Last updated on October 21, 2020
Day by day the realm of Information Technology is becoming nearly a tech-cosmic shape – it is being simply huge! So many apps, so many vendors are competing with their own platform and custom build applications of innumerous utilities of purposes. For example, if we consider the application suites of Microsoft – its vivid and countable but the usages are huge, smart, time-relevant and interrelated. The collaboration factors of the application bundles are fantastically designed to offer and fulfill the required functionalities of diversified businesses and organizational activities. The similar application utilities are being offered by the other well-known giants vendors: like Google, Apple and other open platforms global tech-companies as well. So, what to decide to get trained of? And of course, how? How the course syllabus should be formed to meet the students or end-users need?
It is paramount to design the course curriculum according to the specific requirements of the trainee and necessity – not covering the whole application functionalities, it could make confusion indeed. The recent applications are coming with huge features. The software vendors are building the apps usage framework keeping the generic necessities of the users of various venues of businesses and organization – who knows who should use what and going to require the in-built features ! So many features indeed! Covering the whole application usages are unrealistic and could make confusion to the trainees. Moreover, now a days, apps bundles are built keeping the collaborative work facilities and very tricky setting options inside the programs – everything is not for everybody. For example, if we consider simply the note keeping and management apps of Microsoft (OneNote), it is connected to the other applications and collaboration framework (frameworks are not applications, its very intelligent program hosting and management environment) – like Microsoft Sharepoint, and other applications like Team, Yammer, Delve, Calendar, Excel, Word, OneDrive for storage and so forth – a huge interrelation factors. So learning all in the series of classes must lead no solid conclusions for the students in the class.
I suggest – it is wise to go with very specific case-study type training method, very specific cases of requirements. Once the trainees get accustomed with the various features of the applications, they could find other utilities and venues of the applications easily while working afterword in response to the problems in hand. The student communities do not require the whole curriculum of the Microsoft application suites that designed for the officers of the human resources (HR) department of an Office. The issues are not learning straight all of the word processing, a spreadsheet, a powerpoint presentation or MS access and of other collaborative applications like team, yammer or sharepoint. This is very very important to find out the required problems and put it in the paper – say “I want to do it (could be any problems), so, put all on a piece of papers and how to do it” and its could be a realistic learning method. Case study papers help guide the trainers and the students in the classroom (irrespective of the class conducting method – on-premise or online) to proceed with a comfortable learning pattern, rhythm and specific problems path. Keeping the problem path continuous, the contents delivery procedures make successive problem story in front of the students and the trainers then help guide and solving the problems.
The reverse process, for example, from the final outcome or result then back to the point of initial stages or series of executions and then come to the final outcome gradually, methodically – in my consideration the upper mentioned type is the best procedures of learning. A painter visualizes or gets the complete look or shape of the painting first before start drawing the apparently meaningless shapes or lines or color arrangements – which eventually concluded as a fabulous painting as a result. A scientist visualizes the whole thing first before physicists, chemists, mathematicians, or other relevant faculties put their scientific logical impacts upon the subject to be proven, isn’t it? These are the crude examples of any processes to get to its final proven stage. In my consideration training is not the exception at all. I believe, training on any subject and specially IT training here as a focal point, could be made more interesting and acceptable if every stuffs of the subject matter involved are linked to the known objects and problems in the practical world. Here are some illustrations from practical working areas, which could be helpful to comprehending the intent of this write-up:
The example of the upper illustration is good enough to understand how an outcome or the final result could be a soild training guide or task-to-do material; here we want to make the exact document using a wordprocessing application like Microsoft Word (365 version) and the trainers supply the sample sheets to the students and demonstrate how to achieve the same document result using the different required features of the word processor (MS Word 365, here as an cloud application in latest version). The same process is quite applicable for other applications training: like MS Excell, PowerPoint, OneNote, Power BI or whatever the needed ones are. These final outcome back to the initial stage and then follow the onward process and the methods applicable for the training modules designed for all other applications bundled with whatever vendors offer those.
If, this is the case of any collaborative framework like Microsoft Sharepoint or any team management application like Microsoft Team or Business Intranet collaborative application lile Microsoft Yammer – the suggested training process is alike to get to the more practical and down-to-work approach, I want the trainee to understand all the training deliverables and let them apply to their practical working areas in full fledged ways. Knowing so many things in advance with are not required, leads to a waste of time and effrot. It is always better learning what are needed according to the scope of the respective working domain and then go on farther on requirement – because, we are occupoied with so many things in the real life.