Recently, Fred Foster, owner of Technical Training Professionals, and fellow 3D-animated training proponent, sat down with us to discuss the finer points of using computer-based courses for technical training, and give us his perspective on the future of manufacturing training. How long have you been involved in manufacturing training? I’ve been in this business for fifteen years. I formed my company, Technical Training Professionals, in 2003, but I had worked for other companies before then. And what’s your approach to training? Visual presentation of technical information is our focus. Whether it’s explaining design, Flow paths, troubleshooting — you just can’t beat 3D imaging for presenting that material. With 3D animations we can relay technical subjects ten times faster and make it much more interesting to the people in today’s workforce. One of the products we develop is what we call a 3D PDF, and that 3D PDF is the 3D model broken out into systems. So, if you want to find where a valve is, it will show you. You can query and it will show you where the valve is. And it could be on a thirteen story boiler and you could say "show me the superheat system," and it will just show you the superheat system. And then you can click on a valve and it will isolate it and let you manipulate it in 3D. "The newer population doesn’t sit and read a six-inch thick manual. They won’t do it." Control room guys love that because they can show the maintenance workers where something’s at. Or if a guy is going to go out and crank on a valve, they can say, "this is MSCV 2950, go cut off the steam," and the operator will say, "Where the hell’s that at?" And he can point to it: "It’s on the twelfth floor right over here." It’s pretty cool. The newer population doesn’t sit and read a six-inch thick manual. They won’t do it. But they’ll look at these animations to figure out how something works and then they’ll go study what they need to or what they don’t understand. It’s a great icebreaker for somebody who’s learning a new complicated machine and then they’ll go deeper if they need to, but they will not just sit and read a six-inch manual. They won’t do it. Are the people that are actually taking the training pretty receptive to the 3D style? Yes. Even the more experienced people, because they have a hard time explaining it to the younger people. They’ll use terms and expressions and the young guys don’t know what they’re talking about. They’ll talk about something like, "the stem-valve leak off line." Well, what the heck is that? And they show them a 2D drawing and they say "it’s right here," and they’re like, "oh…" But if we fly around the valve in a 3D video and say "okay, here’s the stem leak off. It pulls steam off from here and drains it down to here and that has to be removed in the sixth step…." There’s really no comparison. Even a senior guy at say, a gas plant, maybe he’s coming from a coal plant that’s been shut down. He’s mechanically astute, he just doesn’t know combined gas plant versus coal-fire plants. They’re different. So it’s still valuable for cross training. These older people—they don’t want to sit and read a manual either, but they’ll watch a five-minute video that shows how something works. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had guys who have worked on machines for years and they’ll say, "You know? I’ve worked on this machine for fifteen years and I never really understood how that gear drive works." And I’ll have people that will look at something and they’ll say, "Okay, I’ve got it. I’ve got it. I see how it works. I got it." And it’s very empowering to them because they don’t want to struggle to understand something. Number one, it makes them feel incompetent, and number two, it’s dangerous because they don’t really know what they’re doing because they don’t understand how it works. A lot of accidents are caused not by carelessness, but more by a lack of understanding of how the device works.   Cutaway of a GE7FA gas turbine and generator So, you cover safety in addition to, say, principles of operation? Yes, we include safety in everything. We do what are called "site overviews", where we’ll overview the whole site for a safety video and talk about tagging, but we’ll also talk about where the hazardous chemicals are. We’ll talk about where the electrical high-voltage is. We’ll talk about egress routes. We’ll talk about where tagging is performed. But we also go through and explain: "This is a combustion turbine. It runs on gas, gas is fed here, and it produces mechanical energy which turns to the generator which makes electricity, but the exhaust gases go to this recovery boiler". We’ll spend about a minute or two explaining the major components and flying around and showing them, so if these guys watched this for seven to ten minutes, you’ve covered a few safety subjects, but you’ve also explained how the plant works a little bit to them. So are people using this training for site orientations? Onboarding? Well, that and we’re getting a lot more maintenance requests. Maintenance people want to see how the machine works, just like an operator. Now, they may not be as interested in all the start up steps, but they’re definitely interested in design and flow paths. So we have maintenance courses on all sorts of things, whether it’s a hydraulic actuator or a boiler-feed pump or a combustion turbine or a generator. Those guys want to know how to remove the bearings. How do you do PMs? How do you adjust this valve? How do you set the clearances? And we’re getting a lot more requests for step-by-step 3D maintenance. 3D Maintenance? Yes. With maintenance training, sometimes the trainer will say, "Okay, you guys are going to be rebuilding this valve. If you’ve never done it before, go through this training." And they’ll watch an animated course that basically rotates the valve and shows them the flow paths and its components and how it works. And for dis-assembly, it’ll say "first hook a chain up to this hook, undo these bolts…" and so-on. And we’ll show every step for them. The steps are right out of their standard operating procedures and there might be sixty steps. So, if they’re going out training on steps 45-50 that day, they can do an onboard meeting where the manager says, "Okay, let’s just review these five steps we’re going to do today. Here’s the safety equipment you need. Here’s your come-alongs…are there any questions? And you know, on step 48, we actually had a problem with this binding…" And he could show them some pictures of what they did to fix it. So you can use it for initial training or you can use it for a meeting that day before you go out and do the procedure.   In what format do they usually distribute that training? We do a lot of it through our learning management system — that’s one way. We also create encrypted flash drives, and we can put them on DVDs and use them that way too. Are training managers pretty accepting of computer-based training? Yes, they are. I know there’s some concern that using computer-based training means you’re going to be letting go of your trainers, but that’s not the case. I always suggest to trainers that they give students the computer-based course before they go to your class. That way, they’ve at least seen how a process or piece of equipment works and they understand the terms and you can start your class at a much higher level than if you have to start from the basics. Require them to get an eighty percent on the computer-based before class or maybe just make it available to them, and then in class, they can use the same content, but explain and answer questions. And that way, it’s the best of both worlds. In the next five years, any major piece of equipment, people are going to require that they have a 3D animation explaining the equipment and 3D animation that shows step-by-step how to do maintenance. It’s going to be the norm in five years. The instructors love that because they might have one guy in class with twenty years of experience sitting next to a guy who just got hired. And they’re in the same class. So you need to try and get people to a level where you can talk about more technical stuff rather than go over fundamentals for three days and bore the crap out of the guys who have done it for twenty years. So I just say "it’s a training tool." It’s a tool you can use. Sometimes guys like to know the terms and get their feet wet before they jump into a class. It’s not supposed to be the only piece of training you have, but it sure helps to break down barriers prior to class. You mentioned growth in maintenance training. Where else do you growth over the next five to ten years? Maintenance, safety, and site-orientation are three big areas of growth for us. In the near future, in the next five years, any major piece of equipment, people are going to require that they have a 3D animation explaining the equipment and 3D animation that shows step-by-step how to do maintenance. It’s going to be the norm in five years.   For more information about Technical Training Professionals (TTP) and their services, contact them via their website.     The post A Look Into The Future of Manufacturing Training: an Interview with Fred Foster appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

We all want a safer workplace, but we’re not always sure how to get there. Fortunately, there are lots of good ideas and lots of places to find them. You can do worse than checking out OSHA, NIOSH, and MSHA, for example. There are professional safety organizations, such as the National Safety Council (NSC) and the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE). There are plenty of good EHS journals, including EHS Today, Occupational Health & Safety, and Industrial Safety and Hygiene News. And there are lots of good blogs that cover important occupational health and safety information as well. We would like to think that the Convergence Training blog is one of them, with our blend of safety news, tips, tools, free e-learning courses and checklists, and safety training information. In this article, we’re going to consolidate a few topics we’ve written about in earlier posts, presenting twelve solid tools you can use to make your workplace safer. Of course, these aren’t the only tools out there, and we encourage you to check out those links above and/or dig into your own safety toolbox too. And please leave some ideas in the comments section below if you have time. Convergence Training is a training solutions provider. We have a large library of EHS e-learning courses and mining safety e-learning courses, offer several learning management systems (LMSs), and create custom safety training content as well. Contact us to learn more and set up a demo.   Tools for a Safer Workplace Using any or all of the tools and techniques listed below should help improve safety at your workplace. Risk Management Program A robust risk management program will help you identify, analyze, and assess safety risks at work. After the risks are assessed, taking into consideration their likeliness of occurring and the severity if they did occur, you can then prioritize them for risk control. To read more about risk management, including key terms and ideas and methods, click here. Job Hazard Analysis A job hazard analysis (JHA) is a great way to find the specific hazards associated with a particular job and then brainstorm methods to control them. The JHA should be one of the foundations of your safety program, and it’s a good opportunity to get employees involved in safety as well. Plus, they should find it meaningful, because it’s a chance to directly influence their own safety. Click to read a full article about the JHA. Click to download a free guide for performing the JHA. Hierarchy of Controls Once a hazard has been identified at the workplace, you can use the hierarchy of controls to consider different methods to control that hazard. The hierarchy of controls provides a formulaic method for considering potential controls: first elimination and/or substitution, then engineering controls, work practice controls, other administrative controls, and finally PPE. In some cases, you’ll find that more than one type of control is necessary (for example, you may use an engineering control and PPE). Remember that PPE is always a last resort; always try to control hazards with the other control methods first. Click to read more about the hierarchy of controls. Click to watch or download a free e-learning course about the hierarchy of controls. Leading and Lagging Safety Indicators You can track leading and lagging indicators of safety at your workplace. A leading safety indicator is something that occurs before a safety incident might happen (or ideally prevents it from happening). Leading safety indicators include safety training and housekeeping. A lagging safety indicator is something that happens after a safety incident happens. Lagging safety indicators include things like incident reports and workman’s comp claims. Tracking your leading lagging safety indicators gives you a chance to fix existing safety problems and anticipate safety problems so you can correct them before they occur. In some cases, companies track lagging but not leading indicators, losing a potential opportunity to create a safer work place. Click to read more about leading and lagging safety indicators. ANSI Z490.1-the National Standard for Effective EHS Training EHS training is not easy to pull together. There are many aspects and responsibilities, and it’s hard for one person (or department) to be on top of it all. Having a formulaic method, and a guide that lists best practices, is a great way to up your EHS training game. That’s where ANSI Z490.1, the national standard for effective EHS training, comes in. If you’re not familiar with ANSI Z490.1, you should definitely check it out. Click to read our series of articles that provide an overview of ANSI Z490.1 (and keep an eye out, we’ll soon be condensing this into a handy and free downloadable guide). Learning Management Systems (LMS) A learning management system (LMS) is a software system you can use to administer, assign, deliver, track, and report on training-safety training and other kinds of training. Using an LMS will make your safety training more comprehensive and efficient. You’ll significantly increase your chances of making sure everyone’s received their necessary safety training. In particular, an LMS helps with workers on various shifts, workers with changing schedules, and workers in multiple sites. A common misconception is that LMSs can only be used with e-learning courses. But that’s not true. You can use an LMS to assign and track many kinds of training, including instructor-led training, safety meetings, on-the-job training, written training materials, and more. Click to read more about learning management systems (LMSs). Click to read more about using an LMS to improve workplace safety. Click to see some LMSs for companies of different sizes and industries. EHS e-Learning Courses and a Blended Learning Safety Training Solution e-Learning courses can be an important part of your safety training solution. We recommend using e-learning courses as part of a blended learning solution that uses training of several different types-e-learning, instructor-led, employee-led, on-the-job training, shadowing/mentoring/following, task-based training, written materials, and more. Doing this allows you to maximize the effectiveness of your training. Click to read more about e-learning courses and safety training. Click to read more about blended learning and safety training. Click to see a selection of EHS e-learning courses. Click to learn about having custom e-learning courses made for your worksite or industry. e-Learning Authoring Tools You can buy EHS e-learning courses off the shelf or have them made for you, but you can also make your own. An e-learning authoring tool is a software application that makes it pretty easy to make your own e-learning courses. You can then include your own policies and/or videos and photos of your own site and even add your own audio narration and self-created testes. Many of these e-learning authoring tools are designed so you can start with an existing PowerPoint, making it easy to gear up quickly using existing safety training materials you already have. Click to read an article (and see pictures) that walks you step-by-step through the basic process of beginning with a PowerPoint and creating your own e-learning course (on crane hand signals, in this case). Click to watch and listen to the same information in a recorded webinar. Peer Networking with Other Safety/EHS Professionals One of the best "tools" you can use is to learn from your professionals EHS/Safety peers. You can do this by joining professional organizations, such as the National Safety Council, American Society of Safety Engineers, or the Board of Certified Safety Professionals. And you can also do this online, such as in safety and EHS groups on LinkedIn. We recently asked safety managers in a LinkedIn EHS group for their tips on effective safety training. Read their replies below. Click to read real-world safety managers explaining how to make safety training more effective and engaging. Click to learn about the National Safety Council (NSC). Click to learn about the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE). Click to learn about the Board of Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP). Click to find Convergence Training on LinkedIn or to follow Jeff Dalto on LinkedIn. Lean Manufacturing Principles, Including 5S Many people hear the words "lean manufacturing" and think exclusively of production and efficiency. Of course, lean manufacturing is about that, but lean can also significantly improve safety at your workplace. Having a more efficient, waste-free, organized workplace with standardized work processes inevitably leads to fewer safety incidents. This point is obvious when it comes to the well-known lean 5S technique, but it’s also true for kaizen, kaizen events, and more. If you haven’t given much thought to the intersections between lean and safety, now’s a good time to do so. Click to read about 5s/6s-safety. Click to read about using lean techniques for a safer workplace. You may also find the sample of this 5S e-learning course interesting. (Click to learn more about that 5S e-learning course.) Instructional Design Safety professionals are often involved in safety and/or EHS training efforts. But, they may not have had the opportunity to fully study instructional design (ID), the professional field dedicated to effective training methods. It’s great to be a training expert, and there are lots of them you can refer to for help. But even if you’re not an expert yourself, learning some of the basics will really improve your safety training. Consider following a blog or two or joining an organization that addresses some of these ID issues. Click to read about adult learning principles. Click to read why visuals can improve safety training. Click to see 25 graphic design techniques you can apply to safety training materials. Click to learn about learning objectives (and get a free guide to writing them). Click to learn about the Association for Talent Development (ATD), a professional learning organization. Humor Finally, a little reminder-humor can be an effective aid during safety training and on the job as well. Along those lines, we offer the following collection of humorous safety-related posts. We hope you enjoy them and maybe even forward a few on to safety peers via email. Zombie Safety Training (great for Halloween) Safety Training for Thanksgiving Sharknado Safety Training Safety Training for the Mayan Apocalypse Safety Training for the Final Episode of Breaking Bad March Madness Safety Training Valentine’s Day Safety Poem What about you? Have any good safety humor for us? You can share it below in the comments section (keep it clean and SFW, though…but you knew that, right?) Conclusion: What Tools Do You Use for a Safer Workplace? You may already know of or be using everything we listed above. Or maybe not. If the article gave you an idea or two, that’s great. Of course, you’ve probably got some tips to add as well. What do you find helps make a safer workplace? Let us know in the discussion section below. The post 12 Tools for a Safer Workplace appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

