Emerging Roles and Competencies for Training in E-Learning Enviroments
by Steve Aragon and Scott Johnson, 2002
I decided not to focus on the entire article but rather raised some points in reference to quality, relevance and accuracy.
Here are my thoughts on the article...
Summary of Focus
This article is written from the viewpoint that technology is changing the role of trainers. This can include new or seasoned trainers without distance/web training experience. The trainers are not discussed in a particular work context. The most specific context in the article that the trainers work in the “workplace”. The authors compared the workplace trainer to the e-trainer. I used this assumption as I was reading the article.
Clarity
1. Who are the trainers? Where are they training? At first, I thought the trainers were from human resources. The opening sentence: “The Internet and Web-based technologies are having a profound impact on the lives of human resource development (HRD) professionals” (Argon and Johnson, 2002, p. 424). This made sense to me since I knew the article was from Advances in Developing Human Resources.
2. Schauer, Rockwell, Fritz, and Marx (1998) are cited in the article, writing from the viewpoint of higher education. Johnson and Aragon discuss “teaching online”. I questioned whether this article was discussing distance education in higher education. If so, who are the e-trainers? Are these individuals working with faculty to put their courses online? Are these the library/media specialists that exist in universities and colleges? In any case, I went back to my initial assumption of the article, that the role of the trainer is changing. So I rephrased my question to “who are the trainers in the higher education context that need to change from a trainer to an e-trainer?” A question for further research perhaps…
3. “Trainers who use the internet for instructional delivery need to assume new roles and develop new competencies while they continue to apply existing ones in order to be successful trainers when using these new technologies” (Argon and Johnson, 2002, p. 424). My initial question was if trainers use the Internet for instructional delivery already, what new roles do they need to assume? What new competencies do they need? What do they already know? I felt that the article did not help me think about developing e-trainers, but instead developing trainers into e-trainers.
4. The definition of competency from the article wasn’t so clear to me: “A competency is a knowledge or skill area that is essential for producing key outputs” (Aragon and Johnson, 2002). I’ve provided the definition of competency that comes from the field of educational technology: A competency is “a knowledge, skill or attitude that enables one to effectively perform the activities of a given occupation or function to the standards expected in employment” (Richey, 2000).
A question from this article that I feel is pivotal is:
How do you actually work with trainers to develop new skills and knowledge?
Johnson and Aragon cite Clay (1998) and discuss eight areas that should be included in any professional development initiative for beginning distance trainers. However, if you review the Clay (1998) article, she is discussing faculty in higher education, i.e. teachers not trainers. Clay (1998) specifically refers to “faculty resistance” and “faculty development” not trainer resistance or trainer development. Is this article relevant?
Johnson and Aragon claim that “At one time, trainers needed only basic skills to develop and use instructional media such as instructional television, slide shows, computer assisted instruction (CAI). These skills included storyboarding, graphic design, photography, video production, and basic computer programming. Johnson and Aragon mention additional research from Clay (1998) that trainers will need practice in the actual use of technology such as distance technologies, basic computer use, and web page production. Well, if trainers had to know computer programming before being e-trainers, wouldn’t they already have the basic computer use skills? My question is why do e-trainers need to know this? How do e-trainers use this knowledge and skill? I returned to one of the competencies outlined in the article for some clarity.
One skill needed by trainers during the delivery of instruction is a certain level of technical knowledge.
Aragon and Johnson cite Choden (2000) who identifies the technical competencies needed for creating comfort for participants with the system and the software in use. However, if you read Choden (2000), she is referencing the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) Conceptual Model of Influences on Online Teaching and Learning. Wow! I was shocked to learn that the model referenced was from the Australian National Training Authority. When I tried to use the link cited by Choden "http://www.tafe.sa.edu.au/lsrsc/one/natproj/tal/conmodel/facilitation.htm", I got a page not found error. I wonder if Aragon and Johnson gave up and just took Choden’s word for what ANTA says about training. How accurate is the Aragon and Johnson article?
I found the ANTA site, however, I could not find what Choden (2000) was referring to in her article ( I didn’t look that hard).
Is Choden’s article really of quality (I decided to read more about Choden and her background). Seems like her background is in human resource development.
Anyone who can find what Choden's was referencing in the ANTA site will get immunity for the next round!!!!
Marc found the article!!!
Final words…
All in all, as a professional trying to figure out how to convert my trainers into e-trainers this article did give me a starting place.
posted by sgoss @ 17:23
7 comments
7 Comments:
I might be confused, but it seems like Choden is really talking about facilitation and problems that facilitators run into when working in a virtual environment. Since HR does a lot of facilitation, I would say she is qualified to address that particular topic which is similar to training. Where is line drawn among facilitating, mentoring, teaching, training, etc.?
