Tips for Better Training Programs
DEPARTMENTS
Training Notebook
In many cases, fire service training has become institutionalized. Practices handed down over the years have become so well established that they are beyond tradition, but, although updated and dressed in contemporary costume, are “period” in every sense of the word. Is the training in your department institutionalized? Ask yourself the following seven questions:
Is the lecture method used in 50% or more of your organized training?
Does a whole company ever come up for training collectively? That is, do you ever present a training session to a group of fire service personnel before a determination is made if each individual actually requires the training?
Are provisions made for constant feedback while training is underway? I don’t mean simply asking, “Any questions?” I mean a thoughtful pause in which an established respectful climate encourages an intellectual or emotional exchange.
Are written evaluations on those conducting the training solicited from the trainees?
Is there follow-up on all training presented to be certain that it’s understood, adopted, and utilized? We must consider the “old timer” syndrome, “They may have told you this at the academy but we do it…”
Is the cost per minute of training, i.e., every salary, each light bill, every ream of paper, every stick of chalk, etc., known right to the dollar?
Is there enough financial support for the instructors to provide quality diagrams, photographs, printouts of subject-related articles, and actual physical samples?
Training can become stylized, varying little from department to department. Every classroom has a chalkboard, those that don’t have one on wheels. Handouts are multi-paged, sometimes 10 or 12 pages long. Classes are approximately eight hours, identical to the normal daylight tour of duty. Coffee breaks are called at precise times and appear on course outlines. Written examinations are given, often graded, and returned. Frequently, officials highly skilled in the profession, but often not highly skilled in training, are invited to speak; this can be counterproductive to the learning process.
To determine the actual work related value of a department’s training operation, you have to look behind the appearance of order and efficiency and take into account considerations such as cost and how little or how much the training program has changed in the past 20 years (subtracting television and other “teaching gadgets”).
Does the program emphasize routine periodic evaluations of top level management? When the emphasis is on one of these areas, it often spawns a major project of some variety.
Also, invariably, someone at the top will want to move the whole training facility from one place to another, often giving as one of the prime reasons that the new site is “more centrally located.” This is so common and so readily addressed that no one considers asking the question, “Exactly what does transportation have to do with the creation of learning or the improvement of firefighting skills?” You can get plenty of dialogue on this one, especially from those who should know better.
Before we address each of the seven questions on the institutionalization of an organization’s fire training, it is good to keep in mind a few things:
- Training is not the answer to every organizational problem;
- Training cannot correct hopeless recruitment;
- Training cannot put out “organizational fires,” such as poor or uninspired leadership.
However, training can enhance efficiency, introduce new systems and procedures, better motor skills (such as tool use and pump operation), improve attitudes through an awareness and an exchange of ideas, knowledge, and experience.
In training, the lecture is frequently used, as it is the most efficient method for delivering a mass of material to the greatest number of people.
It has been scientifically proven that students only remember a small percentage of what they hear, some experts say less than 10%, and that for less than 36 hours. Fans, street noises, distractions, hard seats, and distance from the speaker reduce the effective value of the lecture method further. Some instructors supplement their lectures with visual aids. However, care should be taken to ensure that these visuals have not become museum pieces, outdated, and dog-eared from years of use.
No training should be conducted before thoroughly evaluating what the student can do, what he knows, and how well or how poorly he performs particular evolutions. When assessing training needs, the organization also has a responsibility to define the acceptable, measurable level of performance. The training, as it is presented, should press toward this official standard, with nothing less being acceptable.
The climate in the instructional situation should permit and encourage free, two-way communication between instructor and student. An adult has life experience to lay against what is being shared or provided in a classroom, a child does not. In secondary education, the atmosphere tends toward the one-way lecture by the teacher because it can be reasonably assumed that the material is new to the student. In adult education, the student is more of a participant, with ideas and worthwhile experiences that should be included in aiming toward a class objective. An adult’s input should be neither cast aside nor overlooked. The learning experience for all involved, participants and instructors, can become considerably more exciting and stimulating in a give and take atmosphere.
Continued on page 12
Continued from page 10
Asking course participants to evaluate the instructor is a wasteful and often foolish pastime. It produces vapid and self-serving blurbs that often only assist in supporting the use of procedures that are “safe” but less effective than some others. Management should have the best trainers available. It is management and management alone who should determine the value of any individual’s instructional performance. Any professional in the field will laugh privately at the rave ratings some receive after a presentation that is far short on substance but high on hype or excellent quality “bull.” It is time to break with tradition and place performance evaluation into the hands it belongs—the superior officer.
After training has been presented, the organization has a responsibility to determine if the training is being utilized, if it is having an effect, and if it is being remembered and recalled when needed. This information must be discovered because without it you have no real way of knowing if your training program has true operational value.
Of the seven questions, the one on cost is the most important, even though it appears sixth on the list. In a large department, it would be wise to retain the services of a certified public accountant on a short-term contract to make a complete analysis of the fiscal aspects of the training function. Top management should know, at the end of the survey, how much each training minute costs. This figure could be as high as $16 a minute. Before any changes take place in an organization’s training, the cost of every facet of that program must be known and justified.
The last question, sufficient financial support for learning aids, needs little explanation. Reference material and physical samples for some lectures should back up each session. Photographs and quality diagrams should also be part of the training materials.
Changing the training attitude in your department need not be difficult, even if it has become totally institutionalized over the years. Making some changes can have a positive effect on the students, the instructors, and the department as a whole. It certainly seems that the climate is right for a change in training circles.
