dissertation on factors affecting training transfer

Dissertation

On

“ Factors Affecting Transfer of Training”In education sector

UNDER GUIDENCE OF SUBMITTED BY

Mrs. Vijit Chaturvedi Deepti Joshi

09 MBA 017

SESSION 2009-11

LINGAYAS UNIVERSITY FARIDABAD

(HARYANA)

CONTENTS

Introduction Theoretical background of the topic

Industry profile

Research objectives Problem statement Significance of the study Objective of the study Review of literature Scope of the study Limitations of the study

Research methodology Research design Sampling plan Data collection

Analysis and interpretation Conclusion and recommendation Appendix

Copy of questionnaire Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

Training and development is an expensive investment for most organisations. It is fair to say that

employer’s aim to ensure that investments in training provide maximum returns. Unfortunately,

the extent to which transfer of skills learned in training are applied to the workplace have been

shown to be somewhat limited(Baldwin & Ford 1988; Broad & Newstrom 1992).

In a knowledge economy, knowledge sharing is becoming increasingly important. There is also

grounds well of support for the notion that the return on investment of training expenditure is

dependent on transfer of training occurring. Public sector organisations have been criticised for

their lack of accountability for these factors but this is now changing. For instance, in

Malaysia, although a study of government registered training providers demonstrated the use of

formal evaluation techniques, the author nevertheless recommended further improvements

(Hashim 2001). The researcher called for a greater focus on transfer of training outcomes in

Malaysian public sector education programs. On a wider scale, the concept of transfer of training

has attracted the attention of many training researchers and human resource development (HRD)

practitioners, particularly in terms of how transfer may be enhanced (Wexley & Latham 1991;

Holton, 1996; Holton, Bates & Ruona 2000). Training may be defined as a planned learning

experience designed to bring about permanent change in an individual’s knowledge, attitudes, or

skills (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler & Weick 1970). In particular, organisations rely on learned

knowledge and skills being applied to the job. To a large extent, this behaviour constitutes a

transfer of training.

It has also been described as the maintenance of those skills, knowledge and attitudes over a

certain period of time (Baldwin & Ford 1988). In an HRD context, transfer of training represents

a core element transforming learning into individual performance (Holton 1996).In order to

improve transfer of training, it is important for organisations to not only understand the factors

that affect transfer, but also to ensure that the organisation’s training evaluation model takes

account of these factors. In a contemporary workplace dependent on knowledge management

and the optimal application of skills by a leaner, more educated workforce, organisations need to

turn to effective ways to ensure that knowledge generation and transfer are not overlooked. One

of those ways is to design a training program

that utilise the benefits of knowledge sharing. This paper outlines a research strategy to measure

the elements, which contribute to transfer of training by combining the LTSI, a model used to

examine factors affecting transfer of training (Holton, Bates & Ruona 2000) and TPB, a theory

which predicts trainees behavioural intentions and actual behaviour of sharing the learned

knowledge, skills and attitudes in the workplace (Ajzen 1991).

By doing so, this research proposal will extend existing knowledge of transfer of training and

provide trainers with an additional mechanism for evaluating successful workplace training

programs, initially in the context of the Idian service sector but, we predict, with generalisable

results for wider application.

The evolution of the transfer of training concept

Transfer of training is defined first, as the degree to which trainees apply the knowledge, skills

and attitudes gained in training to their job (Wexley & Latham 1991). Second, transfer of

training is measured by the maintenance of the skills, knowledge and attitudes over a certain

period of time (Baldwin & Ford 1988). Rouiller and Goldstein (1993) expanded the research on

transfer of training to include the concept of a ‘transfer climate’ consisting of situations and

consequences that either inhibit or help to facilitate the transfer of what has been learned in

training into a job situation. They suggested four types of ‘situational’ cues: goal cues, social

cues, task cues,and self-control cues. These cues remind trainees of what they have learned, or at

least provide an opportunity for them to use what they have learned. In contrast, ‘consequence’

cues were described as on-the-job outcomes which affect the extent to which training is

transferred. The four consequence cues comprise positive feedback, negative feedback,

punishment, and no feedback.

According to Holton, Bates, Seyler & Carvalho (1997), accurately measuring transfer of training

climate is important because it can help HRD move beyond the question of whether training

works, to analysing why training works. Therefore, having a valid and reliable measure of

transfer climate could help identify not only when an organisation is ready for a training

intervention, but also when individuals, groups and departments are ready for such an

intervention.

Another key factor identified by Holton et al. (1997) was the ‘opportunity to use’ which

described the extent to which trainees learn to obtain resources that enable them to use their new

skills on the job. Their study suggested that trainees perceive transfer climate according to

referents to the organisation (for example supervisor, peer, task or self) rather than according to

the psychological cues (goal cues, social cues), as proposed earlier by Rouiller and Goldstein

(1993). The factor analysis in Holton et al’s. (1997) study extracted 9 transfer climate constructs.

These constructs were Peer Support, Supervisor Support, Openness to Change, Personal

Outcomes Positive, Personal Outcomes Negative, Supervisor Sanctions, Content Validity,

Transfer Design and Opportunity to Use. In 2000, Holton et al expanded their work by

introducing the concept of a ‘transfer system’ which they defi ned as all factors in the person,

training, and organisation that infl uence transfer of learning to job performance. For example,

motivation to transfer is one of the factors affecting transfer but is not a transfer climate

construct. Therefore, the concept of transfer system is broader than transfer climate used by

Rouiller and Goldstein (1993).

Holton et al. (2000) used the earlier HRD Research and Evaluation Model (Holton 1996) as their

conceptual framework. In that framework, three primary training outcomes were defi ned. These

outcomes were learning, individual performance and organisational results, defi ned respectively,

as achievement of the learning outcomes desired in an HRD intervention; change in individual

performance as a result of the learning being applied on the job; and results at the organisational

level as a consequence of the change in individual performance (Holton 1996, p.9). The term

‘individual performance’ is used in the model instead of ‘behaviour’ in the Kirkpatrick (1994)

model because it is a broader construct and a more appropriate descriptor of HRD objectives.

The authors fi rst sought to incorporate the nine transfer climate constructs identifi ed in Holton

et al. (1997) study into the framework. They then searched the literature on transfer of training

to identify 7 other constructs that had not been previously tested in Holton et al’s. (1997) study

but which, they believed, would fi t into the model. The 7 additional constructs comprised:

performance self effi cacy (Gist 1987), expectancy related constructs (transfer effort performance

and performance outcomes), personal capacity for transfer (Ford, Quinones, Sego & Sorra 1992),

feedback-performance coaching, learner readiness (Knowles, Holton & Swanson 1998), and

general motivation to transfer.

What is transfer of training?

“Positive transfer of training is defined as the degree to which trainees effectively apply the

knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in a training context to the job (Newstrom 1984,

Wexley and Latham 1981).

Transfer of training therefore, is more than a function of original learning in a training

program (Atkinson 1972, Fleishman 1953).For transfer to have occurred, learned

behaviour must be generalised to the job context and maintained over a period of time on

the job.”

It is useful to think about evaluation of training with two levels of outcome, training outcomes

and transfer outcomes. Baldwin and Ford (1988) define training outcomes as the amount of

original learning that occurs during a training program, and the retention of that material after the

training is competed. Training outcomes are generally gathered during or immediately after

training. Transfer outcomes however, are typically assessed by measuring how trained skills

have been maintained and generalised by the trainee after being on the job for some time

(Baldwin and Ford 1988).