Our customers are very interested in being more efficient. That’s why they come to us looking for help with their training programs. But of course training isn’t the only solution they look at to increase efficiency. As a result, many are interested in lean manufacturing principles, and so we’ve recently been running a series of articles on some basic lean concepts. For example, we’ve had articles introducing 5s/lean 6s, kaizen, and kaizen events, and we’ve even listed some ways you can use these lean tools to create a safer workplace. In this article, we’re going to look at another aspect of lean manufacturing-Training Within Industry (TWI). Training Within Industry is the lean approach to training, has been used by Toyota and other manufacturers throughout the world for decades, and still has valuable lessons that can be put to use in training today. In addition to reading this article, click to download our free 39-page guide to effective manufacturing training. If you’re familiar with lean manufacturing but not with Training Within Industry, you may find this an interesting addition to the knowledge base. Plus something you can use to improve training at your workplace. If you’re familiar with modern instructional design or training theory, you’ll probably notice some interesting connections with TWI. For example, note the similarity between an ID’s task analysis and the TWI job breakdown, or note the similarity between Mayer’s multimedia principle and TWI’s take on showing and telling in training. The information below is based on our recent reading of Training Within Industry: The Foundation of Lean by Donald A. Dinero (Productivity Press, 2005). The book is a great resource and a recommended read, so definitely consider checking it out. Our copy came with a CD-ROM that included all the TWI bullets issued by the United States War Department in the 1940s (read on to learn how that’s connected) as well. The book was a 2006 Shingo Prize Research Recipient and does a nice job of giving the history of TWI and explaining what it is and how to use it. If this article intrigues you, we highly recommend you purchase the book as well. Convergence Training is a training solutions provider, primarily for companies in manufacturing and industry. We have many libraries of e-learning courses, including courses on operations and maintenance, safety, and a series of learning management systems (LMSs) for companies of different sizes and industries. We also make solutions for contractor/visitor orientations and can create custom training materials specifically for you. Contact us to ask some questions, find out more, and set up a demo. An Introduction to Training Within Industry (TWI) Let’s start with some basic information about TWI, shall we? What Is Training Within Industry? Although Training Within Industry has been around for a long time and is used throughout the world, there are still many people who have never heard of it. It’s especially fallen under the radar in the United States. That’s ironic, because TWI was created in the United States, by the US government, and for use by US manufacturers. The roots of TWI could be said to have originated in the US during WWI, when the United States needed to train 500,000 workers new to the shipbuilding industry. They did, many ships were built, the US and its allies won the won, and many lessons about effective workplace training were learned. But unfortunately, those lessons were largely ignored between World War I and World War II. (See note 1.) The name "World War I" implies more that there were more world wars, and soon enough World War II came along. Again, the US found itself lacking skilled labor in key industries and needing to ramp up production for the war. As a result, the US government created the Training Within Industry Service in 1940. This organization created Training Within Industry (TWI), which you can think of as something like a "train the trainer" program for American businesses. The program was implemented at many American companies during the war, was successful, and was again largely forgotten in the United States after the war. Dinero suggests a few reasons why the wide-scale use of TWI did not continue in America in his book. First, he notes that the US was the world’s economic powerhouse at the time (with the manufacturing base of many other countries destroyed by the way) and so simply wasn’t focused on increasing efficiency after WWII. Second, he suggests that at individual American companies where TWI had already been installed, changes were made here and there to the TWI training methods after the government TWI agency had been disbanded at the war’s end, leading to less effective results. Training Within Industry Throughout the World Although TWI was created in the US for American companies, since WWII its real stronghold has been outside of the US, and especially in Japan. The United States introduced TWI to European and Asian countries after World War II as these countries struggled to rebuild their economies. A 1993 white paper, quoted in Dinero’s book, lists 26 different countries where TWI was used: Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Australia, New Guinea, Hong Kong, Fiji, Taiwan, Singapore, Western Samoa, Iraq, Uganda, South Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, and Nepal. (See note 3.) TWI In Japan, Toyota (TPS), and Lean Manufacturing It’s true that TWI was used throughout the world, but it was in Japan where TWI took roots most firmly. This is partly because members of General MacArthur’s staff were familiar with TWI and introduced it during the US occupation of Japan. To quote the Robinson & Schroeder white paper quoted earlier, "While TWI had an impact on many coutnries around the world, it has its greatest effect on Japan, which embraced the "J" programs more wholeheartedly than any other nation." (See note 4.) And, in Dinero’s own words: "The Japanese did embrace TWI completely and are still using the programs today. In fact, the Japanese Labor Ministry still controls the use of TWI by administering programs and licesing other organizations to conduct "J" courses (author-we’ll explain the "J courses" soon). The dissemination of TWI throughout Japan is so widespread that it appears to have assimilated into the culture. Kaizen (kai = change, revise, and zen = goodness, virtue) (continuous improvement) is a term that is used in the Toyota Production System (TPS), which many companies are trying to emulate today as Lean Manufacturing….TWI was one of the early seminal forces in developing TPS and one could debate whether TPS could have fully evolved and been sustained without the practice of TWI." (See note 5.) The TWI Structure: Job Instruction (JI), Job Methods (JM), Job Relations (JR), and Program Development Now that you know a little about the history of TWI, including its origin in wartime U.S., its adoption in multiple places throughout the world, the development of its stronghold in Japan, and its place as arguably "the foundation of lean" (the subtitle of Dinero’s book), let’s learn more about what TWI really is. TWI has four parts, or programs. They are: Job Instruction (JI) - A method for teaching workers to perform necessary job skills, with an emphasis on performing job correctly and safely, ramping up to productivity on the new skill(s) as quickly as possible, and reducing waste and damage. Job Methods (JM) - Training workers how to improve the way their own jobs are performed, with an emphasis on increasing more quality products in less time using available manpower, materials, and machines. Job Relations (JR) - Training workers to solve personal problems with other coworkers in an analytical way minus emotions, with an emphasis on treating people as individuals and understanding people on all levels. Program Development (PD) -Training to solve production problems unique to specific organizations, with an emphasis on personal and training issues, while technical means were applied to other issues. (See note 6.) Job Instruction, Job Methods, and Job Relations are commonly known as the "J" programs. The programs were meant to be adopted together, particularly the three "J" programs. The programs were designed so that government-paid TWI consultants would teach supervisors of a company the methods, and the supervisors would then adopt and use the methods at their own companies. Job Instruction is the J program that is most specifically related to training workers to do their jobs, so that’s what we’ll focus on in the rest of this article. We’ll probably circle back and look at some of the other programs in future articles, so keep an eye out for that as well. The TWI Job Instruction (JI) Program: Teaching Workers Job Skills Quickly and Effectively As Dinero explains in his book, many companies train new hires (or current employees who need to learn new skills) by pairing the worker with a more experienced worker who already has the desired skill. This is still a commonly seen training method in American companies, and is often referred to as "shadowing," "following," or "go follow Joe." There are times when shadowing programs like this can work, either wholly or partially. However, these programs are often ineffective for several reasons. First, the experienced worker often has to take the training chore on in addition to his or her standard work responsibilities. This can create stress and frustration. Second, the experienced worker may be very skilled but may have no particular knowledge of how to effectively train someone. For example, not every baseball All-Star can teach novices how to bat or field. And third, these shadowing programs often lead to a lack of a standard method for performing the job skills, with each trainer teaching his or her own version. Dinero notes that "JI Training results in standardized instruction and standardized instruction results in standardized methods…the JI training is such that a person learns the job correctly and safely in the shortest amount of time possible. This reduces waste in time, material, and damage to tools and equipment. Proper training with the resulting standardization will help an organization change its culture." (See note 7.) Preparing to Teach Job Instruction to Trainers Remember, TWI and the Job Instruction program can be thought of as a "train the trainer" kind of program. So, as we continue to explain the basics of Job Instruction, we’ll be focusing on the training method a TWI trainer would teach to a supervisor/trainer who works at a specific company. Now, we’ll learn what those would-be trainers would learn to do in order to prepare for the time when they will teach their own employees specific job skills. This can be broken down into four steps: Create a training timetable - Determine the skills your workers need and determine which workers already possess each skill. Keep this information in some form of checklist or matrix. Identify which workers need to learn new skills and the date by which you want the workers to learn those skills. Break down the job into important steps and key points - The trainer will "break down" each job into the smaller steps that make it up. The reason for doing this is so that instruction can be developed for performing each step and therefore the job as a whole. Note that the job is broken down into steps and key points. This is an important part of the TWI method and will be explained in more detail later in this article. Prepare equipment, materials, and supplies for training - Get all training materials ready in advance. Arrange the workplace properly - Have workplace arranged the way worker should keep it (until a Job-Methods related improvement comes along). Breaking Down the Job Into Steps and Key Points for JWI Instruction The process of breaking down a job into its smaller steps and identifying key points is at the heart of the TWI instruction method. The TWI "Job Breakdown Sheet (JBS)" is used to break the job down (you can find an example on page 168 in Dinero’s book). It’s essentially a three-columned table, with the three columns including the information below: Important Steps (of the job) - What to do to perform the job, listed in step-by-step order Key Points - Key points for how to do each step. There are three criteria for including something as a key step. First, if the information in the key point "make or break" the job. Second, if the information addresses a safety issue that could harm the worker. And third, if the information makes the job easier. Reasons - Why the step is important (this is a more recent addition to the original two points above). Here’s an example of a TWI Job Breakdown Sheet taken directly from Dinero’s book (see note 8). It’s an explanation of how to tie a fire underwriter’s knot. This is a TWI standard and was in fact the example used in TWI training sessions. (See note 9.)   