Computer-based training: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|glossary|[[File:CBT.jpg|thumb|center|An ethical learning opportunity pictorialised, yesterday]]}}A bedfellow to [[continuing professional development]], computer based training is one of those curses of [[Inhouse counsel|inhouse]] life that help [[senior management]] implement to satisfy themselves that their organisations are compliant with prevailing policy, their trading floors stocked with morally charged, uncompromised and preternaturally wise philanthropists who will stop at nothing to ensure progressive, liberal enlightenment pervades their commercial activities. | {{a|glossary|[[File:CBT.jpg|thumb|center|An ethical learning opportunity pictorialised, yesterday]]}}A bedfellow to [[continuing professional development]], computer based training is one of those curses of [[Inhouse counsel|inhouse]] life that help [[senior management]] implement to satisfy themselves that their organisations are compliant with prevailing policy, their trading floors stocked with morally charged, uncompromised and preternaturally wise philanthropists who will stop at nothing to ensure progressive, liberal enlightenment pervades their commercial activities. | ||
[[CBT]]s come in two varieties, both of which are replete with stock photos of handsome, cosmopolitan executives facing implausible ethical dilemmas through the lens of their mobile devices, in the manner of those frisky photo-comics from ''My Guy'' magazine: | [[CBT]]s come in two varieties, both of which are replete with stock photos of handsome, cosmopolitan executives facing implausible ethical dilemmas through the lens of their mobile devices, in the manner of those frisky photo-comics from ''My Guy'' magazine: | ||
*'''Easy ones''': Profoundly patronising, graphics-rich interactive modules where handsome cosmopolitan actors play out unfeasible hypothetical scenarios, and candidates are given a multi-choice question, the correct answer to which is either “escalate at once to compliance” (if only one answer is permitted) or “all of the above” (where candidates are asked to assess a list of perfidies). | *'''Easy ones''': Profoundly patronising, graphics-rich interactive modules where handsome cosmopolitan actors play out unfeasible hypothetical scenarios, and candidates are given a multi-choice question, the correct answer to which is either “escalate at once to compliance” (if only one answer is permitted) or “all of the above” (where candidates are asked to assess a list of perfidies). | ||
*'''Hard ones''': Excessively dense, long-winded, detailed and arcane treatises, usually written by someone in {{tag|compliance}} with the prose style of—well, of an experienced compliance officer—where the resulting questions are verbose, ambiguous, predicated on incorrect assumptions, incapable of unequivocal answer and in any case do not match any of the alternatives offered by way of multi-choice answer. Passing this kind of test — the stipulated pass rate is usually 80% or more — requires a persistent sequence of guessing. If you are lucky, the training won't randomise questions for each sitting of the competence test, so you'll only need to do it three or four times. | *'''Hard ones''': Excessively dense, long-winded, detailed and arcane treatises, usually written by someone in {{tag|compliance}} with the prose style of—well, of an experienced compliance officer—where the resulting questions are verbose, ambiguous, predicated on incorrect assumptions, incapable of unequivocal answer and in any case do not match any of the alternatives offered by way of multi-choice answer. Passing this kind of test — the stipulated pass rate is usually 80% or more — requires a persistent sequence of guessing. If you are lucky, the training won't randomise questions for each sitting of the competence test, so you'll only need to do it three or four times. | ||
[[File:Myguy.jpg|thumb|left|A CBT model yesterday]] | |||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||
*[[Continuing professional development]] | *[[Continuing professional development]] | ||
{{draft}} | {{draft}} | ||
{{egg}} | {{egg}} | ||
Revision as of 11:26, 18 October 2019
|
A bedfellow to continuing professional development, computer based training is one of those curses of inhouse life that help senior management implement to satisfy themselves that their organisations are compliant with prevailing policy, their trading floors stocked with morally charged, uncompromised and preternaturally wise philanthropists who will stop at nothing to ensure progressive, liberal enlightenment pervades their commercial activities.
CBTs come in two varieties, both of which are replete with stock photos of handsome, cosmopolitan executives facing implausible ethical dilemmas through the lens of their mobile devices, in the manner of those frisky photo-comics from My Guy magazine:
- Easy ones: Profoundly patronising, graphics-rich interactive modules where handsome cosmopolitan actors play out unfeasible hypothetical scenarios, and candidates are given a multi-choice question, the correct answer to which is either “escalate at once to compliance” (if only one answer is permitted) or “all of the above” (where candidates are asked to assess a list of perfidies).
- Hard ones: Excessively dense, long-winded, detailed and arcane treatises, usually written by someone in compliance with the prose style of—well, of an experienced compliance officer—where the resulting questions are verbose, ambiguous, predicated on incorrect assumptions, incapable of unequivocal answer and in any case do not match any of the alternatives offered by way of multi-choice answer. Passing this kind of test — the stipulated pass rate is usually 80% or more — requires a persistent sequence of guessing. If you are lucky, the training won't randomise questions for each sitting of the competence test, so you'll only need to do it three or four times.
