Continuing Education content delivery opinions?

Sometimes the best nuggets of knowledge come out of discussions between the instructor and several attendees. The best atmosphere to get discussion going is when the instructor and attendees are in the same room at the same time. When I'm speaking, I encourage audience members to ask their questions as they think of them. Depending upon the question, I can let them know that we'll get to the specific topic later in the presentation, or I can elaborate on the topic they ask about. It allows me to fill in any communication gaps that would otherwise exist from my presentation and lecture explanation of topic materials. If particular questions seem to regularly arise, it indicates to me where I might adjust my presentation a bit in the future. And, best of all, even the speaker has an opportunity to learn when good discussion occurs.

Whether the instructor comes from within or from outside your own organization may play some role in effectiveness. Generally, you find the expertise and communication ability wherever it exists. But, some people react to instruction/teaching from coworkers much like some kids take direction for chores from their parents. Kid won't take direction from their own parent because they think they already know more than pops, so the job gets half-azzed and takes 3 times longer than had Pop's just done it himself. But a neighbor down the street hires the kid to do yard work for an afternoon and reports back to Pop's astonishment what a great worker the kid is - because the kid listened to the neighbor and did just what he was told in a reasonable time. The short way to say that is familiarity can breed contempt.

Although there are undoubtedly some convenience advantages for the online options, it's often more difficult for the speaker to effectively get all points across and to gauge audience understanding, and as a student/attendee, it's often more difficult to follow the material or remain engaged. Between online with a live instructor vs a recorded lecture & slideshow, live has got to be better. Then again, the recorded version gives an opportunity to get the training to someone whose schedule wouldn't permit them to attend a live training.

Thanks Evan. I couldn't agree more! Personally, as a second generation land surveyor, I still work with my Dad on a daily basis. There have been plenty of times during the course of a work day that "discussions got hot" in the office.

As to the classroom environment leading to engaging discussion between the instructor and students, or students with students... its hard to beat.

Thanks!

Bump, to the top.

Where's the, Abolish the Requirement, option?

JPH, post: 416425, member: 6636 wrote: Where's the, Abolish the Requirement, option?

One academic school project won't have much weight to throw around on that topic, so, I did not include the option. I'm more curious to learn folks' preferences as they pertain to those jurisdictions that still include require mandatory CEUs.

Thanks for reading the poll.
Craig

Correspondence is best. Don't have to go anywhere and I can complete the course at my own pace. And it is more cost effective. Interaction with others is fine for some topics like professional standards but pointless with others. And I have paid money for a 6 hour classroom seminar where the instruction used it as a 6 hour commercial plugging his other programs and the books he had written. Total waste of time and money.

Thanks everyone for your participation. I'll likely have additional questions to ask the group. 🙂

Sorry I missed your poll. I would say that I "prefer" going to a live class, but often come away frustrated. Either the material is routine coverage of dry topics, or worse yet, the room has one or two "know it alls" or "back in my day" commenters that just can't keep their traps shut. So recently, I've just paid for the take home correspondence courses and only have to listen to my own internal rants. I usually agree with myself.

Andy

I also missed this post until this morning....

I prefer the online / correspondence courses. I live in an area that rarely hosts any live seminars. I must drive an average of 3-hours each way to attend, so the correspondence courses work best for me. And I enjoy working at my own schedule and pace...

I live in a state with no C.E. requirement. I can show you examples of a given area where there are major, material legal conflicts, and the matters are treated and shown on plats completely differently by those who shun C.E. There is no consistency among our profession. This translates to confusion and total misunderstanding by the public, and a relatively high degree of substandard practice by otherwise very competent professionals.

The same 25% of the profession attend the yearly conference and gain the same education.

As a presenter, I prefer the live classroom setting and interaction, but knowing that there will never be a lot of attendance, I support numerous methods of continuing development.

We are considered by our State Boards as being "minimally qualified" when we get our license.

I was licensed in 1989, and I knew more THEN than I know today.

I've seen a dozens (perhaps over 100) of different speakers on survey topics, several of whom had written books, and I don't recall any taking time to do some kind of sales pitch for other programs they present or books they've written. I've heard that negative comment before, so perhaps I've been extremely lucky in that regard. The only seminars that were part sales pitch were the ones put on by local vendors, and in those cases, the product promotion was expected. Even in most of those cases, the info/education received was worth sitting through the advertisement comments.

As an attendee, I've been to seminars or conference sessions where there was a know-it-all or two who thought everyone in the room was interested in their numerous and extended war stories, or as bad or worse, are there to argue with and try to continually one-up the speaker. I really appreciate it when the speaker is able to regain control of these people who think they are impressing others with their intellect but don't have the fortitude to be the person at the front of the room. Conversely, I get really annoyed when the speaker allows someone like that to waste a lot of time.

As a speaker, I haven't been bothered too much by know-it-alls. They are there occasionally, but for most, there are ways to shut them down without belittling or embarrassing them. I did have one guy show up to one of my earlier speaking sessions who seemed to be there to use his "expertise" to try to point out how I was wrong on a foundational point. Explaining the practicality of the methods I was discussing for the purposes considered, and that the very organization he cited is the one that had first suggested the method to me and others, I did have to embarrass him a little to shut him up. When and if it gets to that, I don't waste any time or energy feeling bad about it, because by that time, the know-it-all has shown himself to be a real jerk and deserves whatever embarrassment comes his way.

I haven't been presenting as long as Warren has, but expect that he's not far off with the 25% figure. I wouldn't be surprised if it's somewhat less in a lot of areas. The inconsistency of standards, or even of what surveyors think they are supposed to be doing and not doing is a real problem just about everywhere I've worked. As long as there are some surveyors finding the info I present as useful, I'm happy to do it.

Oh, and I've never been paid more than almost enough to cover my costs of getting to a function and don't have any book royalties coming my way, so that's not a motivation for me. In fact, most of the speakers I'm familiar with make relatively modest fees or none at all, and whether or not they have any books that they might get royalties on, seem to be doing it for the satisfaction of passing on the benefit of their experience to others.