occupational psychology coursework essay

8/3/2019 Occupational Psychology Coursework Essay

1/8

1

Compare and contrast the five different models of training: instructional model;

apprenticeship model; inquiry model; self-evaluation model and situational model and

consider the strengths and weakness of teacher-led and trainee-led training and how

each can be evaluated.

Training is an essential phase for workers. It not only ensures they have the required skills for

the job but it also aims to assimilate them into the organisation and improve their jobperformance. Because of its important function in improving an organisations efficiency,

various training models have been developed. This essay will describe each models role for

trainer and trainee, compare their learning processes and evaluate their strengths andweaknesses. Kirkpatricks four-level training criteria will be used to describe how training

evaluation might be conducted along with considering its limitations to illustrate thechallenges of conducting effective training evaluation.

The industry or instructional training model allows numerous workers to be systematically

trained under one or more instructor. The model is based on behavioural principles such as

reinforcement and observation when teaching trainees the required skills and knowledge for

the job (Millward, 2005). The trainees role is to listen to the trainers instructions, observe

how they accomplish the task and then simulate those steps. They need to practice those new

skills and apply it once they are in the work setting. The trainers role is basically to instruct,

shape the trainees skills and conduct performance tests to assess their progress (De Jong,

Thijssen, & Verslooy, 2001). One advantage of this training model includes being cost-

effective, since a large number of trainees can be instructed at the time-expense of only one

supervisor or trainer. The instructional model is particularly favourable when the task is

complex or a new concept is being introduced because it would give trainees the opportunity

to ask questions directly to the trainer. The model does have its weaknesses, for example it

cannot cater to different learning styles that trainees may have. In this respect, training from

the instructional model has a rather fixed format (De Jong, Thijssen, & Verslooy, 2001).

On the other hand, the apprenticeship model has the liberty to cater to a trainees particularlearning style because it is very much a one-to-one training. The trainer is considered to be a

master in their area of expertise and the trainee is referred to as an apprentice (Lave &Wenger, 1991). Like the industry model, the apprenticeship model is largely instructor-

centred (pedagogy); hence the quality of training will largely depend on the trainers abilityto communicate the processes involved in the job, as well as transferring their skills and

knowledge effectively. Both models have similar trainee and trainer roles i.e. observation,modelling (Millward, 2005). However, in the instructional model, the trainer is not just

limited to modelling, but can use other behavioural methods to shape behaviour (De Jong,

Thijssen & Verslooy, 2001) according to the tasks requirements for example, providing

positive feedback when the right actions are performed this reinforces the trainee tocontinue the same behaviour. However, the trainers role in the apprenticeship paradigm is

entirely dedicated to being a role model. Another contrast is the duration of training - an

apprenticeship can last for many years, usually five according to the Rip Van Winkle

approach by Wexley (1984, cited in Millward, 2005). This training model is most likely to be

appropriate for certain tasks or jobs for example, trainees aiming to become a craftsman or to

work in the medical field. People wanting to become surgeons in particular would benefit

from the apprenticeship model as the nature of the work requires them to know every process

and procedure accurately. The apprenticeship model can adopt a similar learning process as


2/8

2

the instructional model i.e. practice and guided acquisition (Millward, 2005); however it alsohas the additional requirement of socialising with the specific work communitys practice and

language (Sfard, 1998).

Compared to the instructional and apprenticeship training models, which are instructor-

centred, the following training models inquiry, self-evaluation and situated learning, are

more learner-centred (andragogy). The inquiry model allows the trainee to be moreresponsible for their learning and training performance. The trainer is considered to be less

dictatorial, and adopts a more facilitative and supportive role (Millward, 2005). They aim to

encourage the trainee to explore and gather information regarding their task. An important

aspect of the learning process involves interacting with the work environment which prompts

problem-solving and analytical thinking (De Jong, Thijssen, & Verslooy, 2001). The model

also supports error training, which refers to the trainee learning through their mistakes. This

contrasts greatly against the instructional model which would discourage error-making.

