Have a look at Case 1 at the beginning of the chapter – I have also copied it below. What was wrong with the learning design? What would you do to fix it?
Mechanics from dealerships across the country attended a three day training session put on by the manufacturer. The cost of the training, including travel and lodging was split between the manufacturer and the dealerships. The focus of the training was on the electrical systems in three lines of automobiles. Given the number of trainees, it would have been too expensive to provide three automobiles for each mechanic to work on and it would be nearly impossible to find a facility large enough to do so. So the training was designed for the instructor to give instruction on the various systems and then to pose various problems that might occur. The trainees would then try to identify the symptoms that would result. For example, the problem might be given as “The car has a burned-out capacitor.” The trainees would then try to identify the symptoms that would appear (e.g., High current surge demands on the vehicle’s electrical systems can damage the electrical system, including the battery, alternator and voltage regulator.). The training covered a wide range of electrical problems and the mechanics rated the program highly as they left. When doing a follow-up evaluation, the training director was disappointed to learn that the dealerships reported that their mechanics showed no improvement in trouble shooting electrical problems. [Chapter 5, The Real World of Training . . . What is Wrong Here? Case 1.]
Blanchard, N. (2013). Effective training: Systems, strategies, and practices (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson