Barriers to Transfer of Learning in the Workplace
Introduction
The importance of training effectiveness has long been recognized as a crucial issue for organizations (Ford et al., 1997; Noe & Ford, 1992; and Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). To the extent that employee-training programs are effective, organizations are able to avoid wasteful spending and improve performance and productivity. Thus, a key consideration for virtually all organizations is the expected return provided the organization for its training investment. Because it has been suggested that organizations are likely to increase their reliance upon and utilization of employee training programs in years to come (Noe, 1999), the effectiveness of training interventions in organizations is likely to become even more salient in the future (Blanchard & Thacker, 1999). In the currents era, workers must be prepared to change the way they do their jobs in order to capture the benefits from rapidly evolving technology. Training and proper transfer of learning goes hand-in-hand with productivity, quality, flexibility, and automation in the best performing firms. (Office of Technology Assessment, 1990)
Tannenbaum et al (1993) provided an integrative framework for all the variables that influence the design and delivery of training (Cannon-Bowers et al 1995). The framework outlines in detail the pre-training and during-training conditions that may influence learning, as well as the factors that may facilitate the transfer of skills after training. Kozlowski & Salas (1997), drawing from organizational theory, discussed the importance of characterizing the factors and processes in which training interventions are implemented and transferred in organizations. Moreover, Kozlowski and colleagues (Kozlowski et al 2000) consider organizational system factors and training design issues that influence the effectiveness of vertical transfer processes. Vertical transfer refers to the upward propagation of individual-level training outcomes that emerge as team- and organizational-level outcomes. This issue has been largely neglected by researchers yet is suggested to be crucial to training effectiveness. Similarly, researchers have begun to understand and outline the barriers and myths that exist in organizations as they implement training (Salas et al 1999). In other work, Kraiger et al (1993) provided new conceptualizations of learning and evaluation theory, approaches, and measurement. These authors expanded Kirkpatrick’s (1976) evaluation typology by incorporating recent notions in cognitive psychology.
In other more focused conceptual developments, studies such as that of Ford et al (1998) stand out. Their study appealed to the opportunity to perform construct as a way to understand the transfer of training process. Concurrently, Colquitt et al (2000) summarized (qualitatively and quantitatively) the literature on training motivation and offered a new, integrative model. Cannon-Bowers & Salas (1997) proposed a framework for how to conceptualize performance measurement in training. Thayer & Teachout (1995) developed a model to understand the climate for transfer in organizations, as well as in-training conditions that enhance transfer. Cannon-Bowers et al (1998) advanced a number of conditions, concepts, and interventions that may enhance practice. Ford and colleagues have looked at individual differences and learner control strategies (Ford et al 1998). Training researchers have also examined variables such as the pretraining context (Baldwin & Magjuka 1997), conscientiousness and training outcomes (Martocchio & Judge 1997), individual and situational characteristics that influence training motivation (Mathieu & Martineau 1997), and participation in developmental activities (Baldwin & Magjuka 1997), just to name a few.
Similarly, training to break down language barriers has also been looked upon by recent researches. Reeves & Wright (1996) suggest three main strategies these companies have for coping such as making better use of existing, language-skilled staff, recruiting new staff who already have the necessary English language skills, and organizing English language training for those who need it. Most companies use the last two options simultaneously; in recruitment, priority is given to staff that can operate in English, and language training is encouraged. Surprisingly, the first option is less frequently employed, as few companies have systematic and up-dated records about their staff’s language competence.
Statement of the Problem
The study intends to assess the barriers of transfer of learning in a workplace. Specifically, the study would like to answer the following questions:
1. What are the training techniques and transfer of learning efforts done by businesses in Hong Kong?
2. How do firms choose their trainees?
3. How do these firms measure the level of learning the trainees have acquired from their training?
4. What are the barriers that affect the learning process in the workplace?
Scope and Limitations
The study intends to investigate the barriers of transfer of learning in a workplace. For this study, primary research and secondary research will be used. Primary research will be conducted using anonymous questionnaires that will be sent to randomly selected private and public employees. The researcher will also be conducting focus group interview with managers and administrators of particular institutions. The questionnaires will be used to collect quantitative data and the interviews will be used to provide qualitative insights into the data collected.
Significance of the Study
This study will be focusing on the barriers of transfer of learning in a workplace. This study will primarily benefit both the youth and the leaders of business sectors. The youth, especially those intent on a career in business industries will find out what is expected of them by the two, what future the industries has for them, and what they have to do to be competitive career-wise, in this type of industry. As for the leaders, this study will show if their expectations and goals can be met by future batches of graduates. Through feedback, they would be able to voice out their concerns regarding the quality of graduates and help the universities cope with their demands and the ever-changing needs of the industry. Moreover, educators can gain from this study, as they find the connection between how they have designed their curriculum and what the actual needs of the business sectors are. In that way, they would be able to make immediate changes, if necessary, or continued improvement of their programs, through further studies. Any deficiencies in training can then be addressed by both the academe and the industry so that there won’t be any shortages in that field.
