Certifying Learnsoft Training

#6191

Certifying Learnsoft Training | 28 November, 2000

How do your customers certify your training courses before they use them to train employees?

#6192

Re: Certifying Learnsoft Training | 28 November, 2000

We have a "try before you buy" rental program to let companies satisfy themselves that the materials meet their requirements. Actual customer evaluations seem to run the gamut from a decision by a quality manager that the content meets the company spec, through full committee product evaluations, usually with competitive comparison (such as was done by Lucent's educational subcommittee - this was a year long process), to the kind of active test with employees such as the one done by John Hagan at Laser Drive.

#6193

Re: Certifying Learnsoft Training | 28 November, 2000

How do they deal with the issue of disagreements with the answers that Rovell has programmed into its CDROM?

#6194

Re: Certifying Learnsoft Training | 28 November, 2000

When the original material was developed, we worked with a team of industry experts from a minimum of four different companies. The material was validated by them, down to the last test question. So this has not, to date, been a particularly thorny problem.

Times, standards, and understandings do change, however. When Lucent reviewed our operator ESD course, they noted three very specific items they could not live with. We discussed the issues, and modified the course to reflect the newer practices. (one, for example, dealt with conductive surfaces on workstations, which had been a practice in some companies when HBM was well understood, but CDM was not understood at all). We fixed it in the next release, and moved on.

The big issue here is identifying what is truly industry practice and industry standards, as opposed to company specific deviations from such standards and practices. In the latter case, we usually suggest simple handouts as the quick fix. We emphasize always that documented company workmanship standards take precedence over the content of the course.

In the test, of course, this is more problematic. In the couple of cases that have been brought to our attention, we have either fixed the question(s), or if there was no agreed solution, replaced it/them. Whether such changes occur in a maintenance release or at the next scheduled upgrade is a question of the magnitude of the problem.

Of course we welcome any very specific feedback, feedback that says: this specific question is flawed in this way - and it can be fixed by ....

#6195

Re: Certifying Learnsoft Training | 28 November, 2000

Yes, it makes sense that company peculiar issues should not be included in a general training program, but say the issue delt with: * Course indicating [through correct responses to testing] that component leads should not be handled because it could reduce solderability. * When an equally valid reason that component leads should not be handled is because it could cause the leads of delicate components to be bent [and that answer many not be acceptable in the testing].

... yet the course, if it did not address both alternatives, would be incorrect. This is an example of common, not company peculiar, practice.

How does Rovell handle similar issues and update disks?

#6196

Re: Certifying Learnsoft Training | 28 November, 2000

We are currently in release 1.4 and 1.5 of the majority of our courses, partly because we do fix minor errors that do crop up, and release maintenance updates.

I infer from your comment that you take exception to one or more of the test questions in one of the component courses, which is fair ball. If I had to guess, which I need to do at this point - lacking more specific information - I would think such a question would have been found in the resistor or capacitor course, where it arose with reference to through hole components of this type.

Clearly you are correct that lead bending and resultant co-planarity problems with fine pitch semiconductor components is a serious problem, and equally clearly, trainees should not be penalized for giving the more sophisticated answer - unless the wording or context is such that the component under discussion is clearly an axial or radial through hole device, where coplanarity is not the issue.

If we have indicated otherwise, as is suggested by the nature of your question, this is clearly an error, and I would certainly appreciate knowing both the specific course and the section of the test where this occurs, so that it can be fixed in the next revision. Our revisions, by the way, normally are free for new releases within 90 days of purchase. Beyond that time, they typically approximate 10% of the original cost for update - which we think is quite reasonable. ( I wish a certain Washington State software developer worked on the same basis - but then my home is somewhat more modest than his :-).)

#6197

Re: Certifying Learnsoft Training | 29 November, 2000

No, the specific question is on the "Soldering & Rework" disk.

Yours is a good approach to updates. [No lakeside baronal mansion, eh???]

I have sent a list of unusual questions to Evelyn that includes the above example.

It's difficult to document issues with test questions [as you know] because: * After answering incorrectly, people naturally try to select the correct answer and, when they get it correct, the program moves on to the next question [as it should] * Questions do not necessarily repeat in subsequent retests.

#6198

Re: Certifying Learnsoft Training | 29 November, 2000

This we obviously need to fix! Thank you for finding it, Dave.

re baronial mansion - afraid not. Nor do we have shrink wrap licensing that requires your services as a "towel boy".

As for documenting errors, there is a hook - in most, if not all of the titles - which I will not describe online. Administrators/Reviewers can, under our direction, identify the exact question and variant, and look at all variants to the same teaching point. Offline for details....