There has been much research and thinking in the area of ‘transfer of training’, documented

mainly in psychology and human resource management journals. In addition, a number of

comprehensive reviews of the topic have been published in the past 10 to 15 years, including

Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001), Ford and Weissbein (1997), Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992),

and Baldwin and Ford (1988). This body of knowledge has been particularly useful in exploring

the potential factors to affect transfer of training into the workplace.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

PROBLEM STATEMENT

It is estimated millions of rupees are spent annually on training and development by

organisations around the world. More to the point though, what are the returns from that

spending? Researchers have concluded that much organisational training fails to transfer to the

work setting (Goldstein 1986, Wexley and Latham 1981).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

In today’s competitive era, every organization fights for its survival. Every organization selects

its employees in order to achieve some goals, the employees of the organization should be

capable enough so that they can achieve the goals efficiently and effectively. To achieve this,

organization adopts the tools of T&D programmes so that they become capable and efficient

for working of the organization, when a company is investing so much amount of money in

providing training then they want to know whether the training is effective or not, and if not

upto the mark then what factors are behind the failure of training, so the study of factors

affecting training is significant universally.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

What is transfer of training?

“Positive transfer of training is defined as the degree to which trainees effectively apply the

knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in a training context to the job (Newstrom 1984,

Wexley and Latham 1981). Transfer of training therefore, is more than a function of

original learning in a training program (Atkinson 1972, Fleishman 1953). For transfer to

have occurred, learned behaviour must be generalised to the job context and maintained

over a period of time on the job.”

(Baldwin and Ford 1988)

It is useful to think about evaluation of training with two levels of outcome, training outcomes

and transfer outcomes. Baldwin and Ford (1988) define training outcomes as the amount of

original learning that occurs during a training program, and the retention of that material after the

training is competed. Training outcomes are generally gathered during or immediately after

training. Transfer outcomes however, are typically assessed by measuring how trained skills

have been maintained and generalised by the trainee after being on the job for some time

(Baldwin and Ford 1988).

There has been much research and thinking in the area of ‘transfer of training’, documented

mainly in psychology and human resource management journals. In addition, a number of

comprehensive reviews of the topic have been published in the past 10 to 15 years, including

Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001), Ford and Weissbein (1997), Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992),

and Baldwin and Ford (1988). This body of knowledge has been particularly useful in exploring

the potential factors to affect transfer of training into the workplace, as presented below.

Factors affecting transfer of training

According to a broad range of literature (discussed in detail below), the factors that affect

training transfer outcomes can be grouped into three broad areas:

1. Training design

2. Individual trainee characteristics

3. Environment and context in which training and transfer takes place.

All three areas can influence transfer outcomes directly. In addition, transfer environment and

context often impact indirectly on transfer outcomes through trainee characteristics. The three

areas will be used as a broad structure, within which to context the details of the review, as

follows:

Training design

The training design factors which affect transfer of training, can be grouped into four areas of

literature: Learning principles, Developments in cognitive psychology, Guidelines for increasing

training effect and Adult learning theory.

Learning principles

“A large proportion of the empirical research on transfer has concentred on improving the design

of training programs through the incorporation of learning principles. Research has centred on

four basic principles: identical elements, teaching of general principles, stimulus variability, and

various conditions of practice.”

Baldwin and Ford (1988)

Identical elements refer to having identical stimulus and response elements in training and

transfer settings, and research has shown incorporating these elements increases retention of both

motor (Gagne et al 1950) and verbal (Duncan and Underwood 1951) behaviours.

General principles refer to teaching the general rules and theoretical principles that underpin

training content, rather than just applicable skills. This approach has been found to enhance

trainee’s analysis and problem solving skills in the topic area, thus facilitating transfer (McGhee

and Thayer 1961).

Stimulus variability refers to using a variety of relevant training stimuli, for example several

different examples rather than one repeatedly. The trainee is more likely to see applicability of a

concept to a new situation, and therefore transfer is also more likely (Ellis 1965).

Conditions of practice refer to a number of training design issues. Should training be divided

into segments? Evidence suggests segmented training is generally retained longer than material

learned as one mass (Naylor and Briggs 1963). Should practice be incorporated in parts at a time

or as a whole? Evidence suggests practice as a whole is advantageous when: intelligence of

learner is high, training is segmented, or when training material is high in task organisation but

low in task complexity (Naylor and Briggs 1963). Feedback to trainees is also a key condition of

practice, with timing and specificity of feedback shown to be critical variables (Wexley and

Thornton 1972). ‘Overlearning’ refers to process of providing trainees with continued practice

beyond the point where task has been performed successfully (McGee and Thayer 1961). The

greater the overlearning, the greater the retention of material.

In their 10-year training review, Salas and Canon-Bowers (2001) refer to research involving the

manipulation of specific conditions of practice. Findings were documented on the positive

effects of overlearning on retention (Driskell et al 1992), the benefits of collaborative learning

(Shebiliske et al 1992, 1998), the conditions under which team training works, and different

approaches to arranging practice sessions (Goettl et al 1996, Schmidt and Bjork 1992).

Baldwin and Ford (1988) and Ford and Weissbein (1997) however, discuss the limitations of the

traditional design parameters. The main concern is that while robust, the majority of studies

were carried out for relatively simple motor (involving or relating to movement of muscles) and

memory skills. The question arose whether the results could be generalised to the much more

complex and systems-based skills required by many learners and organisations today. Perhaps in

response to this need, the late 1980s and 1990s saw significant developments in the field of

cognitive psychology.

Developments in cognitive psychology

The dictionary defines cognition is ‘the mental process of knowing, including aspects such as

awareness, perception, reasoning and judgement.’ Cognitive approaches are especially useful for

guiding the design of training for tasks involving cognitive processes, such as monitoring,

problem solving and decision making (Tannenbaum and Yukl 1992). Several insights into

training design from cognitive research are described by Howell and Cooke (1989).

Guidelines for effective training design

After the rather ‘heavy’ psychological research into transfer of training, it was refreshing to see a

more simple and holistic set of guidelines for effective training design (Campbell 1988). These

guidelines include five elements:

The instructional events that comprise the training method should be consistent with the

cognitive, physical or psychomotor processes that lead to mastery, guiding the learner to the

most appropriate encoding operations for storing information in memory.

The learner should be induced to produce the capability actively, ie practice behaviours,

recall information from memory, and apply principles when doing a task.

All available sources of relevant feedback should be used, and feedback should be accurate,

timely and constructive.

The instructional processes should enhance trainee self-efficacy (the belief one can perform

specific tasks and behaviours) and trainee expectations that the training will be successful,

and lead to valued outcomes.

Training methods should be adapted to differences in aptitudes and prior knowledge.

Salas and Canon-Bowers (2001) simplified the key elements even further, suggesting that the

most effective instructional strategies are created around four basic principles:

Present relevant information or concepts to be learned.

Demonstrate the knowledge, skills or attitudes to be learned.

Create opportunities to practice.

Provide feedback during and after practice.

On the surface, these principles perhaps focus more on training outcomes, while Campbell’s

guidelines above seem targeted at transfer outcomes?