Dinero goes on to make a couple more points. First, because you should tailor your training to your individual learners, you may end up creating different a different Job Breakdown Sheet (JBS) for more-experienced workers than you would for less-experienced workers. That’s because the more-experienced worker may know how to do something like "start the machine" but a less-experienced or novice worker may need step-by-step instruction to start the machine in addition. (See note 10.) And second, trainers at one company should compare their JBSs and create one standard version, so all employees are being taught the same thing. And third, as Dinero mentions frequently throughout the book, the Job Methods program (in which employees constantly look for new and better ways to perform their jobs) creates the possibility that JBSs will need to be changed over time. Teaching Instructors to Instruct with the TWI Job Instruction Method Once the job has been broken down into steps, key points, and reasons, and the Job Breakdown Sheet has been created, it’s time for the trainer/supervisor to teach employees the job task. As mentioned above, during TWI training sessions (in which a training consultant teaches the TWI method to other trainers, who will then use that method to teach their own employees real job tasks), the first demonstration that’s used is how to tie a fire underwriter’s knot. But regardless of the job you’r e trying to train a worker to perform, TWI lists the following four "how to instruct" steps. These steps were printed on a small wallet-sized card and handed out to TWI trainees as well. Step 1, Prepare the Worker - Make the employee feel comfortable, talk about the job and see what the employee knows about it already, get the person interested in the job, and make sure the worker is in the correct position (sitting, standing, etc.) to learn the job. [Readers with a training or instructional design background may recognize some of Gagne’s first Events of Instruction here.] Step 2, Present the Job/Operation - Tell, show, and illustrate one important step at a time; stress each key point and reason; instruct clearly, completely, and patiently, but do not give more information than the person can master. [Readers with a training or instructional design background may recognize some aspects of "chunking" here.] Step 3, Try out Performance - Have the employee do the job, step-by-step; correct any errors as they come up; have employee do the job again, this time with worker also stating each important step, key point, and reason; make sure the worker understands the job and steps; continue until you’re sure he/she knows. [Readers with a training or instructional design background may recognize some aspects of active learning and adult learning principles here.] Step 4, Follow Up -  Release worker from training and back to work; make sure worker knows who to go to for help; check in with worker often, see how things are going, observe performance, encourage questions; eventually taper off the follow-up as you’re convinced worker has mastered the job skill. (See note 11.) The Job Instruction Method of Presenting the Job/Operation to the Worker You just learned the four basic steps of teaching a worker a job in the Job Instruction method: prepare the worker, present the operation; (let the worker) try out the performance; and follow up. But the Job Instruction method is pretty strict about how to present the operation-meaning, how to show the worker the steps of the job-so let’s look at that in more detail now. First, tell the worker how many steps there are in the job. This gives him or her a chance to prepare and begins to place the job into a mental "framework" for the worker. Next, demonstrate the job, step-by-step. As  you demonstrate each step, state the step. For example, in step 1 of the knot-tying exercise listed above, the trainer would untwist and straighten the wire and say "untwist and straighten the wire." Do this for each step in the job. Next, demonstrate the entire job again. This time, while performing each step, say what the step is but also state any key point for that step. Again, as an example, in step 1 of the knot-tying exercise, the trainer would untwist and straighten the wire and say "untwist and straighten the wire" and then say something like "the wire should be untwisted about 6 inches from the end." Do this for each step in the job. Demonstrate the entire job again. This time show every step and state each step, key point, and reason. Pay attention to the worker. For a simpler task, three demonstrations is probably enough. For a more complicated task, you may have to do it more. Once you believe the worker is ready, let the worker try to perform the task. (See note 12.) The Job Instruction Method of Letting the Worker Practice the Job/Task Just as Job Instruction has a specific method of having the instructor demonstrate the job to the worker, there’s also a specific method in which the worker should perform the job and demonstrate that he/she can perform it during the training. Those steps are: Have the worker complete the task on his/her own. Worker should be silent while doing the task the first time. The trainer should watch the worker closely and quickly stop the process if the worker is doing something wrong, providing helpful feedback to get the worker back on track if that happens (this is true every time the worker performs the task). Once the worker has done the task silently without error, have worker perform the task again, this time stating each step as he/she proceeds. Next, have the worker perform the task again, this time stating each step and each key point. And next, have the worker perform the task again, this time stating each step, key point, and reason. The instructor will observe the worker and, when instructor is satisfied that the worker has mastered the skill, end training for the worker and let the worker perform the task on the job (with appropriate follow-up in the field, of course). Additional FAQs about Training Within Industry Hopefully you’ve found this introduction to Training Within Industry (TWI), Training Within Industry’s Job Instruction Program (JI) component, and the Job Breakdown Sheet (JBS), 4 steps of instruction, steps to be followed when presenting a job to a worker during training, and steps for the worker to follow when demonstrating he or she can perform the job helpful and interesting. There may very well be some tips you can use in that material in your own training program. In the future, you can expect to read more about TWI here at the Convergence Training blog, including more on Job Instruction (JI), Job Methods (JM), and Job Relations (JR). For now, though, we though we’d pull together some information from Dinero’s book to present a bit of an ad-hoc TWI FAQ in case you’ve got some questions we didn’t address above. Once again, we encourage you to pick up and read a copy of Training Within Industry: The Foundation of Lean by Donald A. Dinero (Productivity Press, 2005), the book that this article was based on. In addition, if you’d like to read similar material by Dinero online, here’s a short article he wrote for a Lean Solutions Conference. Is TWI Just for Manufacturing? No (and this goes for lean, too). Although TWI and lean are most commonly thought of in the context of manufacturing, they can be used in other work places as well. Even when the US government was running the TWI program in the US, and even though they were working to help defense contractors, they worked with companies in other industries, including transportation, hospitals, laundries, and more. The methods in TWI (and lean in general) can be applied in many different workplaces. (See note 13.) What Were Four Goals of the TWI Developers? To create a program that was simple, could be prepared in a small amount of time, that was based on "learning by doing," and that could have a "multiplier effect," so government TWI trainers could instruct supervisors/trainers from various companies and those trainers would then instruct others in the same technique. (See note 14.) What Helped TWI Catch On in the US During World War II? Results and data that proved those results. TWI was a voluntary program and businesses weren’t necessarily inclined to have the government telling them what to do. TWI officials quickly realized these businesses would be interested in TWI if they could prove that their methods were effective. Today, trainers know this as a Level 4 evaluation (in the Kirkpatrick model). (See note 15.) What Are Some Ways That TWI Influenced Lean, Especially at Toyota? Job Instruction is often seen as a root of Toyota’s standardization process and is still used there today; many believe that kaizen has its roots in TWI’s Job Methods program, and the Job Relations program is often said to be at the root of Toyota’s team and group leader structure. (See note 16.) What Were Three Criteria the Creators of TWI Aimed for While Developing the TWI Program? Simplicity, usability, and standardization. The desire for simplicity lead to a belief that trainers should work from a prepared manual or script and not freelance. The desire for usability included the belief that participants should practice as much as possible and should select problems from their work area to practice on. And the desire for standardization ran to issues concerning facilities (primarily ensuring trainers would have similar access to a blackboard), participants (getting trainees all trained to the same level of still/knowledge), and trainers (ensuring all trainers used same methods). (See note 17.) Why Is It Called "Training Within Industry?" The creators of Training Within Industry had some very specific things in mind when they named it. First, they chose the word "training" instead of "education" because training focuses on things that are good for a company’s production and education focuses on rounding out a person for general societal reasons. And they chose "within industry" because they wanted training to be conducted within an industry setting and to be lead by people in that given industry. (See note 18.) According to TWI, What Are The Five Needs of a Supervisor? According to TWI, an effective supervisor needs (1) knowledge of the work, (2) knowledge of work responsibilities, policies, agreements, etc., (3) skill in instruction, (4) skill in improving job methods, and (5) skill in leading. TWI’s three methods were intended to help supervisors develop skills in instruction (Job Instruction), skills in improving job methods (Job Methods), and skill in leading (Job Relations). (See note 19.) What Were Three Objectives The Developers of TWI Had for Each TWI Program? They wanted each program to (1) interest people to learn the method, (2) help people learn the method, and (3) get them to want to learn the method. (See note 20.) What Is the Toyota Production System (TPS)? The Toyota Production System is the management philosophy at Toyota. It permeates their culture, work processes, and training. The term lean manufacturing was coined in the 1990s to explain TPS. What Is Lean Manufacturing? "Lean manufacturing" is a term that was coined by and made popular by the authors of the 1991 book The Machine that Changed the World (James Womack, Daniel Jones, and Daniel Roos). The book was an attempt to explain the methods of Toyota and TPS. Over time, the meaning of the phrase shifts a bit, and in addition, forerunners of "lean" have been identified from before Toyota’s time (Eli Whitney, Deming, Ford, etc.). Summary: Training Within Industry-the "Lean" Technique for Job Training We hope you enjoyed our brief overview of TWI, Job Instruction, and a few of the nuts-and-bolts of Job Instruction. And we truly encourage you to (1) pick up a copy of Dinero’s book and (2) see which aspects of TWI you think you might be able to use at  your own workplace-or perhaps stay true to the TWI method and incorporate it in its entirely, as its creators intended. If you’ve used TWI in the past or do now, please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments section below. We’d love to hear your take on this. And don’t forget to keep an eye out for more articles on TWI and lean topics in general. Notes: 1. Dinero, Donald A., Training Within Industry,  p. 21. 2. Dinero, p. 15. 3. Robinson & Schroeder, Training, Continuous Improvement, and Human Relations: The U.S. TWI Programs and the Japanese Management Style, as quoted in Dinero, pp. 42-43. 4. Robinson & Schroeder, Training, Continuous Improvement, and Human Relations: The U.S. TWI Programs and the Japanese Management Style, as quoted in Dinero, pp. 42-43. 5. Dinero, p. 47. 6. Dinero, pp. 3-4. 7. Dinero, p. 55. 8. Dinero, p. 168. 9. Dinero, p. 168. 10. Dinero, pp. 176-177. 11. Dinero, p. 97. 12. Dinero, pp. 167-168. 13. Dinero, p. 9. 14. Dinero, p. 11. 15. Dinero, pp. 34-40. 16. "Training Within Industry," Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_Within_Industry. Accessed 7/28/2015. It’s worth noting that Dinero makes similar points in his book as well. 17. Dinero, pp. 67-81. 18. Dinero, p. 75. 19. Dinero, p. 77.       The post Lean Manufacturing and Training: A Look at "Training Within Industry" appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

