Once upon a time – trainers actually had to “sit” the classes they were going to train. This way the new trainer could see how the class was delivered, the material, go through the labs, etc. (as well as sitting the class, they were also required to take any tests associated with the subject – something Microsoft has brought back with MCT competencies). As a side benefit to auditing a class, the auditing trainer could possibly learn new training tips (new approaches to subjects, analogies for material etc) as well professional tips. The new trainer could glean ideas on different techniques, new instruction methods, even how to handle student questions (or the ever so rare – difficult student). There are some training companies that still require this approach and kudos to them. This is not something that most CPLSs or other training providers can afford to do for their trainers. Many smaller training companies only have one trainer for a specific area and they can’t afford to take the double hit of spending several thousand dollars sending the trainer elsewhere as well as the lost revenue when the trainer isn’t there to teach a class. But the idea does have merit – professional development being one of them.
Now where does the evaluation piece come in to play? Well, at the end of class, students are encouraged to do an evaluation of the facilities, material and the instructor. How do you evaluate one of your peers – always a tricky subject? We can’t judge them on their delivery technique or presence n the classroom – as each instructor has their own styles and methods for instruction. We used to do something similar in the military – where someone who does your job, but in a different unit would evaluate how you did your job. Never comfortable for either party, but can be professionally very constructive.
Recent posts
The number of tests keeps growing and growing
