Rank: New forum user
|
Hi All, I am a Health and Safety Trainer, at the moment I deliver Manual Handling/ COSHH Awareness & IOSH Managing Safely, I have noticed more and more companies going to online courses instead of classroom based, generally due to cost, ease of access etc. Obviously I am a little biased as a trainer but I think a Manual Handling course for example with demonstrations/ activities and manual handling aids is a lot more benificial than a four hour online course. My question really is, is the role of the H & S trainer becoming redundent as I see more and more online courses claiming (and they may be right) that they meet all HSE requirements. Let me know your views Brendan
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Brendan, Having previously been both a CIEH trainer and IOSH managing Safely trainer, I would say that I agree. The opportunity to give anecdotal evidence based on experience, tailor the course to your audience, and answer any questions, is lost on online courses.
I have seen someone gain IOSH Managing Safely by the online method and can't see that the same level of examination was required to pass. IOSH used to use a marking system during the risk assessment project, that was very harshly marked. Regards, Martin
|
2 users thanked Martin Fieldingt for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My view is that training in the world of H&S is a self-perpetuating money maker taking advantage of situation caused by those employers who only wish to gain compliance rather than to achieve a tangible positive difference, whether it be online or face to face. Call it a cynical viewpoint but if those who regulate, member organisations and those considered as leaders in the industry are happy to recommend e-learning for everything and anything, it all boils down to money and not much else. There are some decent trainers out there because no one is the same and no one is equal.
|
2 users thanked PDarlow for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi Brendan1495, In short yes. I am worried about practical competence too. IOSH and NEBOSH going online for qualifications have opened the doors to industry standards being an accepted virtual standard (as long as they prove they have taken on board the information that has been presented to them for example, in the form of a questionnaire or exam). I am a consultant and encourage online training for workplace staff inclusive 'awareness'. I expect everyone within a business to refresh their knowledge annually for the core OHS standards eg prevention of fire practices; good standards in H&S housekeeping, slip, strips, falls, identifying poor electrical wiring; know the risks of COSHH products on site and whatever that business hazard presents.
This is why it is attractive for businesses to have elearning services in nicely wrapped packages which is a cheap cost. It includes all subjects the business requires to cover and can prove they have done the basic training (tick box for them and me). However, from this basic core grounding within any industry, the job tasks need to prove competence and expereience. Im my opinion this is when the Level 3's or higher are accessed (online or face to face) providing more depth.
Practical manual handling unfortuantey is descretion to the company as they could train via various means eg shadowing, specialist workshop, inhouse training. Again as long as they can prove that the core / key information is being delevered, understood and practiced, the company will be classed as compliant. So in answer to your question i believe it will be the good practicing companies that see the advantages for having the face-to-face sessions and unfortunately the penny savers that will always go with the cheap short-sighted option. It is proven on many research papers the advantages of face to face training which could be a pull for your plea. Thank you for sharing Edited by user 06 November 2024 11:35:05(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
2 users thanked Gill Beattie for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I’m not sure the motive for online training is just money. We put our managers through the online IOSH Managing safely course not due to cost but having the managers away completely from the business. Now don’t get me wrong we allow them holidays, but it was way more convenient for us and for them to work at their own pace and do the training in parts. This meant less disruption for the business and the Managers were able to pace themselves as they wished and when they wished. I’m still unsure about the IOSH training being online, but the decision was not about money in fact I don’t think it made a lot of difference.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I dislike most online courses, in particular the shiny packages put out by some organisations. They are very generic and of course do not allow for interaction between the trainer and trainees or between the trainees. Some of the most effective learning is actual created when people are sharing real life anecdotes rather than just looking at at a set of images which may have no relevance to what they are actually doing at work. It is possible to use online resources to get the basic message across but then that requires online support from real experts to develop the depth of understanding, and that does not come cheap.
|
3 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Interesting to see how this one goes, personally I hope there's always a place for face to face training particularly for competence based subjects such as Manual Handling or Abrasive Wheels and for other reasons Asbestos Awareness, because as an experienced trainer you can get a feel for how much the students are taking in when they are sat in front of you and you can tailor to suit individual needs.
Luckily I deliver this internally but I'm under no illusions that if I wasn't qualified and competent to do so we'd also be using online training instead. From a cost perspective any business whose margins are being squeezed in all directions will look for the cheapest option to be "compliant" and in most cases that will be online. The deciding factor as always will be a successful prosecution where competence against simple compliance is judged. As we all know being able to pass an online session with multiple choice questions doesn't mean you are competent. However you look at it, after training surveillance is also essential to make sure that the trainee's are still doing what they've been trained to do to prove that you've done everything possible to give your employees the skills required to do their job safely. Edited by user 07 November 2024 12:01:00(UTC)
| Reason: Added info
|
1 user thanked mike350 for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
On-line courses will eventually be found wanting in a court of law. The "knowledge test" typically involves answering questions from short term memory, can often be repeated until passed and frequently contain a check point button that the trainee has understood and will comply before being allowed to proceed to the next section.
This latter point is reflected in web site use where very few bother reading Terms & Conditions and just check the box to state they have. It took three months for a bottle of wine to be claimed (and then it was purely by accident as someone copied content) when an offer was inserted in to T&C's.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2024/05/free-wine-hidden-in-tcs-of-former-magic-circle-lawyers-website/#:~:text=A%20former%20Magic%20Circle%20lawyer,fine%20print%20of%20his%20website.
Can an employer prove beyond reasonable doubt a remote trainee even watched the content let alone absorbed or comprehended the information being provided?
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
On-line courses will eventually be found wanting in a court of law. The "knowledge test" typically involves answering questions from short term memory, can often be repeated until passed and frequently contain a check point button that the trainee has understood and will comply before being allowed to proceed to the next section.
This latter point is reflected in web site use where very few bother reading Terms & Conditions and just check the box to state they have. It took three months for a bottle of wine to be claimed (and then it was purely by accident as someone copied content) when an offer was inserted in to T&C's.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2024/05/free-wine-hidden-in-tcs-of-former-magic-circle-lawyers-website/#:~:text=A%20former%20Magic%20Circle%20lawyer,fine%20print%20of%20his%20website.
Can an employer prove beyond reasonable doubt a remote trainee even watched the content let alone absorbed or comprehended the information being provided?
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There will never be a case where the HSE will say that this happened because this employee had online training as opposed to face to face training simply because it might be possible to devise an effective on-line course and similarly there are some terrible face to face trainers out there as well. I suspect that what the HSE are looking for (but never actually say in court) is the culture of the organisation. If the employer sees H&S as just a tick box exercise, then the fact training consists of employers snoozing in front of a generic online presentation will support that and lead the HSE to put the boot in. The government will never prescribe what training should training should consist of any more than they define in detail what competency is or exactly what a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is. This unfortunately creates a space for the H&S snake oil sales department.
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It’s worth stepping back to look at the bigger picture here. Training, however delivered, is not the same as competence. Training is just the first step in building knowledge. When combined with hands-on experience and adequate supervision, it (hopefully) leads to true competence. Employers are not simply required to train staff—they are required to make them competent. Where specific training needs are highlighted by legal requirements, it’s typically to ensure that the right information is provided to foster effective competence development. Believing that training alone equates to competence is a misconception. The difference between online and face-to-face training is often the level of additional effort needed to develop and validate competence. Both approaches can be valuable and effective, but only if they’re supported by a robust competence development framework. (It is Friday :) ) Edited by user 08 November 2024 08:19:51(UTC)
| Reason: Typo corrections
|
1 user thanked antbruce001 for this useful post.
|
|
|
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.