Computer-based training: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
*'''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.


Note the submerged cottage industry — did I say “cottage industry”? I meant [[military-industrial complex]] — required to generate these glib buffets: not just third party “[[vendor]]s” of generic media content, but those entrusted with their procurement, onboarding, content-population, audit, oversight and implementation. This must all then be blessed by compliance teams and [[subject matter experts]], policies must be written, a system created to track, [[escalation|escalate]] and, ultimately, sanction those who overlook auto-generated, unmonitored, mailshots, to complete their health and safety in employment online training by the stipulated deadline.
In either case, we wonder: in practical terms — you know, in affecting real outcomes, out there in the field — what possible difference to such tedious sidelines have? Has anyone tested effectiveness? You would think a randomised control trial would be easy enough to carry out.
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Continuing professional development]]
*[[Continuing professional development]]