Some elements of these key principles and guidelines, such as relevant information and adapting

to prior knowledge of the trainee, overlap into another more ‘humanist’ body of literature, that of

adult leaning theory.

Individual trainee characteristics

Numerous studies have found individual trainee differences can determine the amount of

information learned during training, and transferred to the job. These effects have been shown to

be independent from training design factors (Fleishman and Mumford 1989). The following four

individual characteristics are discussed below: Cognitive ability, Self-efficacy, Goal orientation

and Motivation.

Cognitive ability

Cognitive ability relates directly to general intelligence. A large body of research (including Ree

et al 1995, Ree and Earles 1991, Randel et al 1992) indicates that cognitive ability is a strong

predictor of learning and training performance. Generally, the higher an individual’s cognitive

ability, the more successful they will be in learning and training. They have higher self-efficacy

(see below) and higher performance and skill acquisition.

Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001) raise the caution that high training performance does not

necessarily transfer to better performance on the job. Other factors such as motivation to apply,

and actual job requirements will also affect transfer outcomes.

Cognitive ability is inherent, not something which can be changed. It might be useful though, to

design specific training approaches for those with lower/ higher cognitive ability?

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief that they can perform specific tasks and behaviours (Salas

and Cannon-Bowers 2001). Gist and Mitchell (1992) define it slightly differently, as an

individual’s expectations for their future level of performance on a task. It is well established

(including Cole and Latham 1997, Ford et al 1998, Mathieu et al 1993, Martocchio 1994,

Quinones 1995) that self-efficacy enhances learning outcomes and performance, whether an

individual has it already, or acquires it during training.

The implications for transfer outcomes are summarised by Bramley (1996). He explains that

individuals who are low in self-efficacy have difficulty coping with environmental demands.

They imagine potential difficulties are more formidable than is actually the case, and dwell on

personal deficiencies. People who are strong in self-efficacy focus on the demands of a

situation, and treat obstacles as challenges.

Bramley goes on to offer strategies to help increase self-efficacy. As much of the issue is about

being able to predict and manage perceived threats, learning skills to master the situation that

feels threatening, and practicing these in a safe environment helps to improve self-efficacy. It is

also useful during training to provide a wide range of experiences on what is being learned, so

learning can be applied to situations that don’t quite fit.

Bramley also suggests several post-training strategies. Self-efficacy increases when experience

fails to support fears, so interspersing training with job experience, and setting up systems to

ensure support and reward for application are both beneficial interventions. Part of the support

system should be supervisor’s involvement and understanding, with goals and specific measures

of progress set. Feedback systems are also important.

Goal orientation

Dweck and Leggett (1988) discuss two classes of goal orientation:

‘Mastery (or learning) goal orientation’, where individuals seek to develop competence by

acquiring new skills and mastering novel situations.

‘Performance goal orientation’, where individuals pursue assurances of their own

competence by seeking good performance evaluations and avoiding negative ones.

Although more research is needed, recent studies have demonstrated goal orientation does

influence learning outcomes and performance. Mastery goal orientation was shown to be

positively related to self-efficacy (Phillips and Gully (1997), and to metacognitive activity in

training (Ford et al 1988). Also, Fisher and Ford (1998) found mastery to be a strong predictor

of knowledge-based learning outcomes.

Motivation

Motivation is typically defined as variability in behaviour not attributable to individual

differences or strong situational coercion, and can affect whether or not a trainee chooses to

attend training, expend effort during training, or apply trained skills in the workplace (Baldwin

and Ford, 1988). Mumford et al (1988) revealed trainee characteristics such as aptitude and

motivational levels were among the most consistent predictors of trainee performance, stronger

even than course content variables.

Recently, several studies have confirmed that trainee’s motivation to attend training and to learn,

affects their level of skill acquisition, retention, and willingness to transfer learning to the

workplace (Martocchio and Webster 1992, Mathieu et al 1992, Quinones 1995, Tannenbaum and

Yukl 1992). Many factors are thought to have an influence on motivation, including cognitive

ability, self-efficacy, age, and anxiety of the individual, as well as a situational conditions such

as organisation, peers, and supervisors (Colquitt et al 2000). A deeper understanding of how

these factors affect motivation, and how they might interact with each other, is a useful direction

for future research (Salas and Cannon-Bowers 2001).

Environment and context in which the transfer takes place

Much research and review surrounds the potential impact of environmental and contextual

factors on transfer of training. It is easy to become bogged down in the literature, as a number of

authors have presented slightly different theories in the subject area, with many overlapping

factors and links. The review below groups the literature into nine general areas: Organisational

context, Organisational climate, Situational cues and consequences, Social support,

Organisational learning environment, Opportunity to perform, Skill decay over time, Near and

far transfer of training and Multi-level and multi-dimensional transfer.

Organisational context

Quinones (1997) integrates number of studies examining the role of contextual influences, such

as participation, framing of training, and organisational climate, on training effectiveness. A key

feature of the discussion is the central role played by individual trainee characteristics, such as

motivation and self-efficacy, in linking contextual factors to training effectiveness.

Participation refers to the level of involvement trainees have in training decisions. A review by

Wagner and Gooding (1987) states the benefits of participation as being increased decision

acceptance, commitment, motivation and productivity. In particular, a number of studies have

been carried out around the issue of choice (Mathieu et al 1993, Baldwin et al 1991, Hicks and

Klimoski 1987); should trainees be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they attend

training? In general, positive links have been found between a trainee choosing to attend and

motivation, self-efficacy, and learning.

Framing is the context created by the information an organisation provides about a training

program. This could be information about content and outcomes, leading to particular

expectations. It could also be something about the wording or framing of the message that

conveys a subtle (or not so subtle) threat to some people, for example a perceived threat to job

security. Tannenbaum at al (1991) found that high levels of training fulfilment were associated

with increased training motivation, self-efficacy and organisational commitment, their training

fulfilment measure incorporating expectations of content, perceptions of actual content and

desired content. This finding suggests organisations should be active in ensuring training content

matches expectations. It also highlights the need for organisations to think hard about the

information they communicate to trainees. Quinones (1997) suggests the most important aspect

of framing is for organisations to be aware of how information can be perceived and interpreted.

The final area of influence on organisational context discussed by Quinones (1997) is

organisational climate. This broad area has generated much research in recent years, and is

summarised in the next section.

Organisational climate

Organisational climate refers to a range of characteristics of an organisation, such as policies,

reward systems and managerial behaviour, to which employees attach meaning on the basis of

their own values, beliefs, needs and other individual characteristics (Tracey et al 1995).

Schneider and Reichers (1983) define climate as perceptions of the environment that evolve out

of interaction among organisational members. An organisational climate is said to exist when a

group of individuals share a common perception of the work context (Joyce and Slocum 1984).

An example of this is the positive correlation shown between social support and motivation to

learn (Noe and Wilks 1993) and between social support and trainee self-efficacy (Maurer and

Tarulli 1994). Other studies proved a positive relationship between an ‘updating’ climate (one

that encourages updating of technical knowledge and skills and personal growth) and attendance

and interest in training, seminars and professional meetings.

Situational cues and consequences

The additional concept of organisational transfer climate was introduced by Roullier and

Goldstein (1993); defined as situations and consequences that inhibited or helped trainees apply

the skills gained in training to a job setting. Tracey et al 1995 examined the transfer climates of

supermarkets, and found managerial trainees in more positive transfer climates showed the

largest increases in performance after attending a 3-day training seminar on basic supervisory

skills. There is some evidence to suggest the organisational transfer climate affects transfer

outcomes through it’s effect on individual trainee characteristics Quinone (1997).

Roullier and Goldstein (1993) suggest the transfer climate consists of two components,

situational cues and consequences. Both cues and consequences act as reminders for trainees to

use their training on their return to the job. Situational cues refer to the extent to which aspects

of a situation encourage an employee to use what has been learned in training. Specific cues

proposed by Roullier and Goldstein are goal cues, social cues, task and structural cues, and self

control cues. Consequences refer to the degree to which employees are rewarded for applying

what has been learned in training, and includes positive feedback, negative feedback, punishment

and no feedback (Roullier and Goldstein 1993).

Social support

According to Noe (1986) a supportive social context is one in which employees believe others

will provide them with the opportunities and reinforcement for practicing skills and using

knowledge acquired in training. Social support includes all levels of management, supervisors,

peers, subordinates and other trainees. It plays a central role in transfer of training, in the form

of situational cues and consequences, and also in pre-training motivation. The more positive the

social interactions, the more likely it is that trainees will apply trained behaviours and skills

(Roullier and Goldstein 1993).

In a specific example, Brinkerhoff and Montessino (1995) explored the impact of two

management interventions, a pre-training expectations discussion and an after-training follow up

discussion. Results clearly showed increased transfer of training in the group who had these

interventions. In a more recent example, Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) demonstrated positive

transfer effects through team leader support.

Organisational learning environment

Tannenbaum (1997) discusses a theory close to organisational context/ organisational transfer

climate, the continuous learning work environment. Tannenbaum presents the characteristics of

a positive continuous learning environment as:

Individuals are aware of the ‘big picture’.

Individuals are assigned tasks where they can apply what they have learned, and also where

they can be stretched and challenged.

Mistakes are tolerated during learning and early application, when individuals are trying new

skills.

Individuals are accountable for learning, and performance expectations are high enough to

necessitate continuous personal growth.

Situational constraints to learning and performance are identified and minimised.

New ideas are valued and encouraged.

Supervisors and co-workers provide support, allowing individuals to learn and attempt to

implement new ideas.

Policies and practices support the effective use of training.

In a small study, Tannenbaum (1997) examined the continuous learning environments of seven

companies, and found that the companies with the strongest learning environment also exhibited

the strongest overall organisational performance. This is consistent with prior research

demonstrating organisations that apply more progressive human resource practices, are on

average superior performers (Kravetz 1988).

Opportunity to perform

The opportunity is the extent to which a trainee is provided with, or actively obtains work

experiences relevant to the tasks for which they were trained (Ford et al 1992). Ford et al (1992)

cited a review by Ford et al (1991), in which three measures of opportunity to perform were

identified. The most direct measure is breadth, or the number of different trained tasks used on

the job. The second measure is activity level, or the number of times each trained task is used on

the job. This is useful as the more times a task is performed, the more likely it is that

performance will improve. The third is task type, or the difficulty of the trained tasks performed

on the job. Ford et al (1992) suggests these three measures provide a multi-dimensional

perspective to the opportunity to perform.

Ford et al (1992) also documents factors affecting opportunity to perform. These are

organisational, such as which department and function individuals are assigned to, work context,

and individual characteristics. Work context in particular links closely to the organisational

transfer climate elements discussed above, involving supervisor attitudes, workgroup support,

and the pace of work flow in the workgroup. More detailed research into some of the factors

affecting opportunity to perform was carried out by Quinones et al (1995).

Skill decay over time

Skill decay refers to the loss or decay of trained or acquired skills (or knowledge) after periods of

non-use (Arthur et al 1998). A comprehensive analysis of the literature by Arthur et al (1998)

indicates substantial skill loss over time with non-practice or non-use, citing seven main

influencing factors.

Length of retention interval

Degree of overlearning

Task characteristics

Methods for testing for original learning and retention

Conditions of retrieval

Instructional strategies or training methods

Individual differences.

Near and far transfer of training

Bramley (1996) briefly discusses another pertinent concept, that of near and far transfer of

training. Near transfer is where the job situation is accurately specified and can be simulated in

training. Far transfer is where the requirement is to apply learning in a variety of situations.

For near transfer, Bramely (1996) cites that training design and support should emphasise:

Maximising identical elements between training and job (Adams 1987)

High psychological fidelity, where trainees perceive the training situation to be very like on

the job (Goldstein 1993)

Overlearning procedures (Goldstein 1993)

For far transfer, Bramley cites:

Teaching general principles (McGhee and Thayer 1961)

Teaching in a variety of relevant situations (Baldwin and Ford 1988)

Application of learning to new situations both during the training and afterward, with

encouragement from trainers and others (Goldstein 1993)

The possible implications of near and far transfer are interesting, as Bramley (1996) notes that

maximising near transfer is likely to hinder far transfer, and vice versa. He suggests it is

necessary to identify the type of transfer intended before designing the training.

Multi-dimensional and multi-level transfer

More recently, two studies have looked at the gaps in transfer of training research. Yelon and

Ford (1999) analysed 18 transfer research studies from 1990-1996, as reviewed by Ford and

Weissbein (1997). Yelon and Ford found that by far the majority of studies were about workers

performing closed skills (where circumstances for use and performance are standard) under

supervision. The next most often studied category was workers supervised while performing

open skills (adaptable, creative, not one right way to perform, eg problem solving or

communicating). There was a very small group of studies about closed skills without

supervision, and no work on autonomous workers performing open skills. As a result, Yelon and

Ford (1999) proposed a multi-dimensional model of transfer that considers the possible

interactions between these elements.

Evaluating training effectiveness

It is important to note that evaluation of training effectiveness is not the focus of this research,

and will not be included in the literature review. Traditionally, evaluating training effectiveness

is about assessing the results and impacts of training. Transfer of training research is focused

more on the factors and processes that help and hinder transfer getting to the desired outcomes.

The Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI)

According to Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000), organisations wishing to enhance the ROI from

training need to understand the factors that affect transfer of training and then intervene to

remove the factors which inhibit transfer. Indeed, the authors argued that the first step to

improving transfer is to accurately diagnose the inhibiting factors. In their 2000 study titled

“Development of a Generalised Learning Transfer System Inventory”, they introduced the

concept of transfer system which encompassed factors in the person, training and organisation

that influence transfer of learning to job performance.

Figure 1.1 The LTSI Conceptual Evaluation Model

The LTSI conceptual evaluation model used to develop the LTSI is depicted in Figure 1.1 Three

primary training outcomes were defined in this model. These outcomes were: learning;

individual performance; and organisational results. Learning was defined as: achievement of the

learning outcomes desired in an intervention; change in individual performance as a result of the

learning being applied on the job; and results at the organisational level as a consequence of the

change in individual performance (Holton 1996:9).

In comparison with Kirkpatrick’s (1994) training evaluation model, three primary differences are

of note. First, there is an absence of reaction as a training outcome in the LTSI. Holton, Bates

and Ruona (2000) argued that reactions should be removed from evaluation models citing

several studies which indicated that reactions had no significant relationship with learning

(Alliger and Janak 1989; Dixon 1990; Noe & Schmitt 1986; Warr & Bunce1995).

