Hahahahaha. Yeah man. Teaching in the trades is especially like that. No one likes formal training. I also don’t ask did you learn anything? If I want to gauge anyone’s participation? I asked them specific questions of the material I was talking about. Or if I was really interested, I may submit a survey later.

I may add some feedback from previous years. Not edits, but feedback from previous employee implementation. Like “this employee found this to be helpful… or an employee didn’t follow this principle and this was the result”. If you are reteaching experienced employees, maybe leave something out or make something wrong to see if they catch it, of course include the correction though. Lol I think something along those lines that draws in participation or ties to relevant experience gained from the previous trainings. *disclaimer LOL. I don’t know what the material is or if there are specific corporate or legal criteria that must be followed.

The 1st company I did some work for just wanted specs and a bunch of data, more like a “presentation”. The reason being it’s easier to teach and easier grade. So it is easily trackable and provides quick results, although it was just superficial. Knowledge is important to teach but just did not provide the results they were looking for. Just teaching knowledge side didn't transfer into actual tech performance in the field. The techs just didn’t need that information to complete normal/ daily field work.

@Billy Daniel yeah I agree. I think it’s good to sprinkle in there along the way when needed, but should not be the sole focus.

@Billy Daniel that sounds rough. Fortunately I have had pretty good control of what I teach, so it’s mostly all relevant.

In trade skill it really comes down to respect. That boils down several factors of course but a major one is experience. That’s hard to relate via E-learning. Some stuff can be done through E-learning such as specifications and actual data information, but the skill is definitely an in person thing.