Today we’re announcing the availability of newly-translated versions of 25 of our most popular health and safety eLearning courses in up to 13 different languages. The courses cover critical safety topics such as Hearing Conservation, Crane and Hoist Rigging Safety, Lockout/Tagout, and Fall Prevention and Protection. Courses are now publicly available in the following languages (in addition to English): Dutch French Italian Japanese Korean Polish Portuguese Russian Tamil Spanish German Chinese Thai We’re happy to be expanding our international training offerings with the new translations. "We’re excited to complete these courses, to collaborate with Caterpillar on yet another project, and to help provide safety training to workers here in America and throughout the world who speak different languages. We view this as a great opportunity to provide training to a global audience, and we’re proud to play a role in helping to make workers throughout the world safer" said Randy Kohltfarber, President of Convergence Training. Convergence courses are designed for online delivery and viewing and are produced in the online format SCORM 1.2. They feature highly realistic 3D animations, audio narration, written scripts, practice tests, and scored tests that measure the worker’s retention and comprehension of the training materials. Contact us today for information about the multilingual versions of our EHS courses.     The post New International Translations for Convergence Health & Safety Courses appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

If you read through 30 CFR Part 46, the MSHA regulations related to safety training for most surface miners and other employees at those mines, you’ll see references to "competent persons." But just what does that mean? What is a competent person according to MSHA and Part 46? In this article, we’re going to look at those questions more closely and dig up the answers. Ha-ha! Mining pun intended! In addition, we’re going to give you some resources that can help you prepare yourself or someone else to be a competent person for Part 46. So let’s get started. Along the way, we’re going to address some similar issues for Part 48, and we’ve written a similar similar article related to Part 48 and MSHA-approved instructors, so check that one out as well. Convergence Training is a training solutions provider with a number of mining safety e-learning courses that can be used for part of your Part 46 training and a learning management system (LMS) you can use to administer, deliver, assign, track, and report on that training. It even creates all the documentation required by Part 46. Contact us to ask some questions, learn more information, view some courses samples, or set up a demo of the LMS. Click to download our free 30-page guide to online MSHA training, recordkeeping, and training administration. What Does "Competent" Mean In General, Everyday Language? Before we figure out what MSHA means by "competent person" in Part 46, let’s start by seeing what the word "competent" means in everyday language. According to our friends at the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, competent means "having the necessary ability or skills: able to do something well or well enough to meet a standard." So, in everyday talk, a person who is competent has "necessary ability or skills" and is "able to do something well or well enough to meet a standard." We’ll see that these ideas, of having necessarily ability or skills and being able to do something well enough to meet a standard, are related to the way MSHA uses the word competent in its requirements for a Part 46 competent person. Competent Person in MSHA’s Part 46 Now that we know what the word competent person means in everyday language, let’s turn our attention to what 30 CFR and MSHA mean when they use it in Part 46. The Scope of Part 46 First, a quick reminder of the scope of Part 46. According to 46.1, here are the mines at which Part 46 applies: "The provisions of this part set forth the mandatory requirements for training and retraining miners and other persons at shell dredging, sand, gravel, surface stone, surface clay, colloidal phosphate, and surface limestone mines." If this doesn’t include your mine site, check the information about Part 48 at the bottom of this article or in our separate Part 48 MSHA-approved Instructor article. Competent Person in MSHA Part 46 In 30 CFR Part 46.2, we can find a definition of competent person. Here it is: "Competent person means a person designated by the production-operator or independent contractor who has the ability, training, knowledge, or experience to provide training to miners in his or her area of expertise. The competent person must be able both to effectively communicate the training subject to miners and to evaluate whether the training given to miners is effective." If you recall the meaning of "competent" in everyday language, it had two aspects: Having "necessary skills" "Being able to do something well enough to meet a standard" And, if you review the definition of "competent person" in Part 46, we can map those ideas from the everyday definition to the Part 46 definition: Having "necessary skills" in Part 46 means having the "ability, training, knowledge, or experience to provide training to miners in his or her area of expertise." We also learn this has two aspects-being "able both to effectively communicate the training subject to miners and to evaluate whether the training given to miners is effective." And meeting a standard in this case means being "designated by the production-operator or independent contractor." Presumably, by demonstrating mastery (and/or competence, to stay focused on the topic at hand) of the two skills above. "Necessary Skills" in MSHA Part 46’s Definition of "Competent Person"-Plus the Issue of Subject Matter Knowledge As we saw, the definition of competent person needs two skills plus an area of expertise. All told, that means the competent person must: Know how to provide training (a skill) Know how to evaluate the effectiveness of training (a skill) Have one or more area of subject matter expertise on which he/she can provide training (subject matter knowledge) So let’s take a look at the first skill, knowing how to provide training. Many times, an experienced worker or supervisor who knows the job very well gets put into a training position without knowing much about how to provide effective training. That creates a "square peg and round hole" situation-because being a subject matter expert doesn’t mean you can effectively teach others that same topic. As a result, we’re providing some tips to help people know how to train others effectively. Check out the links below: ANSI Z490.1, the National Standard for Effective EHS Training: What better place to learn than from a national standard prepared by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE)? Click to read our series of articles that provide an overview of ANSI Z490.1, and keep your eyes out for our free downloadable guide to ANSI Z490.1, which is coming soon. Adult Learning Principles: You’ll be training adults when you deliver your MSHA Part 46 training. All adults have certain characteristics in common that make training more effective. These are known as adult learning principles. Click to review these adult learning principles and to learn to apply them. Blended Learning: Some trainers have a tendency to rely on one "type" of training. It may be all computer-based, or maybe it’s all instructor-led, or maybe it’s all having workers look at Power Points. But research shows, and most learning and development experts agree, that a blended learning solution that uses different types of training is the best way to go. Click the link to learn more about blended learning. How to Present Your Words: Writing and speaking in clear, conversational language can really improve the effectiveness of your training. Click for tips on writing for training (much of which also directly relates to speaking for training). The Importance of Visuals: The importance of including properly designed visuals in training materials can’t be overstated. Click to see 25 graphic design types that will make your safety training more effective. The Importance of Chunking: There’s a limit to the amount of new information people can learn at one time. This limit is generally assumed to be about four or five things. As a result, it’s best to "cut up" your training materials into smaller "chunks" so that you don’t overwhelm your workers. Click to read more about chunking. Tips from Your Peers: We can all learn best practices from our peers. In this case, from professionals involved in safety training at workplaces throughout the world. Click to read real-life professionals who deliver safety training share their own ideas about what works and what doesn’t. Next, let’s look at the second skill, knowing how to evaluate the effectiveness of the training. So it’s not enough just to provide training. You’ve also got to be able to evaluate the training experience so you can tell if the training was effective. Meaning-did the employees learn what they were supposed to learn? To help you with that, we’ve provided the following links: Align Training with Business Goals and KPIs: All training should support a business goal. When it comes to Part 46 training, the business goals you’re supporting are Part 46 compliance and also safety. Click to read more about aligning training to a business goal and using KPIs to measure your training’s effectiveness. Evaluate Training at Four Levels: One of the standard ways that learning & development people try to evaluate training is to do so at four different levels: learner, knowledge, behavior, and business results. Click to learn more about evaluating training effectiveness. Test/Assess Employees After Training: The second of the four levels of evaluation mentioned above is using testing to assess your employee’s knowledge and skills after training. Click to read more about testing after training. Check MSHA’s Website about Training Evaluation: MSHA has a nice web page dedicated to training evaluation. Click to see MSHA’s materials on evaluation. And finally, let’s look at the knowledge or "areas of expertise" for which for which the competent person will lead training. The important aspect here is that someone may be a competent person to train on one topic but not on another. For example, the person may be competent to train people how to use respirators  but not competent to train people on first aid. The safety training for Part 46 can be on so many different topics that we couldn’t list them all here. However, MSHA gives general categories for various types of employees. Here are links to those requirements: New Miners Newly Hired Experienced Miners New Task Annual Refresher Site-Specific Hazard Awareness Hold the presses! We just found this MSHA Handbook Series, Education and Training Procedures, that has a nice list of topics for which you can be a competent person. See pages VI-6 and VI-7. Who Determines if a Person Is a Competent Person for MSHA’s Part 46? And now let’s turn our attention to who determines if a person is competent to provide Part 46 safety training. If we go back to 46.2, we’ll get our answer: "Competent person means a person designated by the production-operator or independent contractor who has the ability, training, knowledge, or experience to provide training to miners in his or her area of expertise. The competent person must be able both to effectively communicate the training subject to miners and to evaluate whether the training given to miners is effective." So, it’s up to the production-operator or independent contractor who’s ultimately in charge of ensuring the Part 46 training conducted at a mine site is conducted to choose the competent persons for various subjects. That means it’s not something that MSHA chooses, and it’s not something that a person has to go out and get a license or certificate for. But, as we said earlier, it stands to reason that the production-operator has somehow evaluated a person’s ability to train, to evaluate the effectiveness of training, and his/her knowledge of one or more subject area related to Part 46 training (see the FAQ section below for more about this). In case you’re a little fuzzy about who a production-operator or independent contractor is, here are the definitions (again, from 46.2). Production-operator means any owner, lessee, or other person who operates, controls, or supervises a mine under this part. Independent contractor means any person, partnership, corporation, subsidiary of a corporation, firm, association, or other organization that contracts to perform services at a mine under this part. FAQs about MSHA Part 46 Competent Persons MSHA has provided a helpful collection of answers to FAQs about Part 46 competent persons. You can click this link to read the FAQs from the MSHA website or see our summaries below. Competent Person as Agent of Company: A person specified as a competent person does not automatically become an Agent of the company (see question 10 for exact MSHA language). MSHA Approval of Competent Persons: It is not necessary for MSHA to approve someone as a competent person. This decision is left up to the production-operator or independent contractor, as mentioned above (see question 12 for exact MSHA language). Competent Person Receives Credit for Training Competent Person Leads: A competent person can receive credit for completing training that he/she led (see question 13 for exact MSHA language). Competent Person and Task Training: People who lead New Task training must be competent persons for that task (see question 14 for exact MSHA language). Being a Competent Person without Having Worked in All Areas of Mine: Yes, this can happen (see question 15 for exact MSHA language). Training Institutions or State Grantees as Competent Persons: It is OK for a mine site’s list of competent persons to include training institutions or state grantees (see question 16 for exact MSHA language). Training Institutions or State Grantees Leading Site-Specific Hazard Training: This is allowed, but MSHA says that the organization must have "access to the site" and be "knowledgeable about the site-specific hazards at the mine." Although MSHA says this IS allowed, they also say "a training institution or state grantee will not usually have the necessary information to conduct task or site-specific hazard awareness training." (Please read question 16 to see the exact MSHA language  for this one). Noting Competent Person for Training Records if Training Plan Lists Name of Organization: On your Part 46 training plan, you can list the name of an organization, such as a training institution or state grantee as discussed above, as a "competent person" for one or more subjects. However, when you are creating your training records, you must include  the name of the actual trainer and not just the name of the organization the trainer works for (see question 17 for exact MSHA language). More than One Competent Person Listed on Training Plan for a Given Subject: Yes, this is allowed. However, the training record must include the name of the actual trainer who led a particular training session (see question 18 for exact MSHA language). Documenting Why a Person Is Deemed a Competent Person: The regulation does not specifically require this. However, MSHA reserves the right to ask questions about why a person has been considered a competent person (see question 19 for exact MSHA language). Adding More Competent Persons to Completed Training Plan: This is fine, you can do it. Just follow the rules laid out in 46.3 (see question 20 for exact MSHA language). Having a Competent Person Lead Only a Part of Site-Specific Hazard Awareness Training: It is OK to have someone be a competent person for only a part of the site-specific hazard awareness training (for example, to lead only the site-specific  hazard awareness training on electrical hazards). In this case, though, you must identify the limits of the competent person’s area of training expertise on your training plan (see question 21 for exact MSHA language). Source: MSHA Part 46 FAQs (questions 10-21). MSHA, Part 48, and MSHA-Approved Instructors Now that we know so much about Part 46 competent persons, let’s turn our attention briefly to Part 48. The Scope of Part 48 Here’s what you need to know about the scope of Part 48 (this is directly from 48.1 and 48.21) 48.1: The provisions of this subpart A set forth the mandatory requirements for submitting and obtaining approval of programs for training and retraining miners working in underground mines. Requirements regarding compensation for training and retraining are also included. The requirements for training and retraining miners working at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines are set forth in subpart B of this part. 48.21 (subpart B): The provisions of this subpart B set forth the mandatory requirements for submitting and obtaining approval of programs for training and retraining miners working at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines. Requirements regarding compensation for training and retraining are also included. The requirements for training and retraining miners working in underground mines are set forth in subpart A of this part. This part does not apply to training and retraining of miners at shell dredging, sand, gravel, surface stone, surface clay, colloidal phosphate, and surface limestone mines, which are covered under 30 CFR Part 46. Part 48 Doesn’t Include the Concept of a Competent Person Although competent persons are a critical aspect of Part 46, they’re not part of Part 48. In fact, we just ran a search for "competent" on the online version of Part 48 and came up with nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. So, as valuable as the stuff you learned about Part 46 competent persons above is, don’t try to apply it to Part 48. Part 48 and the MSHA-Approved Instructor Part 48 does include something similar to the Part 46 competent person, however. It’s the MSHA-approved Part 48 instructor. Both the Part 46 competent person and the Part 48 MSHA-approved instructor provide training to miners and non-mining employees at mine sites. So in that aspect, they’re similar. The primary difference, though, is that for Part 48, the instructor has to be approved by MSHA before he/she can instruct. You may remember that for Part 46, the production-operator and/or independent contractor is able to designate who is a competent person (it’s not necessary to get MSHA approval first). This article explains everything you need to know about the Part 48 MSHA-approved instructor and the process for getting MSHA approval. Your Turn: MSHA Part 46 Competent Persons We’d like to know your experiences. Have you ever been designated an MSHA Part 46 competent person? If so, on which subject areas did you provide training? What do you think you were well prepared for, and what do you think you were less prepared for? What are your tips for others? What were some lessons you learned? See the comments section below? If so, go ahead and use it. The post What Does "Competent Person" Mean In MSHA’s Part 46? appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

Normally when we write about training here, we write about how to make effective training. You know-training that works. Meaning, training that’s designed and delivered in a way that helps your employees learn. That helps them understand, remember, and later apply that training on the job. Training that builds real job skills and changes on-the-job behaviors. Training that makes your workers better at their jobs and more successful. Training that helps your business reach its business goals (which is why you’re providing training, right)? But today we thought we’d have a little fun and turn our normal blog post on its head by listing some ways to create bad training. And so we’re offering you some tips of training mistakes to avoid. We all have some ideas about this, no doubt. And so we ask you to please use the comments section below to give some "tips for bad training" or "bad training you’ve observed." Convergence Training is a training solutions provider with many different libraries of ready to use of e-learning courses and several different learning management systems (LMSs) for administering training of any type (not just e-learning-you can use these for classroom training, field-based training, and more, too). Contact us to find out more, see some previews, and set up a demo. How to Create Bad Training Here are a few tried & true methods for creating bad training. They’re really not all that secret. In fact, you see some of these quite a lot. Again, we encourage you to add your own by using the comments section below. Have No Real Idea Why You’re Creating the Training All training should ultimately support a business goal. That might be something like increasing production, efficiency, or profits. Or it might be something like reducing costs, wastes, or defects. Or maybe it’s compliance with a government regulation, or a reduction in safety incidents. Whatever that business goal is, it’s a good idea to know the goal BEFORE you create your training materials. That way you can make sure the training supports your company’s efforts to make progress toward or reach that goal. And you’ll also want to know the key performance indicator(s), or KPIs, used to measure progress toward that goal. Click to read more about business goals, KPIs, and training. Click to read about performing a goal analysis. Don’t Bother to Learn More about Your Employees/Learners The best training is learner-centric. That’s a fancy way of saying it’s designed with the learner’s needs in mind. In particular, it’s designed to make it easier for the particular employees who will receive the training to learn from that training. The best way to create learner-centric training is to take the time to learn about the employees BEFORE you create training. For example, what do they already know? Do they prefer e-learning or instructor-led training? How do they speak, communicate, and interrelate with other people? Do they prefer self-paced learning or do they do well in a larger training environment? To illustrate the importance of this, let’s look at one example: are your employees complete novices to the topic you’re about to teach them or are they quite familiar with it? Research shows there are (at least) two significant differences between learners who are novices and learners who are experts or well-versed in the training topic. First, although both can process only a small number of new "information chunks" at any one time (as few as four), the chunks that experts can process are much bigger than the chunks novices can. And second, novice learners benefit much more from training with visuals than experts do. Click to read some great universal tips for creating learner-centric training materials from one of our favorite learning books, Design for How People Learn by Julie Dirksen. Click to read more about "chunking" training material and the difference between novices and expert learners. Don’t Study the Job Task the Worker Has to Learn Much of the job training you’ll provide will be task-based (yes, this is true even if you’re training workers about "soft skills" and yes, for the moment we’ll side-step the interesting debate about knowledge-based v. task-based job training). By task-based training, we mean you’ll be training workers to perform the tasks they need to complete as part of their job roles. Maybe it’s to start a machine. Maybe it’s to generate a particular spreadsheet analyzing company financials. But it will be a task. The most important thing to know about designing and creating task-based training is you’ll want to analyze that task first. During the analysis, you’ll break the task down into smaller steps and learn the best way to perform each step. And later you’ll use that information to create training materials that teach workers how to perform the task correctly. Click to read more about performing a job task analysis. Click to read more about Training Within Industry (the training program arguably "at the heart of lean manufacturing"), Job Instruction (the part of Training Within Industry directly related to teaching job tasks), and the Job Instruction Method for Teaching Job Tasks/Procedures. Have  No Real Idea What the Training Should Include or How to Know if Employees Have Learned the Necessary Knowledge and/or Skills It can be easy to jump into the training creation phase too quickly, before you really know what you’re doing. How do you know what should be in your training (and what shouldn’t be)? What do you really to teach the workers? What’s necessary information and what’s just a nice-to-know? If you’re new to instructional design or training, you may not be familiar with learning objectives. But learning objectives are the answers to all the questions we just listed above-and to more questions too. Learning objectives are the things your employees absolutely, positively have to know and/or do after training is over. They’re the stuff you need to include in your training materials. They’re the things you’ll test or assess your workers on after training. In short, they’re the roadmap of your training material creation process. Without learning objectives, you’re likely to create flabby, overstuffed, "spray-and-pray" style training. Or maybe leave critical stuff out. But you’re likely to create ineffective training either way. Click to read more about learning objectives and a download a comprehensive free guide. Click to read a more focused approach but very similar approach to "performance-based" learning objectives by Robert Mager. Create a Passive, Tediously Boring Training Experience What do you like more? Being an active participant in training or sitting back in your chair nodding off while someone lectures for an hour? That was a rhetorical question. Because nearly everyone likes an active learning experience more than a passive one. And it’s even more true that people learn more from an active learning experience. Active might mean doing instead of watching. It might mean being asked to answer questions or even lead the training. It might mean participating in group problem-solving exercises or case studies. It might mean completing scenario-based training in "real-world" simulations (such as having coworkers pose as potential customers for sales training) or in virtual exercises (such as e-learning courses that incorporate gamification or require the learner to solve a mystery or answer a problem). But whatever it is, we learn more when we’re active and engaged. We learn less when we’re passive. Keep it in mind. Click to read more about adult learning principles (active learning is one of them). Click to read about the use of checklists in task-based, OJT training. Ignore the Opportunity to "SHOW" and Be Content to Just "TELL" A well-supported theory in learning & development holds that our brain has two "processing channels": one for words (spoken or written) and one for visuals (pictures, videos, things we see in the "real world", etc.). That exquisitely boring lecturer mentioned in the section above is a teller. A person who takes advantage of only one of those two processing channels. Don’t be a teller. Be a show and teller, like back in grade school. To do this, add visuals to your training material. Please note: it’s not enough to just add any visual to your training material. Make sure it’s: Related (seriously, we’ve seen lots of clip art in training PPTs that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand) Large enough Not blurry Not confusing Not distracting Remember, the goal of adding visuals to training is to explain and clarify. Click to learn 25 graphic design tips for creating effective training visuals. Click to learn about six different types of graphics to support different types of training information. Click to see some engaging use of audio and visuals in job training e-learning courses. Don’t Create Training That "Speaks To" Your Workers Your workers have their own way of talking. They have a certain vocabulary and a certain tone. They have some shared experiences and knowledge. Don’t go and mess everything up by creating training that uses a different language than they do. Sure, we mean that literally. If your workers speak English fluently, train in English. But if you’ve got workers who speak Spanish, German, Thai, Russian, or another language more effectively, arrange training in those languages. But we also mean this is a less literal sense. Don’t talk over your workers or don’t insult them by talking down. Just talk TO them, like you would at the water cooler or at a company BBQ. Click to read tips for writing training materials. Click to see some examples of e-learning courses in multiple languages. Never Figure Out if Your Employees Learned from the Training Have a training session. Pass along a sign-in sheet. Have everyone present print their name and the date and then sign. That’s no way to determine if employees have learned from training (note: we’re not opposed to the sign-in sheet, but we are opposed to using nothing but the sign-in sheet in all training). In many or most cases, if it’s important enough to create and deliver training, it’s also important enough to create some form of test or assessment to see if your workers can satisfy your learning objectives. You remember those, right? As you may have guessed, your tests/assessments should be based on those learning objectives. Your learning objectives are what you want people to know or be able to do when training is over. So your tests should be about that (and not about other stuff). Click to read about creating tests and assessments for training. Click to read about evaluating training at four levels. Your Training: What Makes Training Really Bad? OK, now it’s your turn. Let us know about some bad training you’ve been in. Or let us know about some of the tough lessons you learned as a trainer. Just use the comments section below. The post 8 Training Mistakes to Avoid appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

We have a special interest in training for the paper manufacturing industry. Or, more specifically, for paper, pulp, tissue, corrugated, and converting. That’s where we started-working with a local paper mill to create a learning management system (LMS) and our first 3D-animated training materials. And that’s still the core of our business now. Given that, we thought we’d give you some tips that help improve your pulp, paper, tissue, and/or corrugated training program. Hope you find these helpful. Convergence Training is the world’s leading provider of training solutions for pulp, paper, tissue, and corrugated. Maybe  you’ve heard of us. Need more information? Just contact us to ask some questions or set up a demo. In addition to reading this article, click to download our free 39-page guide to effective paper manufacturing training. Tips for Improving Your Paper Manufacturing Training Program How’s the training program at your work place? Perfect, or could it use some improvement here and there? This isn’t intended to be an exhaustive collection of resources (although the Paper Manufacturing Training Guide you can download for free comes mighty close to that all by itself), but we’ll definitely do much more than just get you pointed in the right direction. So let’s get on with the tips, shall we? Get to Know Your Employees and Their Training Needs and Create Training Materials Suited to Them Effective training begins by knowing your employees and their learning needs and by creating learner-center training. Without this, you’ve got nothing. Click to learn more about how people learn. Click to learn more about adult learning principles. Click to read some steps of effective training based on cognitive psychology. Click to read a different set of training steps that will work well for instructor-led training. Click to learn about a book that explains how people learn and how to create effective training materials very well. Have a Comprehensive Plan for Creating Your Paper Manufacturing Training Program Don’t pull together your training program in an ad-hoc, uncoordinated manner. Instead, adopt a systematic, formulaic method and stick with it. We’ve created a free downloadable guide to help you do this. To get the guide, just scroll to the bottom of this article or click this link: paper manufacturing training guide. Use Training That Makes Strong Use of Visuals We’re visual animals and most of the information that comes to us comes from our eyes. Studies show that training with well-designed visuals (pictures, videos, animations, etc.) significantly increase learning, comprehension, retention, and later transfer on the job. Click to learn more about the importance of visuals in paper manufacturing training. Click to see 25 graphic design tips for effective training visuals. A sample of the Pulp Drying and Baling e-learning course from Convergence Training, above. Use the Right Language Your training materials will include  lots of written materials and lots of spoken words. Be sure you’re presenting them correctly. Click for some great tips on writing training materials. Click to learn about formatting your written training materials. Improve Your New Employee Onboarding Training New  employee onboarding is where your relationship with your new employees begins-make it count. Create a well thought out, organized onboarding experience that presents your policies, company goals, and expectations clearly and in a standard, consistent manner. This shows your new hires you’re serious about your culture and policies and that you value them as new employees and want to create a mutually beneficial, long-term relationship. Click to read more about using an LMS for new employee onboarding. Be Better Prepared to Train Workers to Perform New Job Procedures Like all manufacturing training, the training involved in paper manufacturing is heavy on learning procedures. Know which procedures people in different job roles need to learn and read up to learn the best ways to train people on procedures. Click to read more about teaching job procedures. Click to read about the "Training Within Industry" (the training program at the "foundation of lean manufacturing") method of teaching employees new job procedures. A sample of the Paper Machine Winding Basics e-learning course from Convergence Training, above. Be Better Prepared to Teach Your Manufacturing Processes It’s also important to teach workers about the manufacturing processes at their workplace. This makes it easier for them to do their job and also dramatically improves their ability to troubleshoot and/or optimize efficiency at work. One thing to consider for this is 3D-animated training materials, which can excel at this. Learn how this can help you reduce the time it takes to make a new hire one of your most valuable employees. Click to read about process training and troubleshooting. Know the Best Ways to Training People on Different Types of Information We’ve already mentioned to types of information you’ll have to train your workers-procedures and processes. But you’ll also have to train them about facts, concepts, and advanced job skills like process  optimization, troubleshooting, new product and/or process creation, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and more (this is where your high-value employees really make your company’s bottom line sing). Click to read more about different types of training for different types of information. Learn to "Chunk" Your Paper Training Materials There’s a limit to how much information your employees can process at any one time. Chunking is a way to help you manage what’s known as "cognitive load." Click to read more about chunking and paper training materials. Know How to Test Your Employees and Evaluate the Effectiveness of Their Training Training is nice, but you’ve got to evaluate it to know if it’s effective. Here are some how-to’s: Click to learn about training and testing. Click to learn a four-level method for evaluating training effectiveness. A sample of the Recaustisizing Basics e-learning course from Convergence Training, above. Have a Plan for OJT Training Don’t rely on an unstructured job shadowing/following program. Get a plan in place for maximum effectiveness. Click to read about structured OJT programs. Consider Using a Learning Management System (LMS) Made for the Paper Industry Need to administer your training to make it easy to import, create, assign, delivery, track, and report? An LMS is just the ticket. And what better than an LMS made for your industry. Click to learn what an LMS is. Click to get a free LMS buyer’s guide. Know Your Business Goals and Determine Training ROI Training doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Know what business goals you want to support, find the KPIs to track your contribution to those goals, and give some thought to explaining your training ROI at work. Click to read about training, business goals, and KPIs. Click to read about training and ROI. A sample of the Corrugated Box Basics e-learning course from Convergence Training, above. Teach Your Workers a Thing or Two about Lean Manufacturing No matter what industry you’re in, there are things you and your workers can learn from lean manufacturing, and they’ll benefit your company as a whole. We’ve pulled together some intro-level articles for you  below. Click to read about 5S. Click to read about Kaizen. Click to read about Kaizen Events. Click to read about Training Within Industry, the US-based WWII training program that got adopted in Japan and was arguably at the roots of lean manufacturing and the Toyota Production System (TPS). What Are Your Tips for Effective Paper Manufacturing Training? What about you? What tips would you add to this list? Use the comments section below to let us know. The post 15 Easy Tips for Effective Paper Manufacturing Training (Includes a Free Guide) appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