Nordstrom, Wendland and Williams (1998) described error training to be rather effective

after finding an increase in ability and intrinsic motivation when trainees comprehended their

errors. This demonstrates innovative learning (Smith, Ford & Koslowski, 1997 cited inMillward, 2005). On the other hand, error training can be detrimental towards people who are

highly conscientious of their job performance and can reduce their self-efficacy. This mayprevent them from considering alternatives, and therefore inhibit exploratory learning (Gully,

Payne, Koles & Whiteman, 2002).

The self-evaluation model is considered to be highly similar to the inquiry model but with aslight variation. This variation is mostly attributed to assuming the trainee is motivated to

increase their self-esteem and personal development. The learning process entails self-

directed learning, which includes observation and reflection on experiences (Millward, 2005).

However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support whether self-directed learning is

indeed effective along with how self-directed learning works in a particular context

(Brookfield, 1984, cited in Hill & Song, 2007). Candy (1991, cited in Hill & Song, 2007)

stated if the individual has previous experience in the area of work, then they are more self-

directed. Thus self-directed learning may only be as effective depending on the context. Just

as there are different learning styles, there is also the issue of different reflection tendencies

such as interpersonal reflection, internally-oriented self-reflection, and rumination. This

differentiation along with its possible consequences has not been investigated (Millward,

2005). Another criticism in regard to the self-evaluation model includes self-report measures

being unreliable because the individual tends to overestimate their ability. This can be shown

in correlational studies that have found inconsistent results (Wexley, 1984).

Both the self-evaluation and inquiry model require the trainee to explore their task and rise tochallenges. However, in the inquiry model the trainer sets challenges so that it stimulates the

trainee to learn whilst exploring their task, whereas in the self-evaluation model, the trainee

would set their own challenges as a way of reaching their goals, which the trainer helpsfacilitate (De Jong, Thijssen & Verslooy, 2001). Another contrast is that the inquiry modelencourages problem-solving, and is characterised by its exploratory and action-learning

(Farnham, 1994), whereas the self-evaluation model focuses heavily on reflective practice

and thought (Millward, 2005). This can be a problem as people may reach different

conclusions when evaluating themselves. Individuals may have different interpretations and

learning experience, therefore outcomes derived from the self-evaluation model can be

extensive, which implies low training validity because the change the training model aims to

make may not occur as planned (Pulley, 1994, cited in Millward, 2005).While the inquiry


3/8

3

model supports error training, the self-evaluation model is almost based on it. It is all aboutself-improvement and being critically aware of ones performance. Learners cannot afford to

be highly conscientious about their performance but rather, they must always seek out waysto develop themselves and learn how they can improve their performance. This is the reason

for why the trainers role incorporates an improvement-oriented management style (Zubes

& Miller, 1995, cited in De Jong, Thijssen & Verslooy, 2001, p. 412). The trainer provides

feedback but unlike in the instructional model where this would act as positive reinforcement,this helps trainee set their goals.

The situational model incorporates many of the features found in the inquiry, self-evaluation

and apprenticeship model. Many of the striking similarities can be recognised in the article

The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school

settings (Glazer & Hannafin, 2006). The model emphasises that learning is truly co-

dependent on three components: content, context and the work community (Stein, 2001).

Content refers to the nature of the task and what it aims to make trainees do. Like the

inquiry model, it allows the trainees to apply their knowledge and encourage problem-

solving. The context is the work-setting and allows trainees to understand how a workplacefunctions and manages. Without learning in a situated context, it is less likely that skills and

strategies will be transferrable (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). It gives the trainee theopportunity to encounter genuine work problems and confront issues they may not know how

to handle. It also provides cues to guide the trainee into mastering the content. Such cues aredelivered through socialisation and collaboration, which is a large part of the third component

work community (Millward, 2005). Like the self-evaluation model, a major part of thelearning process involves critical reflection, but it also involves interacting and

communicating with other experts. Whereas trainees in the apprenticeship model aim to

become part of the work community, the trainees in the situational model learn directly by

training amongst the work community, integrating their everyday activities and extracting

valid knowledge (Stein, 2001). The trainers role is perhaps more multifaceted compared to

the other models as they need to determine four critical aspects proposed by Young (1993,

cited in Stein, 2001). These include considering the right situations that would provide

optimal learning for the trainee, selecting the appropriate type of guidance, changing their

role from a transmitter to a facilitative role when trainee becomes more competent and lastly,

to consistently assess the learners progress in training.

Training that is conducted on-site (e.g. situational and apprenticeship model) is perhaps more

effective compared to training models that are conducted off-site. The reason why off-site

training may be less effective in regard to learning is because if the trainee cannot see thesimilarity between the situation and training task, it is unlikely they will apply their skills

appropriately. The inquiry model may select a task that incites problem-solving andanalytical skills, but it is not enough to just increase a trainees cognitive abilities, they must

also be able to select them in the right situations (Ford & Kraiger, 1995, cited in Millward,

2005). This can only occur when trainees have contextual knowledge (Tennyson, 1999,cited in Millward, 2005).

The aim of training is to create a change in the individuals behaviour in terms of skills,

knowledge and attitude that would have a positive impact on the organisation (Goldstein,

1980). Training evaluation is a way of systematically collecting information that will be

used to judge how effective the training program was in improving the organisations

performance (Snyder, Raben & Farr, 1980). A well-known training evaluation model is

Kirkpatricks four levels of training criteria. According to this model, evaluation may be


4/8

4

measured against these four criteria which follow a hierarchy starting with reactions,learning, then behaviour and lastly results (Alliger & Janak, 1989). Reaction refers to

the trainees reaction to the training program, or their attitude and personal feelings towardsthe learning experience. This is usually measured using self-report measures or feedback

forms. The criteria learning measures how much the trainee has understood of the concepts

and whether the training taught the intended knowledge and skills required for the job. This

can be assessed through observation and surveys. Behaviour evaluation is able to directlymeasure work performance. It measures the effects of learning experience on the trainees

behaviour and how much of it was applied. Evaluation tools for this criterion include

supervisor ratings, observation and even self-assessment (Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell,

2003). Results is the effects on the organisation, usually measured in terms of returns of

investment, turnover and productivity (Alliger & Janak, 1989).

There are several criticisms with Kirkpatricks four-levels of training criteria. Some of them

are to do with its assumptions and some are in regard to the measures used for each criterion.

Alliger and Janak (1989) asserted that a training program may not be affected by all four

criteria during an evaluation process. They suggested an example to demonstrate this critique if the organisation aims to reduce prejudice, then perhaps only the reaction criterion would

be affected, not the learning and results criteria. The model also appears to assume thatone level of the criterion can affect the previous one, however if reactions and learning are

both assessed immediately after the training, then we must question how can one cause theother (Alliger & Janak, 1989). Research has attempted to discern the links between the

different criteria in order to investigate this assumption of causation and discovered a weakassociation between reaction and the other three criteria (Arthur, Tubre, Paul & Edens, 2003),

implying that reactions criterion may be inadequate in providing useful information when

evaluating a training model (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). On the other hand, there is

evidence to suggest there is a link between reaction and learning, more specifically, that the

outcome of reactions can affect learning through motivation. If reaction is encouraging

and optimistic, then the motivation to learn is higher (Mathieu, Tannenbaum & Salas, 1992,

cited in Millward, 2005). On a final limitation, it is ambiguous to assume there is a positive

correlation between the four criteria, for this is not necessarily the case with reactions and

learning. Just because the trainee may give a positive feedback on the training program does

not mean that learning has taken place (Kaplan & Pascoe, 1977).

Problems with the tools for evaluation include the self-report measures used in the reaction

criterion. Hofstadter and Dennet (1981) reported that people are faulty when describing their

experiences. Some argue that measuring reaction involves multiple psychological factorssuch as self-efficacy and motivation (Kraiger, Ford & Salas (1993), which suggests

reactions should be measured on a multifaceted level. The results criterion is a very usefulmeans of evaluating whether the training program was effective or not, after all it measures

the organisations performance rather than the individuals, and the aim of training is to make

a change in the organisations process, thus it is able to express this relationship directly. Onthe other hand, Kirkpatrick (1979) admits that this is a difficult evaluation to carry out due tocomplex factors that may not be able to be operationalised and thus unable to be evaluated.

