ENG27SQ
Division Supervisor 
MS Paint Guru
Posts: 653
|
Post by ENG27SQ on Jan 15, 2008 17:00:48 GMT -5
Simple enough, which method of training do you prefer? What, in your opinion, is the better of the two? Or are they equal in getting the message across to the students?
IMO: Both. I always hear classroom is better but I think if both are used, the students will learn double of what you think. Another thing is confidence. If they aren't confident in doing a task and only get classroom, what good is it? They need the hands on training so they can prove/get over the fear or obstacle in their way to successfully complete it.
Whats everyone else's opinions?
Hopefully papacheese and other instructors on here can shed some light on experience with students doing both or just one.
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Jan 15, 2008 23:22:13 GMT -5
Which is better? The answer is: depends....
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I used to be a history teacher...so all my training and experience was geared towards classroom delivery of cognative materials (as opposed to psycho-motor, ie: hands on). Non-tangible stuff is best delivered in a classroom environment by people comfortable and skilled in that method. Other stuff is better delivered in a "Look..here's how it's done, now you do it" environment...all the talking in the world won't teach it.
No matter what method you use or like, the key (IMHO) is making whatever you're teaching relevent and useful to your audience. Give them something they can USE and everyone pays attention...tell them arcane facts that have little or no meaning to their everyday existence and it goes in one ear and out the other. This is especially true for firefighters...they want stuff that is not only important, but USEFUL.
Personally, my strength is in classroom delivery, only because that's how I was taught...guys like gotwork, tootall, Rev and a host of others are highly skilled in delivering really great hands on stuff (not knocking your classroom talents guys, just pointing out one of the places you really shine).
Some stuff has to be classroom...while others can only be effective when doing it...
|
|
|
|
Post by windtunnel on Jan 16, 2008 2:33:09 GMT -5
Pappa cheese very well said.....(i apologize if this is verbose ahead of time)through my studies at college towards becoming a teacher i have had to go through educational pyschology, philosophy, and foundation classes .....the most important lesson that i have learned throughout these classes so far would have to be organization....i think this step is often overlooked! without proper planning lessons turn into big CF's! in other words if you are going to teach a lesson take the extra time to plan out what you are going to do, how much time you are going to take, and what you need for the lesson... as for the main question of which method is more effective i think it would be a combination...while classroom builds a strong foundation of knowledge of a certain skill to the firefighters, while practical evolution builds a strong sense of self confidence and innovation...
|
|
|
|
Post by FirstDue312 on Jan 16, 2008 2:39:16 GMT -5
Following off of what Doug said here, simply I think you need a fair balance of both. With firefighting becoming such an amorphous and ever changing "thing", a firefighter, EMT, or whoever may percieve something a certain way in the classroom. Yet, when you actually experience it in a practical setting, it can be a lot different than an instructor might have described his or her experience with it. So, more or less a fair balance of "this is how you do it" and "now try it for yourself" seems, IMHO, as the best way to learn something.
|
|
|
|
Post by voyager9 on Jan 16, 2008 7:36:43 GMT -5
Which is better? The answer is: depends.... A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I used to be a history teacher... Is this because you lived it?? ;D I would concur with everyone else that for most things a mix of classroom and practical works best. Take advantage of the classroom to explain the theory, the "why's" and then use the practical to demonstrate and experience the "How's" (and Not How's). |
|
|
|
Post by kgimeno on Jan 16, 2008 9:59:05 GMT -5
I agree, as well. My education is in psychology and in college I took develpmental psych and psych of learning. Everyone's brain funtions differently. I know this is a "no duh!" statement but some people seem to forget this when they teach. There are people in this business who are brilliant, but have the attention span of a housefly. They have trouble paying attention in a classroom setting but the light bulb will come on when they see how it's done and actually do it. Others wil stumble and bumble through hands on training unless they are taught how to do it first. The bottom line is when you plan any kind of training you need to have some sort of theoretical foundation in a lecture before you reinforce with hands on. The best way to teach is to know your audience first.
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Jan 16, 2008 14:35:19 GMT -5
Which is better? The answer is: depends.... A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I used to be a history teacher... Is this because you lived it?? ;D I would concur with everyone else that for most things a mix of classroom and practical works best. Take advantage of the classroom to explain the theory, the "why's" and then use the practical to demonstrate and experience the "How's" (and Not How's). My buddy voyager....REAL nice. Expanding a bit, some topics don't have a "hands-on" option at all; these can be the toughest to teach cause we're all action-oriented individuals (or at least we THINK we are). |
|
