23rd August 2011, 06:05 PM
Interesting discussion regarding skills and training. A few observations and points which may seem a bit rambly and repetitious but I have been diggerupping today.... zzzzzzzzzz :face-thinks:
* Training often seems to be haphazard. But it is tied to funds and the needs of a business (yes, that can seem short sighted)
* Some people have a ego-busting idea of their self worth and see other people's development with envy. They want training is something but aere not prepared to do something else to help an organisation.
* A skills passport would need to be measured against what somebody should be able to achieve after a given amount of time in the profession, for example planning. However this is of course dependent on whether they have been given enough opportunites. And has been said, some people really should not be allowed near a planning board and permatrace!
* I do not agree with the old system of supervisors recording. It does not help the development of the field archaeologist and besides the person who dug the feature should know what is going on and should be able to communicate that. And the old system does not suit this current trend of the need to rapidly record archaeology. i an see how the need for a supervisor or one person dedicated to doing the planning would be necessary (consistency of the archaeological record)
* Risk of bias in assessment
* Skills passport supplemented with a realistic set of goals for personal development.
* If there is a central database... how do you cut out the risk of defammatory comments being made about a person?
hmmmmm:face-thinks:
Hostie-- I would be interested to see your Skills Passport model
* Training often seems to be haphazard. But it is tied to funds and the needs of a business (yes, that can seem short sighted)
* Some people have a ego-busting idea of their self worth and see other people's development with envy. They want training is something but aere not prepared to do something else to help an organisation.
* A skills passport would need to be measured against what somebody should be able to achieve after a given amount of time in the profession, for example planning. However this is of course dependent on whether they have been given enough opportunites. And has been said, some people really should not be allowed near a planning board and permatrace!
* I do not agree with the old system of supervisors recording. It does not help the development of the field archaeologist and besides the person who dug the feature should know what is going on and should be able to communicate that. And the old system does not suit this current trend of the need to rapidly record archaeology. i an see how the need for a supervisor or one person dedicated to doing the planning would be necessary (consistency of the archaeological record)
* Risk of bias in assessment
* Skills passport supplemented with a realistic set of goals for personal development.
* If there is a central database... how do you cut out the risk of defammatory comments being made about a person?
hmmmmm:face-thinks:
Hostie-- I would be interested to see your Skills Passport model