Finally, this study would benefit future researchers in the field of the public administration, business administration, education, and the social sciences since it depicts the future of the publicly and privately owned businesses and corporations and its varying effects to many sectors of society.
Methodology
Research requires an organized data gathering in order to pinpoint the research philosophies and theories that will be included in the research, the methodology of the research and the instruments of data interpretation. In this study, the Research Process “Onion” will be utilized so that the findings of the study can be thoroughly established (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003). The inner part of the onion describes the methodology portion whereas the outer part discusses the strategies that can be utilized in interpreting the results of the findings.
The descriptive research method uses observation and surveys. In this method, it is possible that the study would be cheap and quick. It could also suggest unanticipated hypotheses. Nonetheless, it would be very hard to rule out alternative explanations and especially infer causations. Thus, this study will use the descriptive approach. This descriptive type of research will utilize observations in the study. To illustrate the descriptive type of research, Creswell (1994) will guide the researcher when he stated: Descriptive method of research is to gather information about the present existing condition. The purpose of employing this method is to describe the nature of a situation, as it exists at the time of the study and to explore the cause/s of particular phenomena. The researcher opted to use this kind of research considering the desire of the researcher to obtain first hand data from the respondents so as to formulate rational and sound conclusions and recommendations for the study.
The research described in this document is partly based on quantitative research methods. This permits a flexible and iterative approach. During data gathering the choice and design of methods are constantly modified, based on ongoing analysis. This allows investigation of important new issues and questions as they arise, and allows the investigators to drop unproductive areas of research from the original research plan.
This study also employs qualitative research method, since this research intends to find and build theories that would explain the relationship of one variable with another variable through qualitative elements in research. These qualitative elements does not have standard measures, rather they are behavior, attitudes, opinions, and beliefs.
Furthermore, as we define the qualitative research it is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix on the subject matter at hand.
References
Baldwin T.T. & Magjuka R.J. (1997). Training as an organizational episode: pretraining influences on trainee motivation. See Ford et al 1997, pp. 99-127
Blanchard P.N. & Thacker, J.W. (1999). Effective training: Systems, strategies, and practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cannon-Bowers J.A., Salas E., Tannenbaum S.I., & Mathieu J.E. (1995). Toward theoretically-based principles of trainee effectiveness: a model and initial empirical investigation. Mil. Psychol. 7:141-64
Cannon-Bowers JA, & Salas E. (1997). Teamwork competencies: the interaction of team member knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In Workforce Readiness: Competencies and Assessment, ed. HF O’Niel, pp. 151-74. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Colquitt J.A., LePine J.A., & Noe R.A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. J. Appl. Psychol.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Ford J.K., Smith E.M., Weissbein D.A., Gully S.M., Salas E. (1998). Relationships of goal-orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:218-33
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In Training and Development Handbook, ed. RL Craig, Ch. 18. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2nd ed.
Kozlowski S.W.J., Brown K, Weissbein D, Cannon-Bowers J, & Salas E. (2000). A multilevel approach to training effectiveness: enhancing horizontal and vertical transfer. In Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organization, ed. K Klein, SWJ Kozlowski. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Kozlowski S.W.J. & Salas E. (1997). A multilevel organizational systems approach for the implementation and transfer of training. See Ford et al 1997, pp. 247-87
Kraiger K., Ford J.K., Salas E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:311-28
Martocchio J.J., & Judge T.A. (1997). Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in employee training: mediating influences of self-deception and self-efficacy. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:764-73
Mathieu J.E. & Martineau J.W. (1997). Individual and situational influences in training motivation. See Ford et al 1997, pp. 193-222
Noe RA, ed. (1999). Employee Training and Development. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Noe, R. A. & Ford. J.K. (1992). “Emerging issues and new directions for training research.” In Research in personnel and human resources management. Ed. G. R. Ferris. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 345-384.
Office of Technology Assessment (1990). Worker Training: Competing in the New International Economy, Report No. OTA-ITE-457, September 1990), p. 3
Reeves, N., & Wright, C. (1996). Linguistic auditing: A guide to identifying foreign language communication needs in corporations. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students, 3rd Ed. London: Prentice Hall Financial Times.
Salas E., Fowlkes J., Stout R.J., Milanovich D.M., & Prince C. (1999). Does CRM training improve teamwork skills in the cockpit?: two evaluation studies. Hum. Factors 41:326-43
Tannenbaum S.I., Cannon-Bowers J.A, & Mathieu J.E. (1993). Factors That Influence Training Effectiveness: A Conceptual Model and Longitudinal Analysis. Rep. 93-011, Naval Train. Syst. Cent., Orlando, FL
Tannenbaum, S. I. & Yukl. G. (1992). “Training and development in work organizations.” In Annual review of psychology. Eds. P. R. Rozenzwig and L. W. Porter. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. pp. 399-441.
Thayer P.W., Teachout M.S. (1995). A Climate for Transfer Model. Rep. AL/HR-TP-1995-0035, Air Force Mat. Command, Brooks Air Force Base, Tex.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment