Transfer of Training Rate
What is the real rate of transfer? I don't believe anyone has performed a complete study of it, however there is one study that surveyed members of a training and development society (Sacs & Belcourt. 2006). They (see note below) reported an initial transfer rate of 62%. Note that the rate drops over a period of time, however that is another discussion.
Note: The participants included 150 members of a training and development society who reported working an average of 10.5 years in training and development and 10 years in their current organization. Their organizations employed an average of 5001,000 employees and comprise over a dozen sectors including manufacturing, service, and government.
Thus, 38% of training fails to initially transfer. There are two main reasons.
The first one is that some so called "training" programs are not really training, but rather more development or educational in nature, thus an initial transfer rate should not be expected. That is, training is done to show an immediate or near immediate improvement on the job, which means it should show a "transfer rate." While development and educational programs are performed more to "grow" the learner over a period of time, thus we should expect lower transfer rates for development and education programs that for real "training" programs. Thus, the primary problem is that learning professionals fail to properly identify or categorize the learning program.
The second reason is of course that mistakes are made with the analysis or design of the learning program.
20% x 20% x 10% = 0.4% Myth
The article in Chief Learning Officer's magazine, "The Low-Hanging Fruit is Tasty," and Jay Cross' book, "Informal Learning" presents the "20% x 20% x 10% = 0.4%" formula:
- 10% to 20% of our training efforts transfer to the job (Brinkerhoff & Gill, Baldwin & Ford, & others).
- Training accounts for 10% of the potential for changing performance on the job (Rummler & Brache).
- Training departments only manage the 20% of the learning that is formal (80% is informal).
When multiplied together, this implies that training is responsible for less than 1% (0.4) of the potential change in performance on the job.
The first part of the formula was already disproved in the section: "10% Transfer of Training Myth"
As to the second part, most trainers would probably agree or at least somewhat agree with the Rummler & Brache's research. From what I have seen, most place the percentage of training's potential for changing performance on the job somewhere between 10% and 20%.
When we take away the false claim on transfer of training we are left with two percentages: Rummler & Brache's assertion that training accounts for 10% of the potential for changing performance on the job and the assertion that training departments only manage 20% of the learning that is formal as 80% is informal.
So now we can reduce the formula to 10% x 20% = 2%. Now we can say that training accounts for 2% of "the potential change in performance on the job," which is still not saying much. However, this disproves Rummler & Brache's assertion that training accounts for 10% of the potential for changing performance on the job. How can we use their number to disprove their number? This does not sound very logical.
The reason that this does not work is that the author is confounding the numbers by using two different things -- training verses learning. This would be the same if we say we have half of an apple (training) and half of an orange (learning) then implying we only have 25% fruit (0.5 x 0.5 = .25). You cannot multiple training and learning and expect to get any type of logical answer as they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
The bottom-line is that the formula uses very bad math.
Training and the Bottom Line
Myth: "Training has little effect on the bottom line. Clients are wasting their money by investing in it." However, as reported by CLO: "Organizations are linking learning to performance and the bottom line, and they understand the relationship between creating a skilled workforce and achieving enterprise-wide success"
ASTD reports: "Employee learning and development is taking center stage as business leaders increasingly understand that a highly skilled, knowledgeable workforce is critical to achieving growth and success. In its 2006 State of the Industry Report, the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) finds that leading organizations increased learning investments in two key areas: annual expenditure per employee and learning hours"
The majority of training activities are spent in the design and delivery of learning programs, however, our clients value business linkage the most (Trolley, 2006). Thus, we have to spend more time showing how training, development, and educational programs provide a real difference to the business. While the design and delivery of learning programs are important, it does us little good if the rest of the organization sees our activities as transactional rather than value-added. Trainers MUST spend more time showing how we do indeed improve performance and how our activities add value.
Generational Differences
Thomas Reeves (20006), writing on Generational differences "are evident in the workplace, but they are not salient enough to warrant the specification of different instructional designs or the use of different learning technologies." "On the other hand, both feasible solutions and reusable design principles are sorely needed with respect to the intersection of generational differences and instructional design. Instead of worrying about whether Boomers, GenXers or Millennials will learn more from direct instruction or virtual reality games, instructional designers and educational technology researchers working closely with practitioners and subject matter experts should begin by identifying the needs of any given set of learners, design the best possible prototype learning environments in situ [see Note], and then conduct iterative cycles of formative evaluation and refinement to optimize the solution and reveal robust design principles."