For example, Warr and Bunce (1995) divided reactions into three components (enjoyment,

usefulness and perceived difficulty) and they found no significant correlation between any of

them and learning outcomes.

Second, individual performance is used instead of behaviour in the Kirkpatrick(1994) model

because Holton et al. (2000) claimed that individual performance is a broader construct than

behaviour change and a more appropriate descriptor of HRD objectives. And third, the LTSI

conceptual model is arguably a more comprehensive model than the Kirkpatrick (1994) model

because it accounts for the impact of motivation, environmental and ability/enabling elements.

The evolution of the LTSI into its present form occurred across the late 1990s. Following the

development of Holton’s (1996) conceptual evaluation model (Figure1.1), a study by Holton,

Bates, Seyler and Carvalho’s (1997) identified a number of climate variables which affect

transfer of training. In this 1997 study, the authors found that trainees perceived transfer climate

according to referents to their organisation (for example supervisor, peer/task, or self) and the

factor analysis in this study extracted seven transfer climate constructs. These constructs are

detailed in Table 1.1 and listed below:

supervisor support (a supervisor’s reinforcement of use of training on the job);

opportunity to use (trainees are provided with resources enabling them touse training on

the job);

peer support (peers support use of learning to the job).

supervisor sanctions (perception of negative responses from supervisors when applying

skills learned in training);

personal outcomes-positive (applying training on the job leads to positive outcomes for

trainees);

personal outcomes-negative (applying training on the job leads to negative outcomes for

trainees); and

openness to change (prevailing group norms discourage the use of skills and knowledge

acquired in training)

Further, factor analysis from the data also suggested two further transfer design constructs:

content validity (trainees judge training content to accurately reflect job requirements) and

transfer design (training has been designed to provide ability to transfer learning to the job and

instructions match job requirements). The authors then searched the literature on transfer of

training to identify seven other constructs that had not been previously tested in Holton et al.’s

(1997) study but which they believed, would fit into the conceptual model. The seven additional

variables comprise performance-self efficacy (the belief that trainees are able to change their

performance when they want to) (Gist 1989; Gist et al. 1989;

Gist et al. 1991); two expectancy related variables: transfer effort-performance expectations and

performance-outcomes expectations (expectation that effort devoted to transferring learning will

lead to changes in job performance and outcomes respectively) (Bates & Holton 1999; Noe &

Schmitt 1986); personal capacity for transfer (trainees make the changes required to transfer

learning to the job) (Ford, Quinones, Sego & Sorra 1992); feedback (formal and informal

indicators about an individual’s job performance); learner readiness (trainees prepared to

participate in training) (Knowles, Holton & Swanson 1998); and motivation to transfer (trainees’

desire to use the knowledge and skills mastered in the training program on the job)(Noe 1986;

Noe & Schmitt 1986). Figure 1.2 shows how the sixteen variables fit into the conceptual model .

Figure 1.2 The Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI)

Source: Holton, EF III, Bates, RA & Ruona WEA 2000, ‘The development of a generalised learningtransfer system inventory,’ Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol.11, no.4, p.339.

Figure 1.2 shows how the LTSI accounts for the impact of primary variables such as

environmental, ability and motivational variables. The LTSI indicates that motivation to transfer

is influenced by secondary variables such as performance-self efficacy and learner readiness.

Holton et al. (2000) refer to the variables affecting an individual’s performance in the LTSI as a

transfer system, which they defined as all the factors in the person, training and organisation that

influence transfer of learning to job performance. In other words, they argued that transfer must

occur before learning can lead to individual job performance. Table 2.1 below details the

definitions of the variables as depicted in the LTSI.

Table 2.1: The 16 factors of the LTSI which affect transfer of training

No

.

Variables Definition

1 Learner Readiness

Extent to which trainees are prepared to enter and participate in training.

2 Motivation toTransfer

Trainees’ desire to use the knowledge and skills mastered in the training program on the job.

3 Peer Support Extent to which peers reinforce and support use of learning to the job.

4 Supervisor Support

Extent to which supervisors/managers support and reinforce use of training on the job.

5 Personal Outcomes positive

Degree to which applying training on the job leads to outcomes that is positive for the trainees.

6 Personal Outcomes negative

Extent to which individuals believe that not applying skills and knowledge learned in training will lead to negative personal outcomes.

7 Supervisor Sanctions

Extent to which individuals perceive negative responses from supervisors/managers when applying skills learned in training.

8 Content Validity

Extent to which trainees judge training content to accurately reflect job requirements

9 Transfer Design

Degree to which (1) training has been designed and delivered to give trainees the ability to transfer learning to the job (2) training instructions matchjob requirements.

10 Personal Capacity to Transfer

Extent to which individuals have the time, energy and mental space in their work lives to make changes required to transfer learning to the job.

11 Opportunity To Use

Extent to which trainees are provided with or obtain resources and tasks on the job enabling them to use training on the job.

12 Performance SelfEfficacy

Trainee’s general belief that they are able to change their performance when they want to.

13 Transfer Effort-PerformanceExpectations

Expectation that effort devoted to transferring learning will lead to changes in job performance

14 Performance-OutcomesExpectations

Expectation that changes in job performance will lead to valued outcomes.

15 Feedback Formal and informal indicators from an organisation about an individual’s job performance

16 Openness to Change

Extent to which prevailing group norms are perceived by trainees’ to resist or discourage the use of skills and knowledge acquired in training.

Source: Holton, EF III, Bates, RA & Ruona WEA 2000, ‘The development of a generalised learningtransfer system inventory,’ Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol.11, no.4, pp.344-346.

Several studies have successfully used the LTSI model to validate the factors affecting transfer

of training (Chen 2003; Donovan et al. 2001; Holton et al. 2003;Yamnill 2001). For example,

Chen (2003) found that the LTSI was valid in Taiwan and Yamnill (2001) validated it in

Thailand. The LTSI model has also been claimedto be influential in measuring training

effectiveness (Donovan et. al. 2001).

Although the LTSI model included motivation to transfer as one of the variables that could affect

individual performance, the model only specified two secondary influence variables (learner

readiness and performance-self efficacy) that could influence motivation to transfer. In order to

gain an in-depth understanding of the direct and indirect effect on motivation to transfer, this

chapter now moves to discuss the Human Resource Development Evaluation Research and

Measurement Model (the HRD model) (Holton 1996). This model, according to Holton (1996)

should be used for research purposes in investigating motivation to transfer training.

Summary

What stood out from the literature?

Research into transfer of training is a large and active field.

Much of the prior research into transfer of training has utilised education, knowledge, skills

and understanding of psychological research practices.

There is a difference between training outcomes and transfer outcomes.

There are many factors affecting transfer of training, the main three areas being training

design, individual trainee characteristics, and the environment and context in which transfer

takes place.

Many of these factors are interlinked, particularly through individual trainee characteristics.

The main points of discussion within each of the three broad areas affecting transfer of

training were:

1.Training design 2.Individual trainee

characteristics

3.Environment and context in which

transfer takes place

Learning principles

Developments in cognitive

research

Guidelines for effective

training

Cognitive ability

Self-efficacy

Goal orientation

Motivation

Organisational context and climate

Situational cues and consequences

Social support

Organisational learning environment

Opportunity to perform

Skill decay over time

Near and far transfer of training

Multi-level and multi-dimensional transfer

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

To know the reasons behind failure of training programmes.

To know the various factors which affects transfer of training.

To know whether these factors are controllable or not.

To keep in consideration the factors affecting transfer of training for future training

purposes.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

There are so many factors which affects training transfer. If those factors can be determined

before training scheduled then it is easy for the organization to ensure all the benefits of

training, and their purpose of giving training can be solved.

By this study organizations came to know those factors which affects training transfer and they

can work on those factors and ensure 100% outcomes from training.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Time duration for the completion of project was less.

Respondents were not willing to fill questionnaire because questionnaire is not filled

face to face.

Most of the employees were reluctant in giving the personal information while filling

the questionnaire.

The factors which affects transfer of training are so many and it is not possible for me

to cover all those factors.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN

Exploratory study.

SAMPLING PLAN

Convenience sampling.

DATA COLLECTION

PRIMARY DATA:-Questionnaire and Interviews .

SECONDARY DATA:- internet and journals.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Q1. Do you think behaviour of trainer had impact on training transfer.

Neither agree nor disagree

14%

agree86%

% of responses

According to the responses of faculty members behavior of trainer largely affects training

transfer . 86% of the respondents are agreed that behavior of trainer affects training transfer and

14% respondents are neither agree nor disagree.

Q2. Do you think knowledge of trainer had impact on training transfer.

neither agree nor disagree43%

strongly agree57%

% of responses

According to the responses of faculty members knowledge of trainer largely affects training

transfer . 57% of the respondents are agreed that knowledge of trainer affects training transfer

and 43% respondents are neither agree nor disagree with this statement.

Q3. Do you think Trainer’s personality had impact on training transfer.

agree86%

strongly agree14%

% of responses

According to the responses of faculty members personality of trainer largely affects training

transfer . 86% of the respondents are agreed that personality of trainer affects training transfer

and 14% respondents are strongly agree.

Q4. Do you think communication skills of trainer had impact on training transfer.

agree86%

strongly agree14%

% of responses

According to the responses of faculty members communication skills of trainer largely affects

training transfer . 86% of the respondents are agreed that communication skills of trainer affects

training transfer and 14% respondents are strongly agree.

Q5. Do you think involvement of trainees affects transfer of training.

agree57%

strongly agree43%

% of responses

According to the responses of faculty members involvement of trainees largely affects training

transfer . 57% of the respondents are agreed that involvement of trainees affects training transfer

and 43% respondents are strongly agree.

Q6. Do you think venue of training affects transfer of training .

disagree29%

neither agree nor disagree

14%

agree57%

% of responses

According to the responses of faculty members venue of training largely affects training transfer

. 57% of the respondents are agreed that venue of training affects training transfer and 14%

respondents are neither agree nor disagree and 29% of respondents are not agree with this

statement.

Q7. Do you think style or method adopted in conducting training affects transfer of training.

disagree29%


14%

agree57%

% of responses

According to the responses of faculty members style or method adopted in conducting training

largely affects training transfer . 57% of the respondents are agreed that style or method adopted

in conducting training affects training transfer and 14% respondents are neither agree nor

disagree and 29% of respondents are not agree with this statement.

Q8. Do you think aids available during training affects transfer of training.


agree29%

strongly agree14%

% of responses

According to the responses of faculty members(respondents ) aids available during training

doesn’t affect much in training transfer . Only 29% of the respondents are agreed that training

aids available during training affects training transfer and 14% respondents are strongly agree

with this statement and 57% of respondents are neither agree nor disagree.

Q9.Do you think time duration of training affects transfer of training.

agree57%

strongly agree43%

% of responses

According to the responses duration of training largely affects training transfer . 57% of the

respondents are agreed that duration of training affects training transfer and 43% respondents

are strongly agree with this statement.

Q10. Do you think projected benefits of training affects transfer of training.


agree57%

% of responses

According to the respondents projected benefits of training programme largely affects training

transfer . 57% of the respondents are agreed that projected benefits of training affects training

transfer and 43% respondents are neither agreenor disagree with this statement.

Q11. Do you think relationship with colleagues affects transfer of training.


agree29%

strongly agree29%

% of responses

According to the responses relationship with colleagues largely affects training transfer . Only

29% of the respondents are agreed that relationship with colleagues affects training transfer and

29% respondents are strongly agree with this statement and 43% of respondents are neither

agree nor disagree.

Q12. Do you think past experience with colleagues (if any) affects transfer of training.

disagree43%


strongly agree29%

% of responses

According to the responses past experience with colleagues doesn’t affect training transfer .

Only 29% of the respondents are strongly agreed that past experience with colleagues affects

training transfer and 28% respondents are neither agree nor disagree with this statement and

43% of respondents are disagree with this statement.

Q13. Do you think appropriateness of classroom (sitting arrangement and ventilation etc.) affects training transfer.


14%

agree57%

strongly agree29%

% of responses

According to the responses appropriateness of classroom largely affects training transfer . 57%

of the respondents are agreed that appropriateness of classroom affects training transfer and 29%

respondents are strongly agree with this statement and 14% of respondents are neither agree nor

disagree.

Q14. Do you think conveyance facilities provided had impact on training transfer.

disagree14%

agree57%

strongly agree29%

% of responses

According to the responses conveyance facilities provided largely affects training transfer . 57%

of the respondents are agreed that conveyance facilities provided affects training transfer and

29% respondents are strongly agree with this statement and 14% of respondents are disagree

with this statement.

Q15. Do you think recommendations to attend training affects it’s effectiveness.

strongly disagree

14%

disagree14%


agree14%

% of responses

According to the responses recommendations to attend training doesn’t affect training transfer .

Only 14% of the respondents are agreed that recommendations to attend training affects training

transfer and 57% respondents are neither agree nor disagree with this statement and 14% of

respondents are disagree with this statement and 15% of the respondents are strongly disagree

with this statement.

Q16. Do you think the knowledge gap between trainees affects training effectiveness.


14%

agree57%

strongly agree29%

% of responses

According to the responses knowledge gap between trainees largely affects training transfer .

57% of the respondents are agreed that knowledge gap between trainees affects training transfer

and 29% respondents are strongly agree with this statement and 14% of respondents are neither

agree nor disagree with this statement.

Q17. Do you think motivation from superior/management had impact on training transfer.

agree57%

strongly agree43%

% of responses

According to the responses motivation from superior/management largely affects training

transfer . 57% of the respondents are agreed that duration of training affects training transfer and

43% respondents are strongly agree with this statement.

Q18. Do you think refreshment provided during training affects training effectiveness to some extent.

disagree14%


agree14%

strongly agree43%

% of responses

According to the responses refreshment provided during training largely affects training

transfer . 43% of the respondents are strongly agreed that refreshment provided during training

affects training transfer and 14% respondents are agreed with this statement and 29% of

respondents are neither agree nor disagree and 14% of respondents are disagree this statement

that refreshment doesn’t have any correlation with training effectiveness.

Q19. Do you think past experience of training affects training transfer.


agree71%

% of responses

According to the responses past experience of training largely affects training transfer . 71% of

the respondents are agreed that past experience of training affects training transfer and 29%

respondents are neither agree nor disagree with this statement.

Q20. Do you think your fitness had impact on training transfer.


14%

agree43%

strongly agree43%

% of responses

According to the responses fitness of trainees largely affects training transfer . 43% of the

respondents are agreed that fitness affects training transfer and 43% respondents are strongly

agree with this statement and .14% of respondents are neither agree nor disagree.

Q21. Do you think perception about other trainee & trainer affects training effectiveness.


agree43%

% of responses

According to the responses perception about other trainee & trainer doesn’t affect training

transfer much. 43% of the respondents are agreed that perception about other trainee & trainer

had impact on training transfer and 57% respondents are neither agree nor disagree with this

statement.

Q22. Do you think content/ topic of training affects training transfer.

disagree14%


14%

agree29%

strongly agree43%

% of responses

According to the responses content/ topic of training largely affects training transfer . 43% of the

respondents are strongly agreed that content/ topic of training affects training transfer and 29%

respondents are agreed with this statement and 14% of respondents are neither agree nor disagree

and 14% of respondents are disagree with this statement.

Q23. Any other factor which affect training transfer in your opinion.

In the response of this question most of the respondents said that there are no other factors

excluding mentioned factors which affects training transfer . But in case of few respondents they

concluded few other factor and those factors are:

Respondents said that if the relationship with trainer is friendly then it will be easier for

them to adapt training.

Few respondents said that there should be some reward system in the training

programme, trainees should be rewarded with promotions or other kind of benefits

( monetary) if they perform well during training.

Few respondents added that age difference between trainer should not be more than 10

years, if the trainer belong to their age group it will be easier for them to adapt training.

Respondents added that if trainer helps in problem solving of trainees training transfer is

assured to some extent.

One of the respondent added that there should be some kind of entertainment between the

class.

Few respondents added that if there is proper motivation from trainer then effectiveness

of training can be improved.

One of the respondent added that if there is a provision of test after completion of

training programme then it will be beneficial in terms of training transfer.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

“Transfer of training is defined as the degree to which trainees effectively apply the knowledge,

skills and attitudes gained in a training context to the job.

Transfer of training therefore, is more than a function of original learning in a training

program .For transfer to have occurred, learned behaviour must be generalised to the job context

and maintained over a period of time on the job.”

There are so many factors which affects training transfer but broadly there are few categories of

these factors eg. Training design , Individual trainee characteristics, Environment and context in

which transfer takes place. These factors changes in every individual’s case, one factor may

affect training transfer in one individual’s case and may be the same factor doesn’t have any

impact on other individual. The main thing is that there are so many factors and we can’t

consider all those factors so we should only consider controllable factors ,we should work on

those factors which we can control to ensure maximum level of training transfer.

APPENDIX

Questionnaire

On factors affecting transfer of training

Please underline the number (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) that most closely reflects your opinion about the training program.

1 - Strongly disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neither agree nor disagree 4 - Agree 5 - Strongly agree

1. Do you think behaviour of trainer had impact on training transfer.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Do you think knowledge of trainer had impact on training transfer.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Do you think Trainer’s personality had impact on training transfer.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Do you think communication skills of trainer had impact on training transfer. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Do you think involvement of trainees affects transfer of training.1 2 3 4 5

6. Do you think venue of training affects transfer of training .1 2 3 4 5

7. Do you think style or method adopted in conducting training affects transfer of training.1 2 3 4 5

8. Do you think aids available during training affects transfer of training.1 2 3 4 5

9. Do you think time duration of training affects transfer of training.1 2 3 4 5

10. Do you think projected benefits of training affects transfer of training.1 2 3 4 5

11. Do you think relationship with colleagues affects transfer of training.1 2 3 4 5

12. Do you think past experience with colleagues (if any) affects transfer of training. 1 2 3 4 5

13. Do you think appropriateness of classroom (sitting arrangement and ventilation etc.) affects training transfer.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Do you think conveyance facilities provided had impact on training transfer.1 2 3 4 5

15. Do you think recommendations to attend training affects it’s effectiveness. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Do you think the knowledge gap between trainees affects training effectiveness.1 2 3 4 5

17. Do you think motivation from superior/management had impact on training transfer.1 2 3 4 5

18. Do you think refreshment provided during training affects training effective to some extent. 1 2 3 4 5

19. Do you think past experience of training affects training transfer.1 2 3 4 5

20. Do you think your fitness had impact on training transfer.1 2 3 4 5

21. Do you think perception about other trainee & trainer affects training effectiveness. 1 2 3 4 5

22. Do you think content/ topic of training affects training transfer.1 2 3 4 5

23. Any other factor which affect training transfer in your opinion.

………………………………………………………………...

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams J (1987) Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention and transfer of human motor skills. ‘Psychological Bulletin’ 101, 1, 41-74.

Atkinson R (1972) Ingredients for a theory of instruction. ‘American Psychologist’ 27, 921-931.

Arthur W, Bennett W, Stanush P, McNelly T (1998) Factors that influence skill decay and retention: a quantitative review and analysis. ‘Human Performance’ 11(1), 57-101.

Baldwin T, Magjuka R, Loher B (1991) The perils of participation: effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning. ‘Personnel Psychology’ 44, 51-65.

Baldwin T, Ford JK (1988) Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research. ‘Personnel Psychology’ 41, 63-105.

Bramley P (1996) ‘Evaluating Training Effectiveness (2nd edn).’ (McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, England)

Brinkerhoff R, Montessino M (1995) Partnerships for training transfer: lessons from a corporate study. ‘Human Resource Development Quarterly’ Vol 6, 3, 263-274.

Burns RB (1997) Contrasting Perspectives. In ‘Introduction to research methods (3rd edn)’. pp 3-10. (Addison Wesley Longman, Melbourne)

Campbell J (1988) Training design for performance improvement. In ‘Productivity in organizations’ (Eds J Campbell, R Campbell and Associates) pp 177-216. (San Francisco: Jossey Bass)

Cohen D (1990) What motivates trainees. ‘Training Development Journal’, pp91-93.

Cole N, Latham G (1997) Effects of training in procedural justice on perceptions of disciplinary fairness by unionized employees and disciplinary subject matter experts. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 82, 699-705

Dart J (2000) ‘Ways of answering evaluation questions: methods of data collection, retrieval and creation.’. Unpublished document, developed for the Evaluation Support Team, Agriculture Division, NRE Victoria.

Driskell J, Willis R, Copper C (1992) Effect of overlearning on retention. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 77, 615-622

Duncan C, Underwood B (1951) Transfer in motor learning as a function of degree of first task learning and inter-task similarity. ‘Journal of Experimental Psychology’ 46, 445-452

Dweck C, Leggett E (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. ‘Psychology Review’ 95, 256-73.

Ellis H (1965) ‘The transfer of learning’. (New York: Macmillan)

Facteau J, Dobbins G, Russell, J, Ladd R, Kudisch J (1995) The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. ‘Journal of Management’ Vol 21 No 1, 1-25.

Fisher S, Ford JK (1998) Differential effects of learner efforts and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. ‘Personal Psychology’ 51, 397-420.

Fleishman E, Mumford M (1989) ‘Individual attributes and training performance. In ‘Training and development in organisations (Ed Goldstein)’ pp183-255. (San Fancisco: Jossey Bass)

Fleishman E (1953) Leadership climate, human relations training and supervisory behaviour. ‘Personnel Psychology’ 6, 205-222.

