How do you Train?

Hallo folks.

I apologise if this is a subject that has been discussed extensively already. I had a crack at using the search function but couldn't quite get the hang of it.

So, my question is - How do you train?

Not yourself, how do you train others?

I am an instructor, however what I teach is somewhat "practical" and in some cases, bound by strict processes or laws, so my method is

"This is how you do it" *show how to do it* - "Now you tell me and show me how do it" *student mimics* - "Well done"

training something spiritual and helping someone become "better" (whilst part of my role as an adult, generally, when working with younger people when they have issues people have, or wrangling stroppy nephews) is not part of my profession so I don't have a "method" as such for that sort of training.

The general terms we bandy about are "sage on the stage" and "guide on the side" - despite the connotations, what I teach requires a Sage on the Stage style for a lot of the time - once the foundations are in, there is some room for "guide on the side" work, but it's just to confirm the students have grasped the concepts and can use them in various situations.


So, to circle back, and this is not just directed at the Masters here - what are your methods, systems, or inspirations for providing functional, effective and meaningful training to your students, on any subject- whether it be technical skills, physical training, the Jedi path, or anything else you might be in the business of passing on (or receiving, if you're a student of any field)

I use to just rely on mimicry of standard practice, then add complexities, then swap roles and add more variables over time to test recall of the basics from that variance while under that additional duress of exercising leadership. Works for procedural stuff but then requires a bit of self motivation to build up ones character within that framework, as not everyone learns at the same rate and well... procedure can get boring fast and no-one wants to spit out mindless worker drones!!

Do you mind saying what sort of material you were teaching?

Well, for me the training of each one is very unique, be better means to work our weakness and weakness there is in others. So the lessons have to help your learner to perceive things the other angle and provide a clear vision problems, tools to cope with life and every dilemma. Only of to say the method when you know the student, only defines the lessons when we understand what we need to "feed" within them. Inspiration for me can be anything, moments of extreme clarity and simplicity. A good inspiration for this is nature, it is already much older in this world than all of us, so it's a good teacher.

JamesSand wrote: Do you mind saying what sort of material you were teaching?

Nuthin` anymore. Just various workplaces during the 90's and 00's, and a few misc hobbies. I've never been a 'teacher' but it is a bit inevitable in the workplace to receive and give instruction.

That would depend on the nature of the training.

True 'training' is generally more task-based - teaching people a skill they expect to apply for a known reason. Compare that to education, which teaches concepts through study for an application not yet known. I have done both, though in the military we generally lean toward training. Within the training realm, there are also many useful methods that depend upon your purpose. When attempting to build capacity (the numbers) at a certain skill or job, it makes sense to use the train-the-trainer (T3) model. This generally involves experts training an initial pool of candidates to a high degree. The second cycle of the training would see the best of the first pool used to augment the experts as assistant trainers. Then a third cycle of training would see the first pool as the primary trainers, the second pool as the assistants, and the initial experts as observers. Rinse and repeat, growing larger over time. This method is useful to grow numbers and to help an organization sustain itself - teach a man how to fish and all that.

Beyond T3, there are other useful conceptual training models. One of these is Crawl-Walk-Run. This concept takes a series of known responsibilities and assigns them and all the real-world difficulty that comes with them to the Run phase. Working back from Run, the Crawl phase is a foundational training experience on those same responsibilities - only simple enough that someone with zero experience can execute it safely and within a certain challenge threshold. Trainers endanger their audience if the Crawl phase is too challenging, or risk losing training effectiveness. The Walk phase is designed to bridge the gap between Crawl and Run once the training audience performs well in the Crawl phase. Again, training that is too challenging is not ideal, but nor is training which is too easy. Generally speaking, we try to assume an 80/20 success/fail balance to keep folks interested and working...but that also depends on your audience, the amount of time you have, and the level of proficiency you're looking to achieve. Sometimes perfection is the enemy of good enough. Other times we own the mantra, "Amateurs practice until they get it right. Professionals practice until they can't get it wrong."

Another method you can find a lot within a mentor-mentee relationship is to require them to teach something. I often find that I learn much more through teaching on a subject than merely as a student. It forces the protégé to actually THINK about what they've learned, and demands that they give dimension to their own understanding prior to questioning from those they teach. Sometimes a person can be a lazy student, but an excellent teacher. Maximize this type of person's focus on teaching and they can learn quite a bit.

The Socratic method of teaching is a dialogue between a teacher and a student, where the teacher takes the student down a line of questioning to spur their understanding of a topic. Sometimes asking the right question reinforces a concept far more than just extolling the answer. Additionally, this method usually sees instant credibility with the student because HE is the one who did the exploring. Little is taken solely on good faith, with this method.

These are just a few training concepts I have used in the past - there are many more that are every bit as valid. I hope these gave you a few ideas, and if you would like to hear anything more specific, please send a PM or ask me to explain things here in the forum!

Thanks for reading!

I train people at my work, and I've had apprentices here.

My methods are slightly different for both.

When I train the juniors at my work they start off in stages... working from the less complicated things upwards. When they've got the gist of something then I put them onto the next bit... showing them how to do it, then watching them do it, then leaving them to do it by themselves. They ask questions if they get stuck, and I re-explain if I need to. Some juniors get more handholding than others, some barely seem to need me.

When I trained apprentices it was a bit different. I tried to tailor the tasks I gave them to what they specifically needed help with. Often I would set tasks that had come out of conversations that we had had, inspired by something they had been having issues with. Other times I would set something that probably seemed a bit of a right angle to their usual line of thinking, to give them an opportunity to explore a different perspective. I didn't get to train an apprentice to knighthood, which I am disappointed by, so I can't tell how I would have gone further.