Course length vs results

[Levi]

Consider a 4 day class at an average cost of let's say, $500; throw in 1000 rounds of rifle ammunition, travel, hotel and food. Not to mention loosing a few days at work as well. No matter how you look at it, that quickly adds up to one pretty expensive training event. It also seems that there has been a slight increase in the number instructors, particularly in this economy, who have begun offering classes in shorter segments.

Now whether this is because of a perceived overwhelming financial commitment associated with longer multi-day classes, or simply because the amount of time it takes to travel to, participate in and travel home from a long class is unclear; but there definitely seems to have been a slight change in training climate. For a long time two-day classes seem to have pretty well been the norm, but even now there is an increase in one-day classes that are offered.

The question that I have isn't so much about the time it takes, or the cost of training, as it is the effectiveness of the training for the time spent in class. And I am definitely not suggesting one class or course over another. What I am after is feed back from those who have spent a fair amount of time with various instructors. What are the pros and cons?

Does it take several days to put together a quality class? Or can too much at one time saturate our minds past the point of being able to absorb all of the material?

Does a shorter class segment offer the opportunity to focus on a more defined amount of material?

Is it easier to commit to a one day class? If so, does this encourage you to train more frequently?

Do you feel you can get quality training from shorter class segments? Or even a series of class segments?

Thoughts?

 

[ChrisC]

This past September I spent a week in rifle instructor school. I felt that three days of higher speed would have been better than 5 days of slower. I don't know if it hurt that I attended TDSA's urban rifle 1 class two weeks prior to the instructor class but it covered a lot of the same material.

I like shorter formats and smaller classes. I think a person can be overloaded spending to much time on the range in a class room setting and as low of a instructor to student ration that you can get. Also the longer the duration of the class the more money the student and adjunct instructors will have to spend for hotel and food. classes during the week also require time spent off work, either using leave or going with out pay. I attended 4 different weekend TDSA classes this past year and even with an LEO discount, the room and ammo, and food quickly doubled the price of the class. You have to tailor the training to the consumers. if you have a large base of people that are willing to spend 1200 bucks and spend a week with you as front site, thunder ranch, and gun site have then there is no reason to change. But me as a consumer I look for most bang for the buck which is why I spent the time with TDSA that I did last year.

Course outlines have to be modified to the time period in question. a two day class that can be successfully be taught in 8 hours wasn't a good two day class. It is also important that I am surrounded by similar skilled people in a class. It is hard to ensure this doesn't happen but there always seems to be one student that should have really considered a basic marksmanship class trying to hang with an advanced training group.. I feel it is imperative to have an entry level class to ensure basic skills are shown before allowing the more advanced training to be attended.

I would happily attend a 1 day training if I knew that it was going to be 8 hours of training instead of 4 hours of getting everyone up to speed then 4 hours of training. I think that's where the two day format shines.

 

[Chambers]

Great post, Chris.

2-day classes are the ticket. I'm still digesting information from classes several months ago. It takes a lot of perfect practice to develop the muscle memory and subconscious response necessary to do something right 98% of the time.

I don't need to be at a class to practice something -- I can do that on my own time. The classes are about learning what's best and what isn't, practicing it a bit, and moving on. I think retention suffers A LOT when you do anything past a 2-day class (assuming new information is being taught). That's what's great about TDSA classes. You will shoot a lot over 2 days (1,500 rounds in AP1), but you won't run the same drill for longer than 30 minutes. You are constantly building on what you've already learned.

To Chris's point, inexperienced shooters are problematic in advanced classes. Instructors' time ends up being dominated by the person who doesn't know what a sight picture is.

 

[jtischauser]

I think those two statements above sums it up.

I have taken a 2 day 3 gun class with Kurt Miller, a 2 two day classes with Phil Strader that included a half day of match time in each, and I have also taken the USSA competition pistol course with Mike Seeklander that stretched two days with a 3rd day of shooting a match. I cannot imagine taking a class any longer than that 2-3 day length. I had learned so much in each class that I needed time to take what I learned back to the range and master it. Any more new information would have most certainly caused me to suffer a little information over load and I would start forgetting good stuff.

Now if your department or sugar momma is paying for you to be in a 7 day class where there is 3.5 days of learning and 3.5 days of mastering the techniques that might not be so bad. The other thing I suffer from after a class is practicing all of the material enough to master the techniques.

 

[TroyF]

This is the format I prefer:

I don't teach to the clock. I outline the objectives at the beginning of the class, "ok guys, here is what I want you to learn today". And we will work until those objectives are met. If it means we run an hour late, or an hour early, so be it. The objective is what it is about. If we finish early, we keep shooting. If we run late, it usually isn't by much.

After 8 years of teaching "combative" firearms and defensive tactics (H2H), I have a pretty good idea about what objectives I can reach in a day, two days, etc.....

As a side note, with the types of people that are usually attracted to a more "combative" type class, I have found they share some type of common bond. If I have one shooter who is struggling to grasp a concept and may be running the class a bit behind, the others in class don't seem to mind. It's like they have a interest in seeing that person "get it".

 

[Jefpainthorse]

If you look into the concepts of adult learning .... a couple of basics come into play.

Adults have fairly short attention spans. That being said... course design needs to provide just enough objectives to be of value... and not so much that the student checks out mentally.

Another factor... do your students need to "use" the skills as soon as they leave the class? Obviously, if your teaching a critical skill set thats going to be used the next day, the class session needs to be as long as it takes. If the objective concepts are "modular" it may be advantageous to design a program based on a progressive modular ciriculum.

For me... I learn best in shorter sessions... and lean in favor of a progressive multi- session approach.

(I dont teach shooting but have been in the skilled- trades training business for several years)