Ford JK, Smith E, Weissbein D, Gully S, Salas E (1998) Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 83, 218-233.

Ford JK, Weissbein D (1997) Transfer of training: an updated review and analysis. ‘Performance Improvement Quarterly’ 10(2), 22-41.

Ford JK, Quinones M, Sego D, Speer Sorra J (1992) Factors affecting the opportunity to perform training tasks on the job. ‘Personnel Psychology’ 45, 511-526.

Gagne R, Baker K, Foster H (1950) On the relation between similarity and transfer of training in the learning of discriminative motor tasks. ‘Psychological Review’ 57, 67-79.

Georgenson D (1982) The problem of transfer cells for partnership. ‘Training and Development Journal’ 36 (10), 75-78

Gist M, Mitchell T (1992) Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. ‘Academy of Management Review’ 17, 183-211.

Goettl B, Yadrick R, Connelly Gomez C, Regian W, Shebiliske W (1996) ‘Alternating task modules in isochronal distributed training of complex tasks. ‘Human Factors’ 38, 330-346.

Goldstein I (1993) ‘Training in organisations: needs assessment, development and evaluation (3rd

edn)’. (Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole)

Goldstein IL (1986) ‘Training in organisations: needs assessment, development and evaluation’. (Monterey CA: Brooks/ Cole)

Hicks W, Klimoski R (1987) Entry into training programs and it’s effects on training outcomes: a field experiment. ‘Academy of Management Journal’ 30, 542-552.

Howell W, Cooke N (1989) Training the human information processor: a review of cognitive models. In ‘Training and development in organisations’ (Ed Goldstein)’ pp121-182. (San Fancisco: Jossey Bass)

Joyce W, Slocum J (1984) Collective climate: agreement as a basis for defining aggregate climates in organisations. ‘Academy of Management Journal’ 27, 721-742.

Knowles M (1990) ‘The adult learner; a neglected species (4th edn).’ (Gulf Publishing Company, Houston)

Kolb D (1984) ‘Experiential learning’. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Ciffs NY)

Kozlowski S, 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 organisation (Eds K Klein, S Kozlowski)’ (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Kravetz D (1988) ‘The human resources revolution’. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)

Malouf D (1994) ‘How to teach adults in a fun and exciting way’. (Business and Professional Publishing: NSW)

Martocchio J (1994) Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy and learning in training. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 79, 819-825

Martocchio J, Webster J (1992) Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on performance in microcomputer software training. ‘Personnel Psychology’ 45, 553-578.

Mathieu J, Tannenbaum S, Salas E (1992) Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. ‘Academic Management Journal’ 35, 828-847.

Mathieu J, Martineau J, Tannenbaum S (1993) Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: implications for training effectiveness. ‘Personnel Psychology’ 46, 125-147.

Maurer T, Tarulli B (1994) Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 79, 3-14.

McGhee W, Thayer P (1961) ‘Training in business and industry’. (New York: Wiley)

McGill I, Beatty L (1995) ‘Action leaning: a guide to professional, management and educational development (2nd edn)’. (Kogan Page: London)

Merriam S (1998a) What is Qualitative Research? In ‘Qualitative research and case study applications in education’ pp 3-25. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)

Mumford A (1993) Putting learning styles to work: an integrated approach. In ‘Journal of European Industrial Training’ Vol 17, 10, 3-9.

Mumford M, Weeks J, Harding F, Fleishman E (1988) Relations between student characteristics, course content, and training outcomes: an integrative modelling effort. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 73, 443-456.

Naylor J, Briggs G (1963) The effect of task complexity and task organisation on the relative efficiency of part or whole training methods. ‘Journal of Experimental Psychology’ 65, 217-224.

Newstrom J (1984) ‘A role-taker/ time differentiated integration of transfer strategies’. Presented at 1984 meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto Ontario.

Noe R, Wilks S (1993) Investigation of the factors affecting that affect employees’ participation in development activities. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 78, 291-302.

Noe R (1986) Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effectiveness. ‘Academy of Management Review’ 11, 736-749.

Phillips J, Gully S (1997) Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal setting process. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 82, 792-802.

Quinones M (1997) Contextual influences on training effectiveness. In ‘Training for a rapidly changing workplace: applications of psychological research’. (Eds M Quinone, A Ehrenstein) pp 177-199. (American Psychological Association, Washington DC)

Quinones M (1995) Pretraining context effects: training assignment as feedback. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 80, 226-238.

Quinones M, Ford JK, Sego D, Smith E (1995) The effects of individual and transfer environment characteristics on the opportunity to perform trained tasks. ‘Training Research Journal’ 1, 29-48

Randel J, Main R, Seymour G, Morris B (1992) Relation of study factors to performance in navy technical schools. ‘Mil. Psychology’ 4, 75-86.

Ree M, Carretta T, Teachout M (1995) Role of ability and prior job knowledge in complex training performance. Journal of Applied Psychology’ 80, 721-730.

Ree M, Earles J (1991) Predicting training success: not much more than G. ‘Personnel Psychology’ 44, 321-332.

Roullier J, Goldstein I (1993) The relationship between organisational transfer climate and positive transfer of training. ‘Human Resource Development Quarterly’ 4, 377-390.

Salas E, Cannon-Bowers J (2001) The science of training: a decade of progress. ‘Annual Review of Psychology’ 52, 471-499.

Schmidt R, Bjork R (1992) New conceptualizations of practice: common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. ‘Psychol. Science’ 3, 207-217.

Schneider B, Reichers A (1983) On the etiology of climates. ‘Personnel Psychology’ 36, 19-39.

Shebiliske W, Regian J, Arthur W Jordan J (1992) A dyadic protocol for training complex skills. ‘Human Factors’ 34, 369-374.

Shebiliske W, Jordan J, Goettl B, Paulus L (1998) Observation versus hands-on practice of complex skills in dyadic, triadic and tetradic training teams. ‘Human Factors’ 40, 525-540.

Smith-Jentsch K, Salas E, Brannick M (2001) To transfer of not to transfer: investigating the combined effects of trainee characteristics, team leader support and team climate. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ Vol 86, 2, 279-292.

Tannenbaum S (1997) Enhancing continuous learning: diagnostic findings from multiple companies. ‘Human Resource Management’ Vol 36, 4, 437-452

Tannenbaum S, Yukl G (1992) Training and development in work organisations. ‘Annual review Psychology’ 43, 399-441.

Tannenbaum S, Mattieu J, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers J (1991) Meeting trainees expectations: the influence of training fulfilment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy and motivation. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 43, 399-441.

Tracey J, Tannenbaum S, Kavanagh M (1995) Applying trained skills on the job: the importance of the work environment. ‘Journal of Applied Psychology’ 80, 239-252

Wagner J, Gooding R (1987) Shared influence and organisational behaviour: a meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. ‘Academy of Management Journal’ 30, 524-541.

Wexley K, Latham G (1981) ‘Developing and training human resources in organisations’. (Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman)

Wexley K, Thornton C (1972) Effect of verbal feedback of test results upon learning. ‘Journal of Educational Research’ 66, 199-121.

Yelon S, Ford JK (1999) Pursuing a multidimensional view of transfer. ‘Performance Improvement Quarterly’ Vol 12, 3, 58-78.

dissertation on factors affecting training transfer

Documents