So, after some 18 months a small group of learners got the benefit of one of my face to face learnings today. What a day – as usual I enjoyed what I think I do best – working with enthusiastic colleagues who need a little bit of assistance and guidance to help them learn and validate their understanding, along with a little bit of entertainment, camaraderie and positivity. Great to be back in the real world again!
I promised I would keep a running commentary on this special course.
We have had a couple more sessions now, often arranged and re-arranged at short notice as my ‘student’ (K) had operational and domestic difficulties to negotiate. But this is the territory I have chosen to occupy, and I made myself available literally 24/7.
With just one learner, the old rules of contact time don’t seem to be as relevant, as the learning is relaxed but intense at the same time, and the confidence in K has grown in leaps and bounds. K has taken well to the elements of learning from the CIEH course book.
For this student, there would have been no route to gaining the qualification other than remote learning, and they had decided that e-learning was not a practical option from previous experience.
Last night was a great session, and a lovely revelation when we both saw how beneficial a zoom course supported by smart phones at the same time (messenger, google etc.) can be. Our IT apprehension has all but disappeared!
One more session will do it I think! Total guided learning time will reach about 20 hours, split roughly 50/50 contact time and private validated study and exercises.
I will be taking one more student for this course in September, and definitely want to keep the facility alongside my face to face courses starting up again.
Finally I have just booked in my first face to face training after a 17 month “enforced” absence. Those learners are going to get one hell of a course!!!!
First session last night successfully delivered on zoom – we both enjoyed it (I certainly did!) and this morning I sent my ‘student’ this email:
Good morning K, I really enjoyed working with you last night – hope you did too?
While the zoom conversations are useful and consolidate your understanding, the core of this type of remote 1-1 course is also based in the studying of the CIEH text book which, as you now know, is excellent.
Please do what you can before our second session on Sunday from 8.30 a.m., to overview the book, and in particular look at the following pages in detail, making notes to help you remember.
We will do a bit of an understanding test on these pages on Sunday!!!
Also you will need to produce a simple flow chart for the chicken supreme/ballotine
Also please complete the questions listed below and check your answers in the back of the book.
Any further questions you can do will help, and I will ask you at the conclusion of the course to commit to completing all the questions in the near future to consolidate your learning.
We made great progress last night so I am really looking forward to Sunday – we may need a full two hours then if you can fit that in?
Any questions just fire away by email, messenger or phone call!
If anyone is interested in this bespoke training programme I will have one more place available in September.
Tonight sees my latest virtual Intermediate Food Safety course kick off on a 1 to 1 basis. I have a great “student” joining me who has found the flexible course is built entirely around their availability. A fully immersive course will conclude with the usual exam, and all being well will lead to the formal CIEH qualification. I can’t wait to see how it unfolds, as the course delivery is completely organic. Here we go!!! Only one place per month is available so I will be opening September’s opportunity shortly.
Since launching my 1-1 Intermediate course I have now almost blocked out my diary for July and August with these 1-1 opportunities! After fitting in a couple of mini breaks. (UK of course) I now won’t have any further availability until further notice. Happy to open a reserve list if necessary.
Well, that’s always my aspiration, as another ‘student’ comes to me looking for a unique and totally customised course to suit their exact requirements. The best learners are often the busiest, working under immense pressure to earn a living, and cannot find great training which fits in with their hectic schedule. Here’s where I step in! In this new and probably exclusive service, I am putting the learner first (shouldn’t we always?) and doing this on a not for profit basis. Follow my blog as we go again on a journey of learning! If you want to explore this route too, just email me firstname.lastname@example.org and I will happily put together a personalised plan.
Before I start my series of posts on other ways of checking understanding beyond MCQs, I though I would share some basic principles of these tests themselves if you do need to use them, in hope of helping trainers being able to spot good and bad ones, and to be confident to provide their own feedback to question writers!
Principle 1 – Avoid using trick/catch questions, or overly obvious or lazy answers
All of the above
None of the above
These answers which are nearly always the correct answer, are either too easy, or confusing because they seem too easy, and in the case of the first one they are unlikely to be technically the only correct option, as all the others are often true too!
Usually with questions that have one of these two options, they are almost always the correct answer, and therefore don’t require any knowledge or skill in the subject being tested.
Whenever you see these options, please provide feedback to the tester that they are unacceptable, poor questions.
More coming soon.
The terms good or best practice seem to pervade conversations about food safety at the moment. They seem to be used mainly as a qualifying term for justifying a procedure or standard, which may well be a higher standard than is really necessary! (discuss?)
Sometimes it may be necessary to provide for clarity extra detail beyond the legal minimum standard, which is mainly goal based rather than prescriptive. And many legal standards are further qualified by words such as reasonable, reasonably practicable, etc. or protected by a defence that all reasonable precautions and due diligence were taken.
Much of the FSA’s practical guidance is helpful to a point, and the industry guides offer practical systems that can be expected to demonstrate legal compliance if maintained. But the disclaimer is always hovering around, saying only the courts can decide on contravention or compliance. Even then the legal judgement is qualified either by reasonable doubt, or on balance of probabilities.
The purpose of good practice guidance should be to provide a safety margin above the legal minimum and ensure that if followed the potential for contravention is low, or that if it a contravention is alleged, a realistic defence could be constructed. And that good practice should be realistic, practical and workable in a real food business, without undue expense or resource.
As far as best practice is concerned, it is a term I try to avoid, for two reasons:
- Best practice isn’t necessary
- Best practice probably is different in every business to a greater or lesser degree
So, for example, headcoverings – what is generally regarded as good practice is for all food handlers (define them as you wish!) to wear something on the head which stops hairs falling into food. But best practice very much depends on the individual, their job, and the area they work in. Unless we want to specify that best practice is always wearing a hairnet and a full headcovering covering all the hair and ears and neck? And if we do that, some businesses will choose not to follow best practice for good reasons, but somehow feel they are failing and at risk of criticism.
As I said, at the beginning, discuss……
For years we have all subscribed, maybe reluctantly, to the ‘quick and dirty’ test questions that pervade the accredited course providers and awarding bodies as “the most efficient and effective way to test knowledge and understanding” as proof that food workers have been trained.
Of course such tests have their place – a quickly performed and administered test leading to almost instant results is very useful be able to impose focus, claim success, and generate a worthy and recognised certificate of achievement. And additionally, it enables confident issue of an invoice!
But…(I hate using that word as an introduction, but needs must, for emphasis) do such tests actually prove anything?
Test results, down to the detail of which answer an individual worker gave in a test, can be used and misused in all sorts of ways, so we need to be sure our testing regimes stand scrutiny, legal and otherwise.
Many MCQ tests (multi-choice question tests) are prone to poor construction, limited to tests of memory and recall, and often surprisingly non-accessible or prejudicial to those with learning challenges of all types. Awarding bodies are often the most disappointing in their construction of test questions and papers, ignoring well understood principles of question design and test paper compilation. Sadly, this can sometimes lead to the hard-to-resist temptation for the trainer to subtly coach learners in the art of answering such questions. (and sometimes not so subtle!)
I will shortly be posting some ideas on how to construct your own formative and summative assessments which can be far more useful and effective, as a compliment to the external tests that you still may need to use to be able to offer a credible certificate. Combining these will give you as a trainer the added confidence and proof that you did actually teach to a real purpose, and not just coach to someone else’s exam to get the certificate!