Note: in situ -- In the natural place or in the original place (a Latin term meaning "in place" or "not removed")
However, that does not mean the culture is not out there. So while the newer generations may not warrant different instructional strategies, it does not mean they will tolerate the same old lectures, activities that have no real meaning to their work, two hour long classes that could have been learned at their desks in 30 minutes and other wasteful means that other generations have tolerated.
Talent management works best when you help to assimilate others' cultures into the organization when it makes sense to do so, rather than fight to keep your ways the sole means of conducting business. The real idea is to increase productivity. For the most part we have finally cut the non-complex transactional positions that benefit from productivity-stimulating technology. All that's left are complicated and nuanced jobs requiring experience, expertise, judgment, interaction, and collaboration -- or tacit knowledge (Frei & Mader, 2008).
Downsizing
In a speech to the Academy of Management in 1996, Donald Hastings, CEO of lincoln Electric, called downsizing and rightsizing "dumbsizing." Note that Lincoln Electric is one of the leaders in its field and has not laid off since its inception in 1948. Yet it has been through all the hard times like everyone else, but during lean times, it chooses to redeploy people rather than lay them off, e.g. factory workers start selling its products in the field. Another company, the Saturn Division of General Motors, did similar redeployments in the 1990s. Why? Because innovations, productivity improvements, etc. are not likely to be sustained over time when workers fear that they will work themselves out of a job (Locke, 1995).
"The evidence indicates that downsizing is guaranteed to accomplish only one thing -- it makes organizations smaller" (Pfeffer, 1998). In fact, the consequences of downsizing is stock prices that lag 5 to 45% behind the competition (in more than 1/2 the cases they lagged 17 to 48%), it does not necessarily increase productivity or profits, downsizing tends to be repetitive (2/3 of organizations repeat it the next year), it does not fix or improve core processes, it can be readily copied so it offers no competitive advantage, and it has unanticipated costs that limit its benefits.
Downsizing only works about 1/2 the time, thus firms are basically flipping a coin when they choose to downsize. With all the negative connotations associated with downsizing, very few firms use other means to avoid downsizing (1994 American Management Association survey). Downsizing is nothing more than a euphemism that refers to layoffs initiated by a company in order to cut labor costs. While the euphemism makes it less disturbing for the speaker to say it, it probably does nothing for the listeners.
Rather than downsizing, other possibilities include:
- reducing work hours
- reducing pay
- taking outsourced work back
- building inventories
- freeze hiring and reshuffle workers
- do training, maintenance, etc.
- refrain from hiring during peak demands
- encourage people to innovate (product, services, markets)
- transfer people to sales to build demand
Knowledge Economy
Wired magazine (13.04, p. 040) -- American companies earn more money from foreign firms outsourcing "service" jobs here than we loose from domestic companies sending service jobs overseas. In 2003 (the latest data available), U.S. businesses took in 61.4 billion by providing labor to foreign interests, while outsourcing 43.5 billion worth of jobs to other countries. Note that "service" jobs generally refer to work other than manufacturing, such as knowledge, health professions, insurance, etc.
In 1980, it appeared to be just about even with a couple billion being outsourced and insourced and then it took a fairly study rise to achieve our present 17.9B surplus.
By 2012, 80 percent of Americans will hold jobs in the service industry. It presently makes up about 60 percent of our workforce (BLS figures).
Other countries with surpluses:
- United Kingdom 41.2B vs 19.7B
- India 18.6 B vs 11.8B
- Singapore 13.0B vs 9.2B
- China 10.4B vs 8.0B
These countries outsourced more service jobs:
- Germany 26.5B vs 41.4B
- France 23.1B vs 23.2B
- Netherlands 20.1B vs 20.1B
- Japan 17.4B vs 24.7B
- Austria 13.8B vs 16.6B
Note: Wired magazine's data was supplied by the International Monetary Fund's trade unit.
Class Size
The consensus is that class size is not a particularly important
factor when the goal of instruction is the acquisition of subject matter
knowledge and academic skills. This appears to hold true across various
class types (e.g. lecture, discussion). However, smaller class sizes are
somewhat more effective than larger ones when the goals of instruction are
motivational, altitudinal, or higher-level cognitive processes. (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p87).