I used the wayback machine to find the section of the ANTA site she was referencing:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041102193311/http://www.tafe.sa.edu.au/lsrsc/one/natproj/tal/conmodel/facilitation.htm
Great work finding the article! Is this the site you used? http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
I wish this article by the ANTA told me a little more, don't you?
Your point is well taken, where is the line drawn between teachers, trainers, etc? Well, many argue that there's actually difference between training and education simply because the end goal is different. What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you think the terms trainer, teacher, facilitator are interchangeable?
I find the line's blurring between education and training, teaching and coaching, etc. The push for empiricle student outcomes are driving more administrators to ask for measurable objectives. With measurable objectives courses are looking more like training and less like education. I also see more faculty "teaching with their mouths shut," by guiding and coaching students, but not telling them the answer. When you add the fact that some courses also use modules and learning objects, you also start to blur the lines between learning management and knowledge management. Maybe it's just that I am more of a synthesizer than a sharpener, so I tend to notice similarities rather than differences.
I shared a concern that the audience was never mentioned. Who are the trainees? It was as if the trainers would not have to worry about the level of acceptance of technology by the people they are training. I would think that trainer competencies would change considerably depending on the needs of the trainees themselves. I also wondered why models for diffusion of innovation were never mentioned. It seemed as if the authors viewed trainers as a homogenous group. I found Piskurich and Sanders list of competencies absolutely overwhelming. Rossett and Sheldon, however, struck a cord. Their list of future roles and skills seem to stress collaboration, coordination and customization. No more one-man bands.
One reason this article resonated with is is precisely because it *doesn't* draw a sharp distinction between "training" and "teaching," "trainer" and "teacher." Marc raises an interesting question when he asks where to draw the line between teaching, training, mentoring and facilitating. Speaking from a purely in-the-trenches perspective, I strongly feel that an effective educator of adults does all of the above, no matter what the educational context. Aragon and Johnson imply as much when they review the philosophical changes in training. How else is "traditional" higher education perceived than as the pedagogical approach: a professor in cap and gown lecturing (no doubt inside some ivy-covered building) to an audience of rapt students who are hanging on every word. While Aragon and Johnson (from Gibbons & Wentworth) may have refered to the andragogical approach in the context of e-learning environments, the concept of andragogy has been developing since at least the 1950's (see Clark, Donald: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/andragogy.html) as a way to discuss "the growing body of knowledge about adult learners in parallel with pedagogy." Any line between training and teaching must by necessity be blurred; how can you talk about educating adults in *any* field and draw razor-sharp distinctions between approaches? Content may change drastically, execution/implementation may vary by degrees, but educational theories cross the boundaries of context to address common psychological and physiological realities that are common to adults independent of the teaching/learning environment.
And a quick, completely unrelated P.S. -- Please excuse my Blogger name; I blog as Splindarella (and Blogger insists on identifying me as such, even here, I fear), but it's just plain ol' ESL-oriented (in case you couldn't tell) Linda.
Ellen Rose in Instructional Design and Curriculum Development: Deconstructing the Difference in Educational Technology/March-April 2004 provides a great review of the different perspectives on training vs education.
"In recent years, however, the distinction between Training and Education - whether one bases it upon contexts, goals, or methods - has become increasingly less tenable. With the new societal imperatives for lifelong learning and for education that is keyed to workforce requirements and performance indicators, and with the ermgergence of pedagogical approaches such as situated learning and cognitive apprenticeship, the line between the two modes of instruction, not entirely clear to begin with, is becoming increasingly blurred" (p.5)
I think we're seeing a convergence of training and teaching as education adopts a corporate model -- I certainly see it in the k-12 world my kids are dealing with. Necessarily there will be a blurring of the distinction between teachers and trainers.
I agree with Michele's point that there are 2 lists here:
1)Skills necessary to conduct an online training session.
2)Skills necessary to develop and manage online training and the supporting infrastructure.
I work in a situation where classroom instructors have been turned loose in an authoring environment with the intent that rapid and cost effective e-learning will come out the other side. In too many cases, not only the technical skills but the philosophical understanding of why thiings are done in certain ways (i.e.; why storyboard before building course pages) are simply not there. Prospective e-trainers need to be trained not only in e-training but in the tools they will use to develop and deliver that e-training. It's a tall order. ...and a lot of trains on one track.
It took me a while to come up with something to say about this article - this is, in itself a good and bad thing - it lets me thing about what I want to say and read what others have said, it also has the potential to distract the original direction of my thoughts.
That said, Tom brought up competencies - ASTD states that there are nine key 'Areas of Expertise' that every CPLP - Certified Professional in Learning and Performance has to have. While most of them are generic enought that you can use them in both a F2F and/or eLearning environment, there are also enough differences to focus on eLearning.
As for the blurred line between training and facilitating - ha... that one strikes a personal chord, so I have to rumiate a bit more about how I want to approach that one.
Post a Comment
<< Home