Radio Silenciosas

If employee training programs are to be successful, a number of key issues should be considered. For example, we must take care to see that learning achieved during the training sessions actually transfers to new behaviors at the worksite. We also need to consider the trainees’ willingness and readiness to learn. In addition, we need to look at the structure of the training program in terms of when, where, and how training will take place. Let’s look more closely at these key training issues.

Transfer of training

An important concern is the transfer of training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). How well does learning transfer from the training situation to the actual work environment? Because training transfer is influenced by the degree of similarity between the training tasks and the actual job tasks, the most useful training programs directly

social learning theory learning theory that emphasizes the obser- vational learning of behavior

modeling

learning that occurs through the observa- tion and imitation of the behavior of others

cognitive theories of learning

learning theories that emphasize that humans are information processors

transfer of training concept dealing with whether training is actually applied in the work setting

address the actual tasks that are performed on the job. Positive transfer of learned tasks has been found to be maximized when there are identical stimulus and response elements found in the training and in job situations (Wexley & McCellin, 1987). Transfer of training will also be more likely if the work environment sup- ports the new behaviors that are learned and if the work environment allows the trainee an opportunity to use those newly learned behaviors (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004; Kim, 2004; Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995).

Setting training goals and receiving feedback and reinforcement for achieving training goals also positively affect training transfer (Winters & Latham, 1996). One study found that when trainees set goals for implementing the training strategies and feedback was given concerning the achievement of those goals, the trained behaviors tended to stay in place (Wexley & Baldwin, 1986). Without feedback and reinforcement, learned skills or procedures may deteriorate as workers forget some of their important elements, pick up bad habits that interfere with their application, or lapse into using old work strategies (Marx, 1982). Thus, concern should be given to the main- tenance of newly learned work behaviors. It is important that workers see the connection between the learning of new behaviors and how the use of the new learning will enhance their working lives. “Brush-up” or reminder training sessions should follow a few months down the line. In short, training should take place on a regular basis, be thorough, and continue throughout an employee’s career. For effective transfer and maintenance of learning, employees must see that learning new work skills helps them to be better, more productive workers, which in turn can lead to promotions and other forms of career advancement.

Trainee readiness

A second consideration is what could be termed trainee readiness. A great deal of research indicates that positive employee attitudes toward training programs are critical for training success (Noe, 1986; Warr & Bunce, 1995; Webster & Martocchio, 1993). Is the trainee prepared to learn? Does the trainee feel the need for training and see the usefulness of the material that will be learned? Trainee ability, or “trainability,” is another important factor to consider (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). For example, does the employee possess the basic prerequisites to be a good candidate for learning these new behaviors? In other words, does the trainee have the aptitude to learn? Finally, if a training program is going to be successful, we must consider the trainee’s motivation (Tharenou, 2001). If an individual has no desire to learn new tasks and to take on new responsibilities, it is unlikely that much learning will take place (Baldwin & Magjuka, 1997; Baldwin, Magjuka, & Loher, 1991). Or, if a trainee feels unable to master the material—if he or she feels the material is “beyond reach”— learning will be adversely affected (Mathieu, Martineau, & Tannenbaum, 1993). Moreover, research has indicated that both giving employees a realistic preview of what the training program is about and providing them with the personal and career-related benefits have positive effects on both trainee reactions to the program and

trainee readiness the individual’s potential for successful training

Fundamental Issues in Employee Training 165 their learning (Martocchio, 1993; Smith-Jentsch, Jentsch, Payne, & Salas,

1996; Webster & Martocchio, 1995).

An important issue in some highly-skilled, highly-specialized jobs, such as surgeon or air traffic controller, is the readiness for a trainee to move from working in a simulated environment, to actually performing the job. This sort of trainee readiness has been studied in the medical profession, where simula- tions are used extensively before the doctor is allowed to practice on an actual patient (McGaghie, Issenberg, Petrusa, & Scalese, 2010).

Training program structure

A third issue concerns the structure of the training program. When and how often does training take place? How long are the training sessions? How much opportunity is there for trainees to practice or apply what they have learned? How much guidance and individual attention does each trainee receive?

The bulk of research evidence does indeed support the old adage that “practice makes perfect.” In fact, evidence indicates that practice should continue to the point of overlearning, or where practice continues even after the trainee has established that the material has been learned (Driskell, Willis, & Copper, 1992; McGeehee & Thayer, 1961). Should the practice be continu- ous, in what is called massed practice, or should practice sessions be spaced over time? Nearly all evidence supports spaced over massed practice, particu- larly if the practice involves retrieval-type learning (such as a recall test) rather than recognition learning (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). Students are probably familiar with this. Studying course material in continuous, spaced sessions over the semester beats intense, last-minute “cramming” nearly every time!

Training research has also looked at whether it is better to segment the material into parts, in what is called part learning, or to present the material as a whole (whole learning). The research evidence suggests that whole learning is bet- ter than part learning, particularly when the trainees have high levels of cognitive abilities (Adams, 1987). For example, teaching a worker to operate a bulldozer would be more successful if presented as a whole task, such as learning to manip- ulate the controls that both drive the vehicle and operate the shovel, as opposed to learning the two tasks separately, particularly because operating a bulldozer requires driving while controlling the shovel simultaneously.

Another critical element is providing trainees with feedback about learn- ing accomplishments. To be effective, feedback must be immediate rather than delayed. More feedback is generally better, although there is a point where too much feedback may only serve to overload and confuse trainees. Finally, research has shown that positive feedback—information about what a trainee has done right—is more effective than negative feedback, which focuses on what the trainee has done wrong (Martocchio & Webster, 1992).

Finally, evidence indicates that to be effective, training programs should be highly structured to increase the meaningfulness of the material to be learned (Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly, & Dimeff, 1989; Wexley & Latham, 1991). Adding structure to training programs may involve presenting a general overview of the material to trainees before actual training begins and imposing a logical

or orderly sequence on the presentation of the training material. Trainees should also be made aware of the importance and goals of  practicing newly learned skills (Cannon-Bowers, Rhodenizer, Salas, & Bowers, 1998).