In a recent post, we looked at the role of a "competent person" for the MSHA Part 46 training regulations. That was so much fun, we thought we’d expand the net and turn our attention to a similar (but slightly different) role in the MSHA Part 48 training regulations: the MSHA-approved instructor. It would be handy if the people who provide the mandatory MSHA compliance training for Part 46 had the same name for their role that the people who do it for Part 48 do. But, they don’t. And it would be nice if the rules for becoming a Part 46 trainer were the same as the rules for becoming a Part 48 trainer, but that’s not how it works. Sometimes life just isn’t as easy or fun as we wish it were. In related news, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, and you didn’t get a pony for your birthday. But, given that unfortunate news, let’s turn our attention to Part 48, see what’s what, and make life that one little bit easier. At least for those of us in the mining safety world. Convergence Training is a training solutions provider with a number of mining safety e-learning courses that can be used for part of your Part 46 and Part 48 training and a learning management system (LMS) you can use to administer, deliver, assign, track, and report on that training. It even creates all the documentation required by Part 46. Contact us to ask some questions, learn more information, view some courses samples, or set up a demo of the LMS. Click to download our free 30-page guide to online MSHA training, recordkeeping, and training administration. What’s the Scope of Part 48 Again? Part 48 is the regulation for safety training at underground mines. Here’s how it’s stated in 48.1: "The provisions of this subpart A set forth the mandatory requirements for submitting and obtaining approval of programs for training and retraining miners working in underground mines. Requirements regarding compensation for training and retraining are also included. The requirements for training and retraining miners working at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines are set forth in subpart B of this part." Those of you reading closely may have noticed and perhaps been confused by the mention of surface mines in the quote from 48.1 above. To clear that up, here’s a second quote, this time from 48.21, which is the very beginning of subpart B. "The provisions of this subpart B set forth the mandatory requirements for submitting and obtaining approval of programs for training and retraining miners working at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines. Requirements regarding compensation for training and retraining are also included. The requirements for training and retraining miners working in underground mines are set forth in subpart A of this part. This part does not apply to training and retraining of miners at shell dredging, sand, gravel, surface stone, surface clay, colloidal phosphate, and surface limestone mines, which are covered under 30 CFR Part 46." What Is an MSHA-approved  Instructor for Part 48? The first mention of instructors in Part 48 comes up in 48.3. We’re going to quote this in length and then return to discuss smaller parts of it below. "(g) Except as provided in §48.7 (New task training of miners) and §48.11 (Hazard training) of this subpart A, all courses shall be conducted by MSHA approved instructors. (h) Instructors shall be approved by the District Manager in one or more of the following ways: (1) Instructors shall take an instructor’s training course conducted by the District Manager or given by persons designated by the District Manager to give such instruction; and instructors shall have satisfactorily completed a program of instruction approved by the Office of Educational Policy and Development, MSHA, in the subject matter to be taught. (2) Instructors may be designated by MSHA as approved instructors to teach specific courses based on written evidence of the instructors’ qualifications and teaching experience. (3) At the discretion of the District Manager, instructors may be designated by MSHA as approved instructors to teach specific courses based on the performance of the instructors while teaching classes monitored by MSHA. Operators shall indicate in the training plans submitted for approval whether they want to have instructors approved based on monitored performance. The District Manager shall consider such factors as the size of the mine, the number of employees, the mine safety record and remoteness from a training facility when determining whether instructor approval based on monitored performance is appropriate. (4) On the effective date of this subpart A, cooperative instructors who have been designated by MSHA to teach MSHA approved courses and who have taught such courses within the 24 months prior to the effective date of this subpart shall be considered approved instructors for such courses. (i) Instructors may have their approval revoked by MSHA for good cause which may include not teaching a course at least once every 24 months. Before any revocation is effective, the District Manager must send written reasons for revocation to the instructor and the instructor shall be given an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance before the District Manager on the matter. A decision by the District Manager to revoke an instructor’s approval may be appealed by the instructor to the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health or Administrator for Metal and Non-metal Safety and Health, as appropriate, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2424 (Coal) or Room 2436 (Metal and Nonmetal), Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939. Such an appeal shall be submitted to the Administrator within 5 days of notification of the District Manager’s decision. Upon revocation of an instructor’s approval, the District Manager shall immediately notify operators who use the instructor for training." Who Says if a Person Can Be an MSHA-approved Instructor for Part 48? The answer for this question is written in two different parts of the Part 48 regulation. First, in 48.3(g), we learn that: "Except as provided in §48.7 (New task training of miners) and §48.11 (Hazard training) of this subpart A, all courses shall be conducted by MSHA approved instructors." (Note: We’ll get back to those exceptions for New Tasks and Hazard Training shortly.) And then, in 48.3(h), we learn that: "Instructors shall be approved by the District Manager…" So, with the exception of New Task Training and Hazard Training, MSHA Part 48 safety training can only be delivered by an MSHA-approved instructor, and you get that approval from the MSHA District Manager. Need to contact your district manager? Here’s a link to the various District Managers and their contact information. How Does One Get Approval from MSHA to Be an MSHA-approved Instructor for Part 48? Good question. Our recommendation is to find your district manager, contact that office, and find out exactly what their procedure, requirements, and expectations are. You may find that this answer varies from district to district. So, again, here’s that list of the contact information for MSHA district managers. That said, the regulation says you can do it in one of three ways. We’ve listed them below, quoting directly from the regulation [this is from 48.3(h)]. Take an Instructor/Train the the Trainer Course from the MSHA District Manager Or By Persons Designated By District Manger "(1) Instructors shall take an instructor’s training course conducted by the District Manager or given by persons designated by the District Manager to give such instruction; and instructors shall have satisfactorily completed a program of instruction approved by the Office of Educational Policy and Development, MSHA, in the subject matter to be taught." Be Approved Based on Written Evidence of Your Qualifications and Teaching Experience "(2) Instructors may be designated by MSHA as approved instructors to teach specific courses based on written evidence of the instructors’ qualifications and teaching experience." Be Approved Based on Performance Teaching Classes Monitored by MSHA "(3) At the discretion of the District Manager, instructors may be designated by MSHA as approved instructors to teach specific courses based on the performance of the instructors while teaching classes monitored by MSHA. Operators shall indicate in the training plans submitted for approval whether they want to have instructors approved based on monitored performance. The District Manager shall consider such factors as the size of the mine, the number of employees, the mine safety record and remoteness from a training facility when determining whether instructor approval based on monitored performance is appropriate." You can read additional information about this from a 2003 MSHA Handbook titled Education and Training Procedures. Information about getting MSHA approval is in section II. Information about revoking approval is in section III. We’ll be including some references from this MSHA Handbook in addition to the actual regulation as we continue this blog post. Now, let’s take a closer look at each of the ways mentioned above. Taking a Course from Your MSHA District Manager to Become an MSHA-approved Instructor for Part 48 According to the MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook mentioned above, here’s how this process works: Applicants successfully complete an instructor’s training course conducted by MSHA and a program of instruction approved by MSHA for each subject they will teach. Applicants for approval as instructors and instructor trainers by Method 1 will: "a. Inform the District, in writing, that they would like to attend the MSHA instructor training course and indicate which subject matter courses or programs they intend to teach. b. Submit information to the District prior to the instructor training course listing their mining experience, training experience and training completed. c. Satisfactorily complete the 3-day instructor training course conducted by MSHA. At the completion of the instructor training course, the District will: a. Make a determination of each applicant’s knowledge of the subject matter. b. Make a determination of each applicant’s teaching skills and qualifications. c. Approve the applicant to teach specific courses based on the determinations made above. Inform instructors as soon as possible, in writing, of the approval. Enter their credentials into the instructor computer system (refer to Chapter VI of this handbook). When an applicant is not approved, follow the procedures in Section B of this chapter." (See pp. II-1 and II-2) So the key points here are that: You should contact the District Manager in writing if you want to attend an MSHA instructor training course You’ll have to specify the topics you want to be able to train on (check this MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook  to see a list of potential training topics-scroll down to section VI-6) You need to present your mining experience, training experience, and your own experiences having been a trainee during MSHA safety training at a mine site You’ll have to attend, complete, and be approved by MSHA after the training If you are approved, the Handbook says you’ll be notified ASAP. Also, you may have noticed the mention of an instructor complete system. You can find that here. Taking an Instructor/Train the Trainer Course from Persons Designated by Your MSHA District Manager (From an Instructor Trainer) You might have noticed that 48.3(h)(1) includes mention of becoming an MSHA-approved instructor after completing training "given by persons designated by the District Manager to give such instruction" in addition to getting the training from the MSHA district office as explained immediately above. According to the MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook mentioned above, here’s how this process works: "Applicants successfully complete an MSHA approved instructor training course and a program of instruction approved by MSHA for each subject they will teach. Applicants for approval as instructors by Method 2 will: a. Inform the instructor trainer, in writing, that they would like to attend the instructor training course and indicate which subject matter courses or programs they intend to teach. b. Submit information to the instructor trainer prior to the instructor training course describing their mining experience, training experience and training completed. c. Satisfactorily complete the MSHA approved instructor training course conducted by the instructor trainer. Upon completion of the instructor training course, the instructor trainer will submit the following to the District: a. Instructor File Update (MSHA Form 5000-13) for each applicant satisfactorily completing the course." (see p. II-2) So this process is very much like the process of taking the training from MSHA described above. One tip: It’s still a good idea to touch base with your district office first before doing this. In a conversation with an MSHA district-level training specialist, I was told that the training provided by one state grant program didn’t match that district’s requirements. It may save you a headache later if you check in with the your district, explain your plans, and get feedback from them in advance. Approval Based on Written Evidence of Qualifications and Teaching Experience According to the MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook mentioned above, here’s how this process works: "Applicants for approval as instructors by Method 3 will: a. Submit an application to the District requesting approval to teach based on qualifications and teaching experience and include a list of the specific courses they intend to teach. b. Submit information to the District describing their mining experience, training experience and training completed. Upon receipt of the above information, the District will: a. Make a determination of each applicant’s knowledge of the subject matter. b. Make a determination of each applicant’s teaching skills and qualifications. c. Approve the applicant to teach specific courses based on the determinations made above. Inform instructors as soon as possible, in writing, of the approval." (See page II-4) So you can get approval in this scenario without taking an instructor course. No doubt you’re experience and qualifications have to be impressive. Approval Based on Performance Teaching Classes Monitored by MSHA According to the MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook mentioned above, here’s how this process works: "Districts may designate persons as provisional instructors to teach specific courses. Each such instructor is subject to follow-up approval based on the District’s monitoring of classroom performance. Operators requesting approval of persons as provisional instructors by Method 4 will: a. Indicate in the training plan submitted for approval whether they want to have instructors approved based on monitored performance. b. Submit in writing reasons why other approval methods would impose an extreme hardship. c. List the designated persons they will use to teach specific courses. These persons are provisional instructors until the District monitors them. Upon receipt of the request from an operator, the District will: a. Review reasons why other instructor approval methods would impose an extreme hardship. Determine the validity of the request and consider such factors as size of the mine, number of employees, mine safety record (accidents, fatalities, etc.), and availability and accessibility of training. b. Approve the provisional instructors based on the criteria above. (This method is seldom approved except in cases of emergencies.) c. Inform the operator as soon as possible, in writing, of the approval. Enter the instructor’s credentials into the instructor computer system (refer to Chapter VI of this handbook). When the person is not approved, follow the procedures in Section B of this chapter. d. Arrange for monitoring of provisional instructors as soon as possible." (see pp. II-4 and II-5) So this method involves jumping through quite a few hoops the others don’t. You’ve got to submit the idea in the training plan and provide a written (and no doubt persuasive) explanation of why other methods impose "extreme hardship." What is MSHA Looking For Before Granting Approval? They’re looking for evidence of your subject matter knowledge and your teaching skills. As explained in that MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook  we’ve referred to repeatedly, here’s what they’re looking for.  Subject Matter Knowledge The District may use the following factors to determine an applicant’s subject matter knowledge: "The applicant’s work experience directly relates to the subject area. The applicant has MSHA and State qualification and certification. The applicant has completed MSHA approved courses. The applicant has related degrees from accredited institutions. The applicant has completed related classes at other institutions. Other pertinent information." (see p. II-5)  Teaching Skills "The District may use the following factors to determine an applicant’s teaching ability: Evaluation of micro-teaching sessions during the 3-day instructor training course. Teaching experience. Work experiences that are similar to teaching experiences (e.g., safety meetings, on-the-job training, etc.). Standardized evaluation by the District during monitoring of the applicant’s classes in the field. Education courses completed. Education degrees from accredited schools. Other pertinent information." (see pp. II-5 and II-6) Approval to Be Instructor for All Topics or Specific Topics Some people will be approved as instructors for all topics. Other will get ‘limited approval" that lets them lead training on some but not all topics. As the MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook  puts it: "‘Limited instructors’ are individuals approved for surface operations (IS) or underground operations (IU) to teach only specific courses under the appropriate subpart (A or B) of 30 CFR Part 48." (see p. II-5) We’re probably going to write up an additional  blog post that goes into this in more detail, so keep your eyes open for that in the future. Does MSHA Ever Deny/Withhold Approval? Yes, they do. If that happens, you can always try again. But approval is not a slam-dunk you’ve got to know your stuff. As explained in the MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook: "When an applicant is not approved based on evaluation by one of the four methods, the District sends notification to the applicant as soon as possible. This written notification must identify areas of deficiency or other reasons for disapproval. For example, the applicant did not attend the amount of required time during an instructor training class. The notification may also include how to correct the deficiency." (see pp. II-4 and II-5)So, if this does happen, at least they’ll tell you why and let you know how to correct the problem. Does MSHA Ever Revoke a Previous Approval? Yep. They do this too from time to time. Let’s see how this is addressed in Part 48-48.3(i) , specifically. "(i) Instructors may have their approval revoked by MSHA for good cause which may include not teaching a course at least once every 24 months. Before any revocation is effective, the District Manager must send written reasons for revocation to the instructor and the instructor shall be given an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance before the District Manager on the matter. A decision by the District Manager to revoke an instructor’s approval may be appealed by the instructor to the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health or Administrator for Metal and Non-metal Safety and Health, as appropriate, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2424 (Coal) or Room 2436 (Metal and Nonmetal), Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939. Such an appeal shall be submitted to the Administrator within 5 days of notification of the District Manager’s decision. Upon revocation of an instructor’s approval, the District Manager shall immediately notify operators who use the instructor for training." So if MSHA wants to do this, the District Manager has to send written reasons to the instructor, and the instructor then has a chance to "demonstrate or achieve compliance" on the matter. In addition, this can be appeal to the Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health or to the Administrator for Metal and Non-metal Safety and Health. The regulation lists one reason why approval may be revoked: "not teaching a course at least once every 24 months" (they want you to keep your knowledge and skills sharp). However, the MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook  we keep referring to gives some additional reasons why this may happen. Here’s what is written there: "The District Manager may revoke an instructor’s approval for reasons such as: the instructor has not taught a course at least once every 24 months; did not follow the approved training plan; during monitoring, did not show adequate knowledge of subject matter or adequate teaching skills; or, falsified training certificates. The reason(s) for revocation should be established in the record and be of sufficient gravity to justify revocation; otherwise, a notice of deficiency may be appropriate." (see p. III-1) For much more detailed information about this process, see chapter III of the MSHA Education and Training Procedures Handbook. What Was That about Instructors for New Task Training and Hazard Awareness Training? You may remember that in 43.8(g) there are some exceptions made for new task training and hazard training. Here’s what it said: "(g) Except as provided in §48.7 (New task training of miners) and §48.11 (Hazard training) of this subpart A, all courses shall be conducted by MSHA approved instructors." So, let’s go check out 48.7 and 48.11 and see what that’s all about. Instructors for 48.7, New Task Training of Miners Here’s the relevant information from 48.7(e): "(e) All training and supervised practice and operation required by this section shall be given by a qualified trainer, or a supervisor experienced in the assigned tasks, or other person experienced in the assigned tasks." So, MSHA-approved instructors CAN provide this training, but so can "a supervisor experienced in the assigned tasks, or other person experienced in the assigned tasks." In short, you don’t have to be an approved instructor, but you DO have to have experience in the task. Instructors for 48.11, Hazard Training Not to criticize MSHA here, but there’s no specific reference to instructors in this section. The closest related materials we could find in 48.11 are these: "(c) The training program required by this section shall be submitted with the training plan required by §48.3(a) (Training plans: Submission and approval) of this subpart A and shall include a statement on the methods of instruction to be used." "(e) Miners subject to hazard training shall be accompanied at all times while underground by an experienced miner, as defined in §48.2(b) (Definition of miner) of this subpart A." We’re going to try to touch base with MSHA and get some clarification on this. You may want to talk with MSHA as well. If you think you’ve got the inside scoop on this, please leave a note in the comments section below. MSHA-Approved Instructors for Part 48: Your Experiences What are your experiences? Are you an MSHA-approved instructor? Was it difficult to become one? What was the class like? What are your subject matters? What do you enjoy about being an instructor? What is the hardest thing about it?         The post What Is an MSHA-Approved Instructor in MSHA Part 48? appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

"What is clear is that a learning rich culture will emphasize informal learning and more open learning designs rather than relying only on formal training approaches. The learning infrastructure consists of all of the formal, informal, and incidental activities, systems, and policies that promote individual, team, and organizational learning and knowledge creation." Source: Watkins, K., 2013. Building a Learning Dashboard. The HR Review 16-21.

