| 
|
By Nancy Deal
The importance of training onsite/decentralized practitioners is indisputable. Training events are offered through a variety of sources, and the increased opportunities to attend such events are definitely having a positive effect across all industry sectors. The process of preparing to conduct a workshop is as individual as the people who serve as instructors. Relative confidence in one’s ability to effectively deliver training is dependent upon the quality of the materials, the instructor’s level of knowledge of the subject and a reasonable familiarity with the presentation itself. Many trainers choose to prepare their own materials from scratch, a process that can be time consuming and even frustrating. In the recent past, instructors have taken advantage of readily available, high quality materials available through the Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT). These materials not only provide training programs with a jump-start by saving instructors considerable preparation time, they also include peer-reviewed, reliable information on a variety of important topics.
The products of early CIDWT projects include a set of five modules targeted for training field practitioners, government officials and system users in subjects related to onsite/decentralized wastewater treatment, as well as a full curriculum designed for an audience of third- and fourth-year engineering and environmental science majors. However, several of the university modules are clearly adaptable for training an audience of practitioners. The presentation materials and supporting information were created and packaged such that instructors with moderate experience can take the materials, adapt them for use on the local or regional level, and present relatively standardized programs to constituents from diverse industry sectors. Since publishing the materials in 2005, CIDWT has attempted to track the use of the modules by trainers across the country. While anecdotes have provided positive feedback from users, first-hand (and front-line) experience in the use of these high-quality training tools was recently gained by yours truly, an experienced trainer.
In this instance, I had less than 24 hours’ notice to prepare to conduct two workshops on two different topics. Typically, I spend weeks getting ready for classes. The luxury of time allows me to become completely familiar not only with the subject matter, but also with the flow of the presentation itself. The compressed time frame in this case was, to say the least, unsettling. At 10 a.m. Monday, I was notified that unless I could fill in for a colleague and conduct workshops scheduled for the following two days, the events would have to be cancelled. Taking this step would disappoint close to 50 prospective registrants, and this was clearly an unacceptable prospect. I agreed to fill in and began to contemplate the next two days.
The objective of the first workshop, Soils 100: Getting the Dirt on Soils (part of the soils and site evaluation module from the practitioner curriculum) was to cover basic soils issues and the parameters normally used in site evaluation for onsite systems. The information as a whole was not new to me, since I actually spent years employed by local health departments doing just that: evaluating sites and designing systems. I had also helped to edit the educational materials produced in conjunction with the project. However, I never really felt comfortable with my knowledge of soils, feeling that I had not received the level of training needed to adequately evaluate sites. Now I was faced with the prospect of standing in front of a roomful of students and present information on a topic I am far from comfortable with. The good news, in my estimation, was that the second workshop topic was a familiar one. It was technology-based and thus included information I had presented many times in the past. At this point, I set my priorities and focused on the soils workshop.
I reviewed the presentation materials (in PowerPoint format) for the class (all 270 slides) and was pleased to see that the list of questions I jotted down included a mere 17 slides. I had the luxury of discussing these with the author, but the points could have been addressed by any competent soil scientist because they were related to technical issues instead of style. Having received clarification on my questions, I went through the talk two more times using the speaker notes as a reference and added my personal input to the extensive information already included there. Because I also had the supporting text file included with the materials, I was able to consult that reference as I prepared. I made further additions to the speaker notes to remind myself of particular points that should be made during the presentation. After the third review, my level of discomfort with the topic was moderately diminished. Upon reviewing the file for only the fourth time on the morning of the class, I felt fairly confident in my ability to successfully present the material.
I presented the program to a group that included a typically diverse audience: an engineer, several soil scientists, Grade-2 wastewater treatment plant operators, an equal number of onsite system O&M service providers, and an environmental health specialist from a local health department. The class also included a county commissioner/O&M service provider and representatives from a rural advocacy group who wanted to gain knowledge about soils so they could attempt to solve a severe treatment and dispersal problem in a small town in the coastal plain. This last contingent was led by a volunteer citizen from the town, who stated that her reason for attending was “just to learn more.” Numerical and verbal evaluations of the class were extremely positive: Summarized evaluations indicated an average 4.66 (out of a possible 5.00) rating relative to achieving the stated learning objectives.
After basking briefly in the glow of surviving the first day of this experience, I proceeded to review the materials for the next class, scheduled for the following day. This was billed as a basic course covering pretreatment options, including septic tanks and grease interceptors, aerobic treatment units (ATUs), media filters, and disinfection. As I stated before, I thought this would be the easy part, since I was at least accustomed to presenting technology-based materials. However, I had typically used materials I personally created or adapted, with a moderate level of technical information. I admit that when I reviewed the first of four presentations (a total of 320 slides) my anxiety returned. These materials were straight from the university curriculum. Although I had obviously seen these before in my capacity as editor, I had never actually used them in a classroom setting. To my mind, the materials seemed far too technical for the audience of practitioners that I expected to greet on Wednesday morning. In fact, I was having trouble re-educating myself on the concepts of extended aeration, endogenous respiration, recirculation ratios and sludge wasting as they were described in the module. However, I had not yet reviewed the presentations using the accompanying speaker notes. When viewed in conjunction with this extensive and detailed information, the concepts came into sharper focus in my mind, and I was able to center my attention on adjusting the level of complexity of the topics for the audience that would be in attendance the next day.
This second group mirrored the diversity of those who attended the soils course: a handful of soil scientists (this time from out-of-state), several installers and O&M service providers, four Grade-2 system operators, as well as the small-town contingent that just wanted to “learn more” about available technology options. These two audiences were fairly typical, and an instructor must often try to strike a balance between effectively conveying complex concepts to lay persons while not boring attendees who have more experience. According to program evaluations from the class, the group felt the training was an extremely valuable experience. This class earned a rating of 4.50 (out of a possible 5.00) rating for meeting stated learning objectives and verbal comments were very positive.
The CIDWT Curriculum materials have been billed as broadly adaptable—not only for presentation to a wide range of target audiences, but also by trainers with varying levels of knowledge and experience on a given topic. This article relates two examples of the quality and versatility of these education and training materials. In the first case, an experienced instructor was able to take information on a topic he/she was uncomfortable with and successfully present a full day of training with minimal time to practice. In the second instance, the CIDWT materials were readily and quickly adaptable for presentation to an audience with a broad range of experience. The components of the successful training on short notice were an experienced and knowledgeable trainer and engaging and thorough training materials. More information on CIDWT education and training materials is available at www.onsiteconsortium.org.
Nancy Deal is project manager for CIDWT’s Glossary Train-The-Trainer project.
OW - January/February 2007 |
