I was reading a review in T+D magazine by Mireille Massue about a training offering and a couple of things struct me as interesting. One was a quote from the review
This is high-commitment for high-results training. In an era of learning on the fast food model, [This training] belongs in the fine dining category.I'm not sure what the author really meant by this comment. Does it mean that companies are sending employees to short, low-cost training, that has consistent, but low quality? Or Does it mean that in general training is moving to shorter training sessions that do not produce high-results? Like I said, I'm not really sure the intent of the comment, but I took it to the extremes and thought it implied that informal type learning, 10 minute segments of content, and technology-based learning objects where somehow low-results. Which I disagree with.
The other issue that came to mind was the actual product rating. It was a four-star-based chart that had Presentation 3.5 stars, Value of Content 3.5 stars, Instructional Value 2 stars, Value for Money 3.5 stars, and Overall Rating 3.5 starts. Isn't interesting that the Instructional value of the training is only 2 stars, but the overall rating is 3.5? Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the review, I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a disconnect between the overall quality of this training and the "instructional value". Since the product is a training seminar, wouldn't the instructional value be the sole purpose of the product? Does the quality of the presentation, content, and
value of money override the instructional value? I go around telling people that nothing else matters. If the instructional value is not there, why do it?