TRAINING METHODOLOGY

In developing both the overall strategy and the detailed session plans for training from the objectives
determined (see Organisation of Training), it is essential to select a structure and methodology that will
be most effective for the training environment, considering factors such as:
• cultural environment;

• available training resources;

• available timeframes;

• affordability;

• cost-effectiveness.

Training Focus

The focus of training for voting operations officials is on achieving task competency--the ability to carry
out a range of activities accurately and with integrity under pressure, not just to know about them.
Appropriate methodologies derive from this basic principle.

It is recognised that task-based learning is better accomplished in face-to-face training sessions rather
than from book study. Thus training programs for voting operations officials should be based on aiming
to provide all with some face-to-face training. In remote areas, or where face-to-face training is not
affordable for all staff, all voting operations officials should at least be provided with the standard
reference materials, with a requirement that self-trained officials undertake some form of knowledge
assessment, through use of workbooks or exercises provided with the reference materials.

In addition to these formal training and briefing methods, the importance of informal training activities as
a reinforcement should not be underestimated. These could include contact through newsletters or quasi-
social activities.

Specific Issues to Be Considered

In determining training structure and methodology, there are a number of interrelated issues which
require resolution:

• what is the best structure for the training program (see below) and when should it be implemented
(see Timing of Training);
• who should be used to present voting operations officials training (see Training Delivery
Responsibilities) and what do they need for a successful presentation (see Training Reference
Materials);
• what subject matter should training sessions cover and how should this be organised (see Training
Session Content);
• what training facilities and aids are required (see Training Environment);
• how is the success of the training to be measured (see Knowledge Assessment and Evaluation of
Recruitment and Training).
Testing

Training voting operations officials for a general election is an immense training exercise. While
simulations during training can enhance voting operations officials' learning, without the reality of election
pressure it is not possible to fully evaluate the degree of success of the chosen training methodology.

Wherever possible methodologies selected should be thoroughly tested in a live environment, if possible
in partial elections (by-elections) or other localised elections, before being implemented on a large scale.

Training Structure

Determining the training structure is interdependent with assessing resource needs against resource
availability. Often there will need to be some compromises between ideals in relation to:

• the time taken to complete voting operations official training;

• the number of trainers required;

• the ability to engage professional trainers;

• the size of training groups.

Initial decisions will need to be made on whether it is feasible to provide face-to-face training sessions
for all voting operations staff. There are three basic training structure models for face-to-face training of
voting operations officials:

• the cascade, ripple, or pyramid model;

• the mobile team model;

• the simultaneous training model.

Each has positive aspects that may be sufficient to make it preferable in a particular environment.
Elements of each may be combined to provide the most effective structure for an environment. Their
positive and negative factors are worth examining in some detail.

Cascade Model

The cascade, ripple, or pyramid model acts through training small groups of people in both voting
operations functional skills and training techniques, who then, in turn, train small groups of people with
functional skills and training techniques, and so on, until functional skills are passed on to the lowest staff
level. In an election environment the model could progress as follows:

• central electoral management body technical specialists and professional trainers train central electoral
management body staff;

• central electoral management body staff train regional or local electoral administrators;

• regional or local electoral administrators train voting station managers;

• voting station managers train their voting station staff.

The number of layers in the cascade can be manipulated to fit available time, geography, and logistics
considerations and optimal training group sizes. The following table indicates some significant
advantages and disadvantages of this model.

CASCADE TRAINING MODEL

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

It is flexible.

It requires a large number of non-professional trainers

It is empowering and capacity-building, in
capable of having training skills - and confidence in their own
delivering transportable training skills to a
training skills - developed in a relatively short training
large group of people.
session.

It is sustainable, in that is has only

Requires detailed development of trainer's manuals, lesson
moderate demands on professional
plans and presentation resources.
training resources.
Through use of small groups it enables Non-professional trainers may not be able to make effective
fully participative competency training. training use of group activities.

It requires few logistical resources, as the May be difficult to revise training session content or
bulk of training can be locality-based. presentation style in accordance with evaluation findings.

It requires few central organisational

resources - though a significant It requires central monitoring to ensure that sessions are in
organisational load is spread over a large fact organised and conducted as planned.
number of locations.

It can be cost-effective as it can use staff

Staff selected for other skills may not be effective
already employed for other functions in
trainers/presenters.
training roles.

