Rank: Super forum user 
|
Stupid question time We sometimes have to deliver training online(using Zoom or Teams) which in the past(pre Covid) we would have delivered face to face. One reason for going back to face to face is that you can pass piece of paper around and get everyone to sign it to prove that they have attended the training. Surely having gotten a fifth of the way into the 21st century there is a simple mechanism for doing this for an online course?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The email invite - printed out with a tick by those who actually attended? Especially useful where the event had been declined (in Outlook appears under Scheduling Assistant) so you know early on who would not be present.
Smaller meetings "print screen" command - a permanent record of all those home interiors / background image files / named icons.
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The email invite - printed out with a tick by those who actually attended? Especially useful where the event had been declined (in Outlook appears under Scheduling Assistant) so you know early on who would not be present.
Smaller meetings "print screen" command - a permanent record of all those home interiors / background image files / named icons.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If you have a shared location on your computer network, then you could have a Microsoft word training document, where you list all the attendees. You could have a yes / no box and then just track changes to the document, which would record the individual (assuming they have their own computer /login) Electronic version of the old pass the paper. Sort of depends what you want at the end, I guess you could do the same with excel (you may need to add track changes to the review tab) and then merge to an ongoing list or just have one long list of people to be done. You would then just track changes as you work through the list. Chris
|
1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Depends on the platform you use. If you're using Teams (and the function has been enabled) it's recorded automatically:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/view-and-download-meeting-attendance-reports-in-teams-ae7cf170-530c-47d3-84c1-3aedac74d310
Having said which, I don't generally rely on that and normally take my own roll-call.
|
1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It's even more pointless to get someone to sign to say they have attended online training than face to face training. I have myself attended more than one online event during which my attention was minimal as the whole world wide web was there at my fingertips tempting me while there was no pressure to take any notice of the training. Of course this pressure can be created by making the training interactive and doing it for a small group. You could just take a copy of the participants list that the platform gives you. It tells you they have called in ... I would like to be more radical and get them to do a test afterwards, and the correct test answers would be evidence of some level of competence ...
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Kate  I would like to be more radical and get them to do a test afterwards, and the correct test answers would be evidence of some level of competence ...
Actually, that is what I do with Excel, I create 4 test questions sets ( sets of 10 questions, which are auto marked as it is multiple choice) which randomly select when they open the test. It then records on a hidden log page in an ongoing list the set, the name of the person, their clock / company number the date and time and score. The actual test page without macros is also saved to a location folder for that person.
|
2 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Kate I would like to be more radical and get them to do a test afterwards, and the correct test answers would be evidence of some level of competence ...
Its not a 'test' at my place of work as that freaks out the nervous and pathetic. Its now called an 'exercise to ensure understanding'. It might only be semantics, but there are fewer complaints and hopefully less anxiety - plus the questions are really easy. Its really a test - sorry exercise - to confirm people were at their PCs (esp those withs creens turned off) and not making a sandwich or enjoying a little doze. But we also confirm attendances this way
|
2 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was once instructed by a senior muppet to change the description of the informal multiple choice questions for the group at the end of the session from "Quiz" to "Evidence of learning". I don't know why, other than that the muppet had been asked to review the training content and felt a need to change something or anything. So I changed it on that one, and left it as "Quiz" on all my others as this sounds less forbidding.
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have yet to see the online "test", "evidence of learning" or whatever you might call it that is not designed with a PASS in clear mind. So, we have the training provider who says they have a 100% success rate. Doesn't fill me with any confidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Kate I would like to be more radical and get them to do a test afterwards, and the correct test answers would be evidence of some level of competence ...
Just sat through another corporate on-line course with short a survey at the end perming answers until the result said the connected device passed.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Kate I would like to be more radical and get them to do a test afterwards, and the correct test answers would be evidence of some level of competence ...
Just sat through another corporate on-line course with short a survey at the end perming answers until the result said the connected device passed.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: peter gotch I have yet to see the online "test", "evidence of learning" or whatever you might call it that is not designed with a PASS in clear mind.
