actually did. I also provided students with thoroughly documented examples that they could refer to back at their jobs. Finally, I made myself available for further consultation. My students indicated they found my approach quite helpful.

CSH

[IceFox]

When I was (on a break right now) at the Computer Science House at the Rochester Institute of Technology there were very frequent seminars given. To be a active member you have to do projects over the year. Many members fufill this requirment by giving a lecture on speciallized knowledge that they have. I myself have given a half dozen seminars. While at RIT I have to say that I learned more from these seminars then I did in classes. Frequently the speaker would compress down an entire course into 2 hours and because you actually wanted to goto this seminar you would pay attention, take notes and ask questions (gasp!). Requests for seminars would frequently get filled. Some seminars that I can remember include: OpenGL Programming, BeOS Programming, CVS/Perforce, Securing Linux, UML, Intro to Linux (A Geek intro, not mom&pop intro), Qt Programming, UI Design, OS Design, Computer science theory, logic, compression algorithems, genetic algorithms, DNA computing, neural networks, parallel computing, network design, network programming, and java. Pretty much anything went. I remember saturday mornings waking up and walking down the hall to spending the rest of the day learning about circut design.

Check out the official page here.

If you are in the Rochester NY area check them out. CSH is a very cool place that always has something going on (ping our soda machine!). Maybe you could give a seminar?

-Benjamin Meyer

Re:Common training mistakes

[King_TJ]

On item #2 there in your list of mistakes, I'd venture to say that honestly - you're better off in the position your in.

The people complaining "I don't know how to do that!" who get sent off to training are still going to come back with less usable knowledge than you have by figuring it out, hands-on.

What I've started figuring out is that training is of relatively little value unless it earns you some type of certification upon its completion. Certifications help get you future jobs. The other stuff doesn't. I've been to all sorts of training on everything from MS Exchange Server to Dynamic HTML development - and without certs. from any of it, people don't seem to really care.

I doubt the people getting shipped off to training classes in response to the "I can't do it!" exclamations are earning certifications.

Train internally--if you can

[JThaddeus]

The most successful training I have seen was the internal training program that TRW set up in its northern Virginia offices. I was there five years and found that it worked quite well.

First, we had a committee, chaired by Human Resources but staffed by employee volunteers. Second, we had a budget with which to furnish classrooms and pay instructors. Our classrooms had PCs, Mac, Linux, and various servers. We managed the classrooms, scheduled instruction, and picked instructors. The instructors were fellow employees.

Using your own employees has several advantages. First, you know this guy or gal. You can look at their work and see that they know their stuff. Next, the person knows you and they can tailor the instruction accordingly--like match it to current or future projects. Finally, the person is available during the work day for questions should they arise. For example, I became Joe-X-Windows and, as a result, had my pick of projects

Classes were mostly held after work hours, starting at 5pm. Instructors were paid (8 years ago) $25/hr for preparation (negotiated ahead of time with the training committee) and $30/hr instruction time. Slots went first come first serve or, occassionally, to projects/employees where a need was seen.

Everyone got a lot out of this: The student got a good class. The instructor got some extra money, the chance to look good to his/her peers, and the learning experience of teaching. And the company got off cheap! Not that we didn't send people outside when necessary, but looking inside worked very well.