6 comments on “Training the Trainer: Lesson Plans – A Cornerstone of Effective Teaching

  1. Pingback: Lessons Plans – A Cornerstone Of Effective Teaching | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  2. I don’t disagree with your assessment, particularly on the difference in instructors. But regardless of the subject material, what I don’t like is the .gov approach to training, described in the CFR as the Systematic Approach to Training. Give us the objectives on the first few slides, train to those objectives in between, and then repeat it all at the end, preparing the student for the “gouge” (Navy term for test where the student repeats back what they learned in the Systematic Approach to Training session). It’s all so rote, cookie-cutter, and boring. I do like it when the instructor is given more latitude. Then you can really determine whether he knows what he’s doing. While this doesn’t necessarily apply exclusively to military training, it applies to any kind of training. Also, hands-on training following up the lecture is always best.

  3. I understand whay you’re saying, and particularly what you’re describing, which is a basic knowledge level (data in/data out) class. Latitude is precisely what can happen when the instructor uses his/her head to make the subject meaningful through the use of an effectively written LP. If the instructor is trying to teach his/her students to perform to a particular level of proficiency or apply theory, systematic instruction is very useful, and, as you assert, especially when followed up by hands on training. I’ve never been a fan of pure lecture; I typically go for the hybrid ‘lecture-discussion’ where the students are encouraged to participate, and then the hands on follow up is typically, ‘demonstration/performance’ followed by repetition using the buildng block concept.

    Thanks for stopping by and leaving the feedback!

  4. When I taught, the students/trainees were first given a field classroom period of instruction. Then we would post a demonstrator and walk thru the task to be performed. Afterwards the students themselves would have time to perform the task, ask questions, and practice the skill to standard. At which time testing would begin. Most passed the first time around. If not, they would always be given a second chance to complete the task to standard after some remedial training. At the end of the day, it was either GO or NO GO.

  5. In my branch, we called your description, “demonstration/performance” or, ‘demo/perf’. All guided by a very well constructed LP. I’m betting your classes weren’t done ‘ad lib’….

    Thanks for dropping by and commenting!

  6. Correct.

    Introduction

    1.a
    b
    c
    2.a
    b
    c
    3.a
    b
    c

    Conclusion

    or something like that. But I remember those days well. I could give a period of instruction on a #2 pencil for an hour if I had to. It’s been 30 years since I’ve written a LP and unfortunately, over time, I lost all my notes and folders. I do have a DD214 and a briefcase full of Certs. We should get together. Maybe next time you come up north.

Feel free to comment! Debates are welcome, so long as they add to the discussion. Ad hominem attacks, accusations, uncontrolled vitriol, thread hijacks, personal threats, or any comment that otherwise detracts from DTG's stated mission will not be approved or posted. Repeat violators will be banned.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s