I was once advised when making a presentation you should tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you have told them. This way they are more likely to remember what you have said. I consider the 10 questions at the end to be the equivalent of me telling them what they have been told. If they can associate the correct answers to the ten most important issues, then there may be some hope they will remember, longer term. Even if they don’t get it first time they will try and think about it and think about it until they get it right. There is no guarantee that someone in a classroom has really understood at the end of the day, either. And for me it creates as good a record of information, instruction and training as I’m going to get. Not perfect by any means but we have to be practical, and realistic. To a large degree it all depends on what is being trained, I would hope brain surgeons have had a little practice before their first proper patient. However less critical training is where supervision and inspection comes in at a later stage. Now to wait for someone to rip this apart LOL Chris
|
1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris - NOT "going to rip this apart"! I can see benefit in 10 QQ at the end of a training course (or even at the beginning or part way through). The problem is that my experience of such tests at the end of online training is that they usually work on the basis of choosing from multiple choices where some of the incorrect answers are those you could expect the audience to recognise as being wrong before they ever attended the training!! I have used such 10 QQ tests in training sometimes with more than one "right answer" to a Q to provide an opportunity for discussion. That enables debate about why the right answer could be e.g. both YES and NO! Quite often I have used such questionnaires at the start of a course to give me a feel for what the audience already knows. Even when you have set some minimum criteria of understanding before attendance, someone turns up without that and you have to make a judgement as to how to tailor the course - for the greater benefit of everyone else or to get the lowest common denominator up to speed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: peter gotch Quite often I have used such questionnaires at the start of a course to give me a feel for what the audience already knows.
I was on a course once where the instructor tried that, but billed it as 'to show us that there's things for us to learn' so we'd pay attention. Unfortunately I got 10/10 and one of the others got 9/10 (I think there were five candidates on the course, so basically he started by demonstrating that half of us didn't have anything else to learn...)
He then went on to 'break the ice' by showing a video of an Ikea advert featuring a vibrator. Wasn't a trainer we used again.
|
1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi achrn I've had similar with a couple of delegates knowing more than I would expect at the start of the course. Helped me decide how to split the delegates into case study groups. Only one of the two in each group! Though if there were only 5 delegates the groups would be very small. Easier if you have 10-12 and the one know it all in each case study group has less chance of totally dominating debate in the group. This is of course NOT an issue with the vogue for online training attended by a single person. If they get 9 or 10 out of 10 at the beginning they will probably get the same score at the end. Strong evidence to suggest that they were probably on the wrong course (other than for the rather poor reason that someone required them to tick a box)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
thank for the insights and suggestions; perhaps it was not such stupid question as all of the answers were very useful!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
AK - as I am sure you are aware there is no such thing as a "stupid question"! P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: peter gotch This is of course NOT an issue with the vogue for online training attended by a single person. If they get 9 or 10 out of 10 at the beginning they will probably get the same score at the end. Strong evidence to suggest that they were probably on the wrong course (other than for the rather poor reason that someone required them to tick a box)!
Hi, sorry - been unable to log in to the forums for a few days.
Very much tick a box - it was a 'refresher' course for confined space entry with self-contained positive presure breathing apparatus. The employer demanded a refresher course every two or three years (I forget - maybe I'd fail the test now). In the intervening period I had been both using the equipment and planning entries for teams. Consequently all the admin / management / theory was absolutely at my fingertips, and the practice is relatively straightforward (I could probably safely don the gear even now - and it's years and years since I've been qualified).
However, the rules said you had to do a refresher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Morning achrn That's one of those rules that is simpler for some organisations than putting in place the mechanisms to provide assurance that the trainee has not forgotten their training as a result of lack of putting it into practice, or ditto organisations influenced by e.g. unnecessarily prescriptive tick boxes set by clients and the like. One of those rules that may often come down to whose budget is getting spent. So, the budget holder who sends someone back for refresher training that they don't need takes the hit, instead of some other budget holder who would have to spend (probably less) resources working out and implementing a strategy to target training (and the amount of training) to those who need it.
The latter approach could usually be expected to achieve a better outcome - you put the BA person who has used their equipment through some short update of the latest developments (which interests them and keeps their attention) and those who have not used their BA since their last training 3 years ago can be reminded of all the requirements by a trainer who is not distracted by simultaneously trying to avoid some delegates being entirely bored!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I agree with the idea of creating a small test to give students at the end of the class to record their attendance and concentration skills. The thing is they might still cheat on such testings but at least some of the information is going to stick in memory while they are searching for the right answers. You can make everyone sign an online attendance list in Google doc and notify them about the test that's going to take place at the end of the class. Hope that would work out well for you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: peter gotch The problem is that my experience of such tests at the end of online training is that they usually work on the basis of choosing from multiple choices where some of the incorrect answers are those you could expect the audience to recognise as being wrong before they ever attended the training!!