There is also the concern in discerning which factors related to training is responsible for the

change in the organisations process. Observation can be considered to be an unreliable

measure as it can be subjected to bias due to variability in interpretations. The training

evaluator who is observing will have to adhere to another set of criteria that codes the exact

behaviour they are looking for. Some researchers suggested most of the measures that


5/8

5

collected data under the reaction criterion were eyeballattempts to measure reactions(Goldstein, 1980, p. 424).

In conclusion, we should realise that despite the limitations of Kirkpatricks model, it

certainly has proven to be useful as it has been widely used in numerous studies (see Arthur,

Bennett, Edens & Bell, 2003) and provides a sound framework on how organisations can go

about evaluating the effectiveness of their training programs. However, perhaps instead offocusing on training models and evaluation methods, more careful consideration should be

directed on training needs assessment which includes task, person and organisational

analysis (Goldstein, 1980). By understanding what the organisations objectives and needs

are, training can be identified for the relevant areas. From there, task analysis can distinguish

what training needs to involves, and lastly, person analysis decides on who will need the

training (Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell, 2003). With all of this taken into account, a strong,

efficient training model can be designed that can produce good outcomes when evaluated.


6/8

6

References

Alliger, G.M., & Janak, E.A. (1989). Kirkpatricks levels of training criteria: Thirty years

later. PersonnelPsychology, 42, 331-342

Arthur, W. Jr., Bennett, W. Jr., Edens, P.S., & Bell, S.T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in

organisations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(2), 234-245

Arthur, W., Jr., Tubre, T. C., Paul, D. S., & Edens, P. S. (2003).Teaching effectiveness: The

relationship between reaction and learning criteria.EducationalPsychology, 23, 275285

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.

De Jong, J.A., Thijssen, J.G.L., & Verslooy, B.M. (2001). Planned training on the job: A

typology.Advances in Developing Human resources, 3(4), 408-414

Farnham, D. S. (1994). Paradigms of knowledge and instruction. Review of Educational

Research, 64(3), 4463-477

Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated

professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 179

193


7/8

7

Goldstein, I. L. (1980). Training and organizational psychology.American Psychological

Association, 11, 3, 421 - 427

Gully, S. M., Payne, S. C., Koles, K. L. K., & Whiteman, J. K. (2002). The impact of error

raining and individual differences on training outcomes: An attribute-treatment interaction

perspective.Human Performance, 15(4), 381-410

Hill, J.R., & L. Song. 2007. Conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in

online environments.Journal of Interactive Online Learning6, no. 1: 2742.

Hofstadter, D. R., & Dennett, D. C. (1981). The mind's I: Fantasies and reflections on self

and soul.New York: Bantam Books

Kaplan, R. M., & Pascoe, G. C. (1977). Humorous lectures and humorous examples: Some

effects upon comprehension and retention. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 69, 6165.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and

Development Journal, 33(6), 78-92

Kraiger, K., Ford, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Applications of cognitive, skill-based and effective

theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 311-328

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press


8/8

8

Millward, L. (2005) Understanding Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology. Sage:

London.

Nordstrom, C. R., Wendland, D., & Williams, K. B. (1998). An examination of the

effectiveness of error management training.Journal of Business andPsychology, 12(3), 369-

282

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and on the dangers of choosing just one.

Educational Researcher, 27 (2), 4-13.

Snyder, R. A., Raben, C. S., Farr, J. L. (1980). A model for the systematic evaluation of

human resource development programs.Acad. Manage Rev. 5:431-44

Stein, D.S. (2001). Situated learning and planned training on the job.Advances in Developing

Human resources, 3(4), 415-425

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations.

Annual Review ofPsychology, 43, 399441.

Wexley, K.N. (1984). Personnel training.Annual review ofPsychology, 35, 519-551

occupational psychology coursework essay

Documents