Training Evaluation and Transfer

Event learning is based on the system of training processes. Any learning activity formally designed to reach specified learning goals (Hamblin, 1974). This typically involves: setting needs, agreeing on the overall purpose and objectives, identifying the profile of the intended learning population, selecting strategy and agreeing on direction and management, selecting learners, and producing a detailed specification, confirming the strategy and design of the event, delivering, monitoring and evaluating. The training is an ongoing cycle of development. According to Pilbeam & Corbridge, (2002) the training cycle consists of four major stages:

• Identifying Training Needs
• Plan and Design Training
• Delivering Training
• Evaluating Training Outcomes
• Identifying Training Needs
• Plan and Design Training
• Delivering Training
• Evaluating Training Outcomes

The Systematic Training Cycle is another similar model. According to Critten (1993), the systematic training cycle explains what information needs to be collected in each of the 4 stages. A clear specification of the nature of the need for training should be provided before any training is performed. The first step in the process is to assess each individual against the job specification, identifying whether there is a gap between the present level of knowledge or skills against the expected standard to be filled (Critten, 1993). Then create a training plan that includes identifying those who need training, by whom, and how (on-the-job or off-the-job) to be trained. Training is then performed and recorded. The results of the training are then evaluated against the original need identified beforehand.

Training Evaluation

Evaluating training is the last stage, but the training cycle is very important. It is a process of gathering information after the training program has been implemented that helps to make the decision to design an effective training programme. It also justifies the significance of since training is the most effective organizational development and change intervention. According to Bramley, (2003) there are three main evaluation purposes:

· Feedback: on the effectiveness of the training activities.

· Control: over the provision of training.

· Intervention: into the organizational processes that affect training.

Why Evaluate Training

Figure 1: Training Evaluation and Calculating

Source: Shannon Scanlon, 2018

Training is an expensive investment for profitable as well as non-profit organizations. But, it must endeavor this expensive operation for the sustainability of the organization and inculcate it in the fabric of corporate culture (Bramley, 2003). Training is an integral part of the development of human resources and in the future human training will be transformed into resources and organizational capital. Effective training translates costs for the business enterprises into profitable, sustainable, and renewable investment. So the degree of profitability of the business can be assessed by evaluating the outcome of the training program and it is equally important to carefully identify the purpose of evaluating the training. According to Bramley, (2003) assessment can provide clear advantages to be balanced against those costs. These also include:

• Improved quality of training activities.
• Improved ability of the trainers to relate inputs to outputs.
• Better discrimination of training activities between those that are worthy of support and those that should be dropped.
• Better integration of training offered and on-the-job development.
• Better co-operation between trainers and the line managers in the development of staff.

Training transfer

Holton, (1996) argues that one of the reasons behind an unsuccessful training program is the rare implementation of the training content by trainees as a result of poor transfer design in their job activities. In other words, a training program may fail if trainees are not guided on how to apply the newly acquired knowledge and skills in their jobs during their implementation.

For example, learners gain more points when they master the more practical parts of a course and should be reinforcing how acquired skills will benefit the learner and accompany them with real-world examples of putting those skills to use.

Video 1: Training Transfer

Source: Gregg Learning, 2018

Laker, (1990) states that it is possible to identify the following two dimensions of training transfer: the near and far transfer. Near transfer refers to the degree to which trainees apply the training content provided to similar situations (in which they have been trained). Far transfer, on the other hand, is the degree to which trainees apply the training content to different situations than those presented during the training process (Laker, 1990). The application of both of these dimensions of training transfer depends on the design of the process of training transfer.

In addition, Laker claims that there are two theories that illuminate the transfer of training: the theory of identical elements and the theory of principles. Focusing on the first theory, according to Holding, (1965) if there are activities identical to actual job tasks and duties of trainees during the training process, then the possibility of a high level of training transfer (Identical Elements Theory) will be present. Conversely, if there are no activities similar to the actual job tasks and duties of trainees during the training program, then the degree of transfer of training may be minimal.

Nevertheless, there is also a negative level of transfer of training, where training activities are identical to job tasks and duties but the trainees act quite differently in their work (Holding, 1965). Clark & Voogel, (1985) argues this theory has an impact on the degree of near transfer. They state that to achieve a high degree of close transfer: the actual job tasks and duties must be reflected to the maximum during training; the training must specifically explain to trainees where and how the training content (knowledge, skills, and behavior) can be used in their jobs; and even the programmes should be encouraged by the real job tasks and duties implemented by trainees in their job environment.

For example, eliminating any barriers to on-the-job training and encouraging learners to apply their newly learned skills in practice, even if they have not yet perfected them and should, of course, excuse any novice mistakes they might make. This positivity should go beyond the learning environment and it should extend to the workplace.

List of References

Bramley, P. (2003). Evaluating Training (2nd ed.). CIPD UK.  

Clark, R. E. and Voogel, A. (1985), ‘Transfer of training principles for instructional design’, Education Communication and Technology Journal,33, 113–23.

Critten, P. (1993). Investing in people: Towards corporate capability. Butterworth Heinemann.

Donald L. K. (2010). Kirkpatrick's learning and training evaluation theory. [Online]Available at. http://www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm#HRD%20 performance%20evaluation%20survey%20questionnaire%20sample%20questions [Accessed on 1 June 2020]

Hamblin, A. C. (1974). Evaluation and Control of Training. UK: McGraw-hill.

Holding, D. H. (1965), Principles of Training (Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press).

Holton, E. F. I. I. I. (1996), ‘The flawed four-level evaluation model’, Human Resource Quarterly,7,5–21.

Laker, D. R. (1990), ‘Dual dimensionality of training transfer’, Human Resource DevelopmentQuaterly,1, 209–23.

Pilbeam, S., & Corbridge M. (2002). People Resourcing: HRM in practice (2nd ed.). UK: Financial times prentice hall.

Spitzer, D. R. (1984), ‘Why training fails’, Performance and Instruction Journal,9, 6–11.