It can train a large number of people in a

relatively short time: though some time for Time period strictures may compress the levels to the stage
absorption is required between being where small group advantages are lost.
trained and conducting training for others.

There is less control over quality and consistency. The

constant and effective monitoring required to ensure that the
It is decentralised, allowing local
correct messages are passed on in effective ways at each
accountability.
level of the pyramid may be beyond election management
body capacities.

Reinforcement, through conducting It requires a longer training session - covering both voting
training sessions for others, will enhance operations and training skills - for a significant number (but a
skill levels. minority) of staff who will, in turn, train others.

Where there is confidence that lower levels of trainers are going to be successful in conducting training
sessions (and this can be assisted by maintaining a simple structure for participative activities), and an
effective quality monitoring function can be implemented, this model, or a combination of it with some
mobile training team features (see below), is a very effective training structure.

Mobile Training Team Model

The mobile team model involves teams of two or more trainers visiting different geographic localities and
conducting one or a number of training sessions there. Different variations would see the training team
training all staff in the locality or training senior staff only, with these staff in cascade fashion then training
their subordinate staff.

The following table indicates some significant advantages and disadvantages of this model:

MOBILE TEAM TRAINING MODEL

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

It uses professional trainers to train all, or at It requires availability of professional trainers over a
least higher level, staff at local levels. longer period.

Use of professional trainers may stimulate It does not build training capacities and may not be a
learning activity. sustainable development path.

Has in-built quality and effectiveness controls

through use of small teams of professional
staff.

Depending on the number of teams that are affordable, it

It provides presenters skilled in participative, may not be possible to maintain small participative
competency development training. training groups if mobile teams are to cover all staff in the
time available.

Logistics problems through unavoidable occurrences

It has low logistics costs, relating almost
such as bad weather may stall the whole training
wholly to transport for the trainers.
program.

It requires relatively few central

organisational resources - most of the It requires planning of training circuits by a central
organisational load can be devolved to the authority.
local level.

It provides a consistent stream of evaluation

Time period required for training may be longer than is
data which can be used to improve session
realistically available.
content and presentation.

It reduces reliance on a highly structured It does not leave trainers' manuals out amongst election
trainer's manual - use of professional trainers staff for future reference.
can allow flexibility in presentation for local
conditions.

Length of training session only has to be

There is no transfer of training skills to voting operations
sufficient to cover voting operations technical
staff at regional and local levels.
issues.

Provides cost effectiveness through

It has longer-term professional and accommodation costs
minimising transport and shorter training
for trainers.
sessions.

The major problem with this model in its pure form is the length of time it may take for mobile training
teams to train all voting operations staff. This may not be possible under election timetables or mean that
training has to be commenced so early in some areas that retention by the time of voting day may have
suffered. Conversely, the employment of sufficient mobile teams to train all staff in a short period may
not be possible within available budgets or available professional training resources.

Combining a mobile team model for more senior local staff, electoral district administrators, and then
using a cascade style where electoral district administrators train their voting station managers who train
their own staff can provide a reasonable balance of consistency, time availability, and professionalism.

Simultaneous Model

Under this model all staff are trained simultaneously, on the one day or days, throughout the area for
which there is an election. The following table indicates some significant advantages and disadvantages
of this model.

SIMULTANEOUS TRAINING MODEL

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

It creates a high profile training event which may

It requires a large number of trainers to be available
stimulate recruitment, community election
simultaneously.
involvement, and interest in learning.

There is little chance for evaluation or modification of

It can be conducted in a short time period.
training sessions.
It can result in training capacity-building if trainers As all professional training staff are likely to be
are specifically trained for this event, rather than involved in the event, there will be little capacity for
professional trainers being solely used. monitoring the quality of training presentations.

It is dependent on complex logistics plans working

effectively.

It requires considerable central planning and logistics

organisation.

It may require larger training groups to enable all

training to be conducted on the one day.

It may require production of a greater volume of

materials for training purposes than other methods.

It may stretch the capacities of available professional

trainers to train in time all trainers required.

Where election training is being promoted as a national event to stimulate interest in electoral education
in general or an upcoming election, a simultaneous training model such as a national election training
day may assist in image-building and in voter education. For this to be successful, appropriate publicity
campaign materials will need to be developed. It may also be an appropriate model where unexpected
elections are called at short notice. However, its significant disadvantages will generally mean that unless
there are some special environmental factors present, other models offer more cost-effective solutions.

Source:

https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/vo/voe/voe04/voe04b/default