Yes, you are correct and when producing the multiple choices, thinking of credible wrong answers was a lot harder than I first imagined. Out of the 40 questions 10 are correct and 30 are not, so that’s a lot of wrongs answers to think of. I admit to putting one or two more humorous answers within the 30 wrong ones. You soon found out who read the questions and choices properly. Another issue you mentioned was the training is skewed so the attendee passes to maintain a 100% pass rate. However can you do anything different? you can’t set it so a proportion will fail (unless you are NEBOSH). You obviously don’t want to make it micky mouse training either. Tricky one. We also have to embrace the electronic presentation style of training in this changed world were people work from home or remotely and companies need to get on with the business they are in and not spend all day every day training. The way I have the test is that if they get one or two wrong they still pass, but if more they take the whole test again (and as it is random may well not be the same questions). However, it also allows me to see the points that people struggle with and so can modify future training. The Op’s question I think has been answered and there are a number of possible options within the discussion. I wonder which they will choose. The debate on the different forms of training be it face to face, Remote teams type training or just electronic go through the presentation and answer questions etc is a much bigger question, with no right answer (IMHO). With the differing ways people learn, some may do well with online outlook type presentations, while others need to watch and copy (monkey see monkey do), and other face to face where they can question and discuss more. I think electronic or Teams type training though cut out some of the bloat that face to face can end up with when stretching it to a full day. The training /teaching method will also vary depending on subject and if you are training or teaching. Very big topic on its own. Chris
|
2 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If an answer is wrong, then whatever the format of the test it's important that the participant gets to know what the right answer is. This could be as simple as giving automated feedback along the lines of "No, two points of contact is an incorrect answer. The correct answer is three points of contact". Or it could be making them do that question again until they do get it right. Sometimes the answer is open to interpretation and discussion. This doesn't work on an online test but can be very useful in exploring the issues in other formats.
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Chris, one of the problems is that in health and safety as Kate indicates there is often no single right answer. I've deliberately set QQ for use at the beginning of courses where the correct answer might be both YES and NO (or other seemingly incompatible opposites), but dependent on the supporting argument that someone might provide. ...and I have sat through those online tests and have been marked WRONG on a Q when I know that the answer I gave was RIGHT for precisely the same reasons!! I agree that we have to face up to reality that online training is here to stay. OK, subject to a recognition of the limitations and that it doesn't lead to more complacency about the adequacy of the training given. One of the problems is that suppose the pass mark on a 10QQ post course test is 7 out of 10 is that it might be two or three of the questions that someone got wrong BUT passed that were the critical questions. In contrast, suppose it was a basic course on CDM, you can guess that one of those post course QQ is likely to be about whether a project is notifiable - well frankly for most delegates that is completely immaterial so if they get it wrong it doesn't matter. Whereas if they are a designer and haven't grasped the principles of what a designer needs to do, failing the single post course Q on designer duties is a sign that the course has NOT done what it needed to. So they get say 8 or 9/10 but should be resitting the entire training [or more pragmatically getting better training more suited to THEIR specific needs] P
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: peter gotch One of the problems is that suppose the pass mark on a 10QQ post course test is 7 out of 10 is that it might be two or three of the questions that someone got wrong BUT passed that were the critical questions.
Yes, this could be an issue, and is very dependant on what training it is. However, that is where I suggest that training is not the end of it and where supervision comes in, colleagues who point out any issues (in a nice way), formal inspections, and possibly the individual when faced with a choice they don’t understand asks for help. Putting that aside you seem to suggest the training is insufficient if 100% of information passed during the training is not retained by the trainee. So how do you personally ensure everyone knows 100% of all critical information. Not having a go at you, just I don’t believe it is possible. Even if retained until the end of the training, what about a weeks’ time or two or more. What training do you know that requires 100% as a pass rate, ok I bet there is some but the vast majority no. One of the most dangerous things many people do is drive a car, even that allows a little room for error in the test and then you can do it for the next 50 years or so, without a refresher (unless you are naughty). The other thing is how responsive the employer is to repeat training for individuals. There is always a pressure to streamline training and get back to work. As I said a very complex topic with no correct answers to any of it. You end up having to be pragmatic about it though and sometimes except the not ideal solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't believe in repeat training except where a very large competence gap has been identified. Instead I prefer refresher training to be different from the initial training and to build on it in some way. For example it could take a discussion format such as "Well you all did your hazardous chemicals training last year. First a quick quiz to check what you've remembered. Now what have been your experiences with hazardous chemicals since then and what questions arise from this?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris - agreed that nobody should expect to get 100% to pass any but the most basic training. It is complex and needs careful training needs analysis.
However, my view is that the vogue for online training (often with ill designed "tests" at the end) as a panacea is going to result in some people getting bitten on their backsides. It's not dissimilar to my concern when I see course providers guaranteeing 100% success, even it that means X resits. Somewhere the quality is going to be compromised. P
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.