Alan Todd, Founder and CEO, Corp U: Today’s workplace culture is evolving at a break-neck pace as technological advances, shifting demographics, and new economic realities force corporations to reorganize, on average, every seven months. The challenge is real. Fortunately, so are the solutions. Read Alan’s full post: The Science of Learning: How to Develop Mindsets for Success in the Workplace Photo: My baby at seven months, on a beach in Soulac, France. August 2012. Personal collection.

"Knowledge is the economy. What used to be the means has today become the end. Knowledge is a river, not a reservoir. A process, not a product. It’s the pipes that matter, because learning is in the network." - George Siemens  in Knowing Knowledge (2006) Harnessing the proliferation of knowledge systems and the rapid pace of technological change is a key problem for 21st century organizations. When knowledge is more of a deluge than a trickle, old command-control methods of creating, controlling, and distributing knowledge encased in a container view do little to crack how we can tame this flood. How do you scaffold continual improvement in learning and knowledge production to maximize depth, dissemination and impact? A new approach is needed to apply multiple lenses to a specific organizational context. What the organization wants to enable, improve and accelerate: Give decision makers instant, ubiquitous and predictive access to all the knowledge in its universe - and connect it to everywhere. Rapidly curate, collate and circulate most-current content as a publication (print on demand, ebooks, etc.) when it is thick knowledge, and for everything else as a set of web pages (micro-site or blog), or individual, granular bits of content suitable for embed anywhere. Accelerate co-construction of new, most-current knowledge using peer review to deliver high-quality case studies, strategies, implementation plans, etc. How do you crack this? Here are some of the steps: Benchmark existing knowledge production workflows and identify bottlenecks, using multiple lenses and mixed methods. In the short term, fix publishing bottlenecks by improving existing systems (software) and performance support (people). In the longer view, adopt a total quality management (TQM) approach to build ‘scaffolding’ and ‘pipes’ that maximize production, capture, flow, and impact of high-quality, most-current knowledge production, with everything replicated in a centralized, unstructured repository. Multiple lenses are needed as no single way of seeing can unravel the complexity of knowledge flows: The lens of complexity: Systems thinking recognizes that we do not need a full understanding of the constituent objects in order to benchmark, analyze, or make decisions to improve processes, outcomes, and quality. The lens of learning: Learning theory provides the framework to map knowledge flows beyond production to dissemination to impact. The co-construction of knowledge provides a ‘deeper’, less fleeting perspective than conventional social media approaches. More pragmatically, a number of tools from learning and development and education research can be used to benchmark. The lens of talent: Staff lose precious time and experience frustration due to duplication of effort, repetitive tasks, and anxiety due to the risk of errors. They may feel overwhelmed by the complexity and intricacies of multiple systems, as well as by the requirement to learn and adapt to each one. Informal learning communities can bring together in the workflow to identify potential, develop competencies, and drive performance. Hiring, on boarding and handover can be used to identify gaps and improve fitness for purpose. The lens of culture: Determinants of quality through print-centric publishing processes are grounded in a rich cultural legacy, for example. Other specialists (IT, comms, etc.) also have their own, overlapping universes. Correct analysis of these and how they interact is indispensable. The lens of total quality management (TQM): This lens includes quality development, business process improvement (BPI), and risk management. It can help both in the initial diagnosis (process maps) and in designing systems and procedures for continual improvement. The lens of IT: Information technology management includes both agile methods as well as traditional requirements-and-specifications. Although such approaches on their own are unlikely to achieve the desired outcomes, their familiarity may facilitate acceptance and usage of the other lenses. The remaining pieces of the puzzle involve standards, mixed methods, and deliverables. Unified Knowledge Universe Photo: Lenses rainbow (csaveanu/flickr).

Toby Mundy on books as thick knowledge: [...]Books have a unique place in our civilisation [...] because they are the only medium for thick descriptions of the world that human beings possess. By ‘thick’ description, I mean an extended, detailed, evidence-based, written interpretation of a subject. If you want to write a feature or blog or wikipedia entry, be it about the origins of the first world war; the authoritarian turn in Russia; or the causes and effects of the 2008 financial crisis, in the end you will have to refer to a book. Or at least refer to other people who have referred to books. Even the best magazine pieces and TV documentaries — and the best of these are very good indeed — are only puddle-deep compared with the thick descriptions laid out in books. They are ‘thin’ descriptions and the creators and authors of them will have referred extensively to books to produce their work. I’ve found myself going back to searching for well-written, comprehensive, in-depth books for sourcing both foundational and most-current knowledge. This notion of ‘thick knowledge’ makes a lot of sense. Photo: Rainbow (Katey/flickr).

I’ve just posted on LSi.io a comprehensive (65-minute) presentation intended for humanitarian managers and decision makers working in organizations without prior experience in online or distance learning. It includes numerous practical examples and case studies, as well as a description of the best available learning theory and best practice approaches most appropriate for the humanitarian learning context. Here are the 10 questions addressed: It’s not about technology. Really? What learning problems do you want to solve? What kind of online learning can prepare humanitarians? What do you need to know about costs, time, and complexity? Where’s the money? Do you need scale? Can you do more than transmit information with e-learning? If experience is the best teacher, how can e-learning help? Does e-learning work at all? How does all this fit together? This slide set was originally presented to the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS) on 22 September 2014. It is available for LSi.io members via this link. LSi.io is a non-profit talent network for learning leaders from corporate, academic, and humanitarian/development sectors interested in solving wicked problems. (Note: there are some display problems on lsi.io which should be fixed soon. Thank you for your patience.)  

The table below summarizes criteria that you should consider to identify the appropriate approach for your online learning needs. At the top is the pedagogy and specific learning architecture. The key question is to ask: What does the learner get to do? Key decisions include the choice between self-guided learning (which scales up easily as it does not require synchronous interaction with other learners) and cohorts (which enable synchronous peer-to-peer relationships between learners). Criteria to distinguish approaches For a long time, a ferocious debate was waged between advocates of face-to-face learning who fetichized the value of IRL ("in the real world" interaction and advocates of online or distance learning. The evidence fairly definitively demonstrates that distance learning delivers slightly better learning outcomes, and that there is no learning efficacy benefit when you blend. However, your professional network is how you find your next job. It is also how you learn from others. Face-to-face contact is necessary for cultural reasons, at least for the current generation of humanitarians over 30. The bottom line is that in the humanitarian context, social relationships are so important that they provide the sole justification for a blended approach. Distance technology (read: Skype) can help scaffold, grow, and sustain these relationships and their value for learning, as can a well-designed online knowledge community. Next in the table are outcomes. The industry standard is Kirkpatrick. It really is that simple - and comprehensive. What is staggering is the dearth of learning evaluation in the sector. Training is assumed to be inherently good. This is no longer good enough, hence the necessity of not only reactive evaluation (the "happy sheet") but the impact of learning on performance at both individual and organizational levels. When considering costs, one needs to distinguish development costs from the expenses associated with delivery and evaluation, as well as ongoing quality development. Often, an organization will budget for development without considering what training will cost to deliver. Last but not least, and I’ve written and presented on this extensively elsewhere, is scaling up. Self-guided learning scales up at low cost and cohorts do not (very easily). This intersects with the question of pedagogy. This post is excerpted from a comprehensive (65 minutes) talk originally presented to the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS) on 22 September 2014. Its content is largely based on my experience in managing a 1.7 million CHF pipeline of online course development. The full set and recording are available for LSi.io members via this link. LSi.io is a non-profit talent network for learning leaders from corporate, academic, and humanitarian/development sectors interested in solving wicked problems. (Note: there are some display problems on lsi.io which should be fixed soon. Thank you for your patience.)  

My LSi.io presentation on the foundational knowledge about online learning in the humanitarian context could provide fodder for… an online course. And here are some of the learning objectives that would be included in such a course, together with a mind map showing some of the items addressed by the presentation. Summarize the challenges of adapting to constant technological change in learning design List humanitarian learning problems that can be addressed by online and distance learning Distinguish between three evidence-based learning approaches relevant to the humanitarian context Explain the main criteria used to distinguish these approaches Distinguish development costs from delivery costs Compare cost vs. efficacy for three learning approaches Explain the relevance of blended learning for humanitarian learning Distinguish between self-guided and cohort-based learning Scope the complexity of an online learning project Identify possible sources of funding for online humanitarian education Identify factors to consider when developing a learning system Evaluate when scaling up is relevant to developing online learning Relate humanitarian training needs to the affordances of New Learning Summarize the benefits of scenario-based simulation for humanitarian training Compare the learning outcomes between distance learning and face-to-face Summarize changes in the nature of knowledge Reflect on the significance of changes in the nature of knowledge for humanitarian learning Online learning 101 mind map This post is based on a comprehensive (65 minutes) talk originally presented to the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS) on 22 September 2014. Its content is largely based on my experience in managing a 1.7 million CHF pipeline of online course development. The full set and recording are available for LSi.io members via this link. LSi.io is a non-profit talent network for learning leaders from corporate, academic, and humanitarian/development sectors interested in solving wicked problems. (Note: there are some display problems on lsi.io which should be fixed soon. Thank you for your patience.)

There are myriad approaches to online learning. I’ve selected three. One of them should no longer be recommended. This is the production of information modules that test information recall. In some cases, aware of the limited outcomes using this approach, attempts have been made to encourage reflection or analysis, but then the limitation of the approach leaves the learner with limited or no formative feedback and reductive forms of assessment. We need to stop producing these "click-click" modules, as they are teaching all of the wrong things, even if the subject matter content is spot on. They are purely transmissive, leaving the learner to passively consume information. They substitute multimedia bells and whistle for substance. Their only real usefulness, in the past, was to introduce people in the sector to "e-learning" as a digital version of transmissive trainings in which the slide deck is the pedagogy. The other two approaches, fortunately, are grounded in more constructive (and constructivist) pedagogies. They have been shown to scaffold, support and promote realistic outcomes that matter for developing competencies around analysis, team work and leadership. Once we realize that how we teach is at least as important as what we teach, these two distinct approaches open up new possibilities for humanitarian learning. They are the topic of much of my presenting, which reviews the evidence, case studies, and practical aspects of each. Three online learning approaches relevant for humanitarians This infographic is excerpted from a comprehensive (65 minutes) talk originally presented to the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS) on 22 September 2014. Its content is largely based on my experience in managing a 1.7 million CHF pipeline of online course development. The full set and recording are available for LSi.io members via this link. LSi.io is a non-profit talent network for learning leaders from corporate, academic, and humanitarian/development sectors interested in solving wicked problems. (Note: there are some display problems on lsi.io which should be fixed soon. Thank you for your patience.)  

Having presented three online learning approaches, here are three aspects to consider together: What is the cost of developing an online course based on each approach? What is the cost of delivering the course, per learner or per hour? What is the learning efficacy (outcome) that can be expected? Costs vs. efficacy Development costs for modules are comparatively expensive, as they are media-intensive and require complex production and technical skills. Often this leads to under-spending on the instructional design. The main attraction of this approach is its low delivery cost. It scales really well. Once you have a self-guided module online, the delivery cost is marginal. All of a sudden, you can abandon the elaborate schemes in place mostly to restrict access to limited numbers of seats. Unfortunately, the death knell for this approach is its limited efficacy. It doesn’t work very well and, probably, only marginally better than giving a motivated learner the raw content to prepare. Developing an online, scenario-based simulation does not necessarily require intensive media production. We are not talking about building a humanitarian ‘Second Life’. Combine compelling, well-written prose with a few images. What matters is the complexity of the scenario’s decision points, the diversity of its cast of characters, and the design of a scorecard that provides rich formative feedback. Add a time element to put the pressure on. The development costs can be high, but the investment is in the design of a powerful experience for the learner, not in the bells and whistles. Best of all, such simulations can be self-guided (while modeling collaboration and team work by interaction with the fictional cast of characters) and therefore have the same marginal delivery cost as the ineffective information modules do. And, of course, there is a powerful case (and accumulated evidence) that allowing people to make choices and experience their consequences (as success, failure or somewhere in between) generates a virtuous cycle of engagement, retrieval, and retention. The knowledge community concept starts with an online course in which peer-to-peer relationships are the basis for the co-construction of knowledge. A learning environment like Scholar, grounded in Bill Cope’s and Mary Kalantzis’s New Learning, can fully align the way we learn to the way we work and collaborate. Because learners are the ones producing knowledge, the roles of teachers and experts are transformed. A seemingly absurd parallel can be made between this approach and reality television. When learners are teachers and teachers are learners, the development costs are low. The fact that peer review and other forms of learner dialogue require a synchronous cohort implies more-than-marginal delivery costs, but does not prevent scale. A large cohort can be split into smaller communities, reinforcing bonds of knowledge and collaboration. Together, I believe that scenario-based simulations and knowledge communities can sustain an agenda for new forms of humanitarian learning and assessment. And, yes, lower costs along the way. This infographic is excerpted from a comprehensive (65 minutes) talk originally presented to the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS) on 22 September 2014. Its content is largely based on my experience in managing a 1.7 million CHF pipeline of online course development. The full set and recording are available for LSi.io members via this link. LSi.io is a non-profit talent network for learning leaders from corporate, academic, and humanitarian/development sectors interested in solving wicked problems. (Note: there are some display problems on lsi.io which should be fixed soon. Thank you for your patience.)  

The industry to tackle growing humanitarian and development challenges has expanded rapidly since the mid 1990s, but not nearly as fast as the scope and scale of the problems have spiraled. Professionalization was therefore correctly identified as a major challenge of its own, with over a decade of research led by Catherine Russ and others clearing the rubble to allow the sector to make sense of what needs to be done. The bottom line diagnosis is a now-familiar litany: a shortage of people and skills, lack of quality standards, inability to scale. Despite the growth of traditional university programs to credential specialized knowledge of these challenges and how to tackle them, young people armed with multiple masters find that they really start learning upon entering their first NGO. They face a dearth of entry-level positions (sometimes spending years as "interns" or other forms of under-recognized labor) and discover professional networks closed to them because legitimacy is based on shared experience, not formal qualifications. Certified professional development run by universities fail because these institutions are ill-equipped to deliver sub-degree qualifications, and rely on methods that seldom provide experience. This problem is not specific to humanitarians, but may be more acute because of the nature of the work and the knowledge involved. Meanwhile, specialized organizations that provide training, like REDR in the UK or Bioforce in France, have become increasingly good at developing competency-based certification for behavior that matches real-world needs. Their business model works best at small scale and high cost. They have also succeeded in establishing that the credential of value is one that is defined by and agreed upon by practitioners. However, their efforts remain mired in a legacy of transmissive training and a tradition of "workshop culture" that are difficult to overcome. Also, by the time a competency framework is described, new contexts and needs that dictate new behaviors have predictably emerged but cannot be captured by the rigidity of framework. A few organizations are trying to organize the online delivery of click-through information modules. Unfortunately, this approach has yet - to put it politely - to show measurable positive performance outcomes. And, admittedly, it is going to be tough to prove that three hours of clicking through bullet points followed by an information recall quiz corresponds to what 21st century humanitarians need to deliver. (Having said that, it is probably no worse than sitting in a workshop with a ‘trainer’ doing the clicking, whether in terms of learning efficacy or sheer pleasure). Save The Children’s Humanitarian Leadership Academy stands out in a number of ways in the current landscape. Their analysis is grounded in the rock-solid research by Russ and others, and they have assembled a ferociously professional team that combines all of the right job functions, encompassing both folks from the sector and those who are new to it. The project is rightly ambitious, given the scope and scale of the challenges faced, and they have succeeded in securing a large chunk of their funding needs from the UK government. They aim to serve not just Save’s training needs, but to become the connector for a broad set of organizations working together, trying to convert decades of preaching about capacity building in developing countries into practice. Last but not least, they are trying to think strategically about their use of digital technology for learning. Has the time come, as a respected high priest of corporate learning recently suggested, for a "Pan Humanitarian College of Conscience"? Could it be as simple as bringing everyone together to share content, resources, and determine quality and credentialing standards together? I don’t think so, mostly because the existing content, resources, and approaches are not getting the job done. We need to do new things in new ways, not an educational "We are the world". Truly disruptive humanitarian education leverages the affordances of educational technology to offer continual learning experiences that foster sense-making and network formation linking young and old humanitarians in global practices, strengthening existing professional networks because collaboration and team work are how you complete the mission. Such experiences could focus on precisely what is unsaid and untaught in formal curricula, and considered unattainable by training. Even formal courses that are about acquiring foundational knowledge can have learners co-constructing knowledge together. These peers then find themselves part of a knowledge community where, as alumni, they are now in a position to provide support - and benefit from the new learnings of others in a virtuous cycle. This paradigm shift occurs when how we learn is aligned to how we work: collaboration, team work and leadership are premised on peer-to-peer relationships, across the diversity of contexts and people that humanitarians find themselves in. Such an approach fosters critical thinking and practice around specific areas of work but - and perhaps more importantly - around cross-cuting ways of thinking and doing. Yes, you could build courses that tap into knowledge communities around climate change, logistics, or market-based approaches. Focus on an area of work, zero in on its wicked problems, and drive learning efforts where they are most needed, producing knowledge that is directly applicable to work. Going further, new ways of learning foster new forms of leadership and innovation in the face of a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world, through courses that teach and deepen realist evaluation or tap into experiences from outside the sector - linking resilience and sustainability - to help new ways of thinking and doing emerge. Last but not least, this new humanitarian learning needs to include not just future professionals but also volunteers. As the Red Cross Red Cross Movement has taught us , volunteers are far more than part-time humanitarians. They are embedded in their communities and learn to use the cultural and tacit knowledge from belonging to empower themselves, their families, neighbors, and every member of the community - whatever their status, in a fully inclusive way. Making sense of what happens in your community in this century, more so than ever before, requires that you establish a fluid two-way connection to global knowledge. While these are admittedly lofty objectives, the science of learning combined with educational technology are poised to make this more than just wishful thinking. Scaling up is currently center stage in both education (thank you, MOOCs) and humanitarian realms. There have been a small but significant number of well-researched, successful, small-scale pilots to foster new forms of humanitarian learning. The learners who participated in such experiments got it - even if some managers and decision makers did not. The missing link remains the network of learning leaders willing and able to think and fund the foundations for such an endeavor, and then to start building its scaffolding. And, who knows, such a group might find that Pan Humanitarian College of Conscience is a good fit to name what we might make together. Photo: Young man at a vocational education and training center, Marrakesh, Morocco. © Dana Smillie / World Bank

Let's get right to the point: LearningSpaces is our fun and simple-to-use platform that enables informal learning and knowledge sharing in organizations. It's time to challenge the old paradigm of the top-down, bottom-heavy learning and to allow anybody to share and access the knowledge and experience they want, in ways they are already familiar with. I guess the first moment I realized that something had to change was when I was a Teaching Assistant for a third-year course for Sociology students. The professor put a lot of effort in making the class a great success: we had short presentations in tutorial groups, student-moderated discussions, mandatory graded essays with lots of feedback, etc. In my second year the number of enrolments doubled (it was an elective course). Reviewing all the papers became a full-time job. The interesting thing was, the students wanted more. They wanted to read each other's submissions, continue discussions after class, and share links to articles they found. And instead of looking at the University LMS (Blackboard), they went to Facebook and made a group. I remember awkwardly joining that group. Fast-forward a couple of years of working in software development. We have been working on LearningSpaces prototypes for a while, and now we are working hard towards our launch december 1st. Having such a clear goal works extremely motivating. But even better is having some people already secretly using our app while it's in beta. For example, a small group of General Medicine residents have started to collect their internal talks in LearningSpaces: A small group of General Medicine residents have started to collect their internal talks in LearningSpaces. Should your team or organization also be part of our beta? Get in touch via Twitter.

We're developing LearningSpaces in Ember, with a Rails backend. We'll use this blog to share our experiences. Any questions? Hit us up on Twitter. When testing your Ember frontend you don't want to be making actual requests to your backend. Using Embers FixtureAdapter gets you a bit further, but after a while the differences between your actual backend and the fixture adapter can trip you up a bit. Here's where the Pretender library comes in handy! Pretender allows you to mock any HTTP requests you app makes and return a given response. Pretender is a JS library and so there isn't a gem readily available. Luckily there is a Bower package that we can pull in using rails-assets.org: # Gemfile source "https://rubygems.org" source 'https://rails-assets.org' ruby "2.1.0" # ... group :test do # ... gem "rails-assets-pretender" end Include Pretender and it's dependencies in your spec_helper.js file: # spec/javascripts/spec_helper.js //= require route-recognizer //= require FakeXMLHttpRequest //= require pretender And you can now stub HTTP requests in your specs: var server; module('Integration: Comment on Chapter', { setup: function () { server = new Pretender(function () { this.get('/api/v1/learning_spaces/1', function (request) { return MockResponse.ok(Fixtures.LearningSpace); }); }); }, teardown: function () { server.shutdown(); } }); The MockResponse.ok that we're returning is a simple helper wrapper around Pretenders responses: var MockResponse = { ok: function (data) { return [200, { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' }, JSON.stringify(data)]; }, }; We've tucked away our mock response data in a Fixtures object to keep our tests clean, but you can return any valid JSON you need. Now any request you make to /api/v1/learning_spaces/1 will be picked up by Pretender, no actual requests will be made and the JSON that you specified will be returned. And that's it! Happy testing!

A pretty common usecase in web apps is showing details about the currently logged in user. This kind of functionality is something that should be easily accessible in your Ember controllers if you need it. Here's a way to do just that using a Mixin. LS.CurrentUserMixin = Ember.Mixin.create({ needs: ['application'], init: function () { this._super(); // we only need to fetch and parse the current // user once, after that we store it on the // application controller if (!this._application().get('currentUser')) { this.store.pushPayload('user', { user: this_.payload().user }); this._application().set('currentUser', this.store.getById('user', this_.payload().user.id)); } }, currentUser: function () { return this._application().get('currentUser'); }.property(), // private _application: function () { return this.get('controllers.application'); }, _payload: function () { return JSON.parse($('meta[itemprop="current-user"]').attr('content')); // you could also fetch this from and endpoint like users/me } }); You can now use this in your controllers like so: LS.UserIndexController = Ember.ObjectController.extend( LS.CurrentUserMixin, { isCurrentUser: function () { return this.get('currentUser') === this.get('model'); }.property('currentUser', 'model'), }); And then in your handlebars templates like this: <span class="avatar"> <img {{bind-attr src='http://blog.learningspaces.io/currentUser.avatar_url' }}> </span> As you might be able to tell, we're preloading the JSON representing our current user in our app by setting a meta tag in our application.html.erb. Here's how you can do just that: <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta charset="utf-8"> <!-- include javascripts etc --/> <% if current_user.authenticated? %> <meta itemprop="current-user" content="<%= UserSerializer.new(current_user).to_json %>"> <% end %> </head> </html> A note on testing To be able to set any user you need in your tests we can create a little helper function: function setCurrentUser (user) { LS.CurrentUserMixin.reopen({ init: function () {}, currentUser: function () { return this.store.pushPayload('user', user); }.property() }); } And now you can use this in your tests without needing any meta-tags containing JSON: moduleFor('controller:chapter_index', 'Chapter Index Controller', { needs: ["controller:application"], setup: function () { setCurrentUser(someUserObjectYouNeed); } });

We want to help our users and provide them with an easy way to give feedback on what we do. Helpful.io is awesome for that because it's easy to implement and very scalable. We've set up an account so our whole team will get an email when a user submits a helpful message. To implement it in our app we used our standard modal for writing the message. The email of the user that is logged in is already embedded in the form. As you can see we use ember validations to validate that there is a message and block the user from submitting the form until the message is written. Helpful needs a URL and your Helpful.io account name. We don't want that in the code so we put it in our .ENV file and load it as a global variable in the JS like this: LS.ENV = { "helpfulUrl": '<%= ENV["HELPFUL_URL"] %>', "helpfulAccount": '<%= ENV["HELPFUL_ACCOUNT"] %>' } In the controller we submit the form with jQuery so we can close the modal after submitting, also there is one more check to see if the model is valid. LS.HelpfulController = Ember.ObjectController.extend( Ember.Validations.Mixin, LS.CurrentUserMixin, { actions: { submit: function () { if(this.get('isValid')) { $("#helpful-form").submit(); this.send('closeModal'); } }, cancel: function () { return this.send('closeModal'); } }, validations: { content: { presence: true } } }); As you can see it's very easy to implement helpful. So go on and try out the app and if you need help go to the menu and click on Help Me. Have fun!

We went to the opening symposium of the National Education Week (Dutch). The main theme of the event was The Future Of Education, with a big focus on the role of software, or rather the "digital revolution", as they called it. Professor Sietske Waslander, member of the Education Council of the Netherlands, spoke about how Software can help us provide tailor-made education. She compared this to the mass customization we also see in consumer products like cars and sneakers. But, she added, before we can customize we first need to standardize. We weren't sure what to think about this. If we're talking about standardizing learning goals, like reaching level B2 in German, then sure! But wether you reach that goal by watching tons of German movies, with Duolingo, or by skyping with native speakers should be up to you, right? Matthijs Leendertse, founder of ELM Concepts argued that a lot of todays jobs won't exist 10 or 20 years from now. And we don't know what kind of jobs we will have by then. But the demands will most definitely be higher. So why aren't we innovating our education system? The debate after the lectures revealed that teachers often feel overrun by new policies - especially ones related to IT. They are forced to implement "innovations" like the interactive whiteboard, without getting the time or resources necessary to support the innovation. Innovation should happen bottom-up rather than top-down! Innovation should happen bottom-up rather than top-down! Innovation is a long shot when our educators regard it as a burden. But aren't our students actually already innovating? Aren't they already acquiring those 21st century skills themselves? We believe they are.