Putting this in perspective with the training world - it depends. For
example, I used to train heavy construction equipment (e.g. bulldozers,
earth-moving scrapers, scooploaders, backhoes). We used a 4-to-1 learner
to trainer ratio when instructing the practical exercises. When
you are in a muddy field and you got 10 inches of red clay sticking to
your boots and you are trying to train, coach, provide real life
experiences, and at the same time be safety conscience due to the number
of things that can happen with a beginner on a mega-ton piece of equipment
performing construction tasks, then you start to get the picture for such
a low ratio.
Also, the 4-to-1 ratio is used in other aspects of training, but I believe it has more to do with being symmetrical (the trainer in the middle with a student at each corner), than it has to do with any real learning advantage.
During some diversity training I facilitated, the class sizes were kept small, under 10 learners, as the designers wanted to allow room for a lot of interaction to take place. So while one instance might call for small class sizes due to safety and the complexity of the training, another might be kept small to allow for certain activities to take place.
I believe the best approach is to analyze your training requirements, check on classroom facilities, and then choose your class size accordingly.
Personalized System of Instruction (PSI)
If you really want to be more effective, then use a better instructional strategy. The Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), also know as the Keller Plan, was developed by Fred Keller (1968). It is composed of small self-paced modularized units of instructions where study guides direct learners through the modules. Unit tests are given on each module where the learners must show mastery by scoring at least a 90%. Student proctors are used to help with individual problems and lectures are given for motivational problems only.
Pascarella and Terenzini's (1991, p91-93) reviewed seven different studies and concluded that "PSI is effective in fostering improved subject matter mastery over more conventional instructional approach. This is true regardless of whether the synthesis is quantitative or narrative."
They also reviewed two meta-analytical syntheses of PSI and learning. The
first was based on 19 studies and had an effect size of 0.42 of a standard
deviation. The second one was based on 61 studies and had an effect size
of 0.49 of a standard deviation which translates to an achievement
advantage of 19 percentile points (in other words, if the conventionally
taught groups were achieving at the 50th percentile, the PSI groups were,
on the average, at the 69th percentile).
Active Learning
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p98) report that student involvement or engagement (active learning) be used since a substantial body of evidence suggests that the greater the learner's involvement in the learning process, then the greater the level of content acquisition. Also note that this involvement can be as simple as note taking, discussions, or answering questions.
Media
As long as the learning methods are similar, there is no evidence that one medium works better than another. Thus, an online course is just as effective as a classroom (and vice-versa) as long as the learning or instructional strategies remain the same (Clark, 2001).
Clark wrote, "The best current evidence is that media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes a change in our nutrition" [Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53,(4), 445-459]. Now there are economic benefits to be had from media, but there is no evidence that it makes any unique contribution to learning. Now even though he wrote it some time ago, it is still the most frequently cited source in the field.
Now with all that said, some media are closely related to learning methods. For example, graphics normally enhance the learning experience when used correctly Clark & Lyons, 2004).
However, like anything else this does not always hold true. For example, if the goal is to encourage the learners to find an optimum solution to a problem, then performance will normally be facilitated if the instructions are presented in text rather than graphics and text, apparently paradoxically, because of the difficulty of working with this text -- you become more drawn into the content (Ainsworth & Peevers, 2003). However, this normally takes longer. If the goal is to encourage quick task completion or if solutions are roughly equivalent, then the worst method is normally text, while the best seems to be audible and graphics.
I tend to believe this has to do with the same way our brains process art -- when we look at a painting, our brains process its content before registering its style.
Thus, when the level of learning is low on the difficulty scale, learners first process the content and then they process the style (graphic), which in turn reinforces the content by drawing them more into the content that they need to learn. Basically, we are raising their arousal levels.
When we move up the difficulty level, such as having to make a judgement, then we need lower arousal lowers as this tends to aid creativity by allowing us to become more focused on details and becoming more analytical.
Note Taking
Robert Marzano (1998) performed a meta study and came up with these two findings on "Idea Representations:"
- Note taking techniques have an overall effect size of .99, indicating a percentile gain of 34 points. These techniques require students to generate personal linguistic representations of the information being presented.
- However, the instructional technique with the largest effect size within this information processing category was graphic representations. This technique produced a percentile gain in achievement of 39 points. One of the most effective of these techniques was semantic mapping (Toms-Bronosky, 1980) with an effect size of 1.48 (n=1), indicating a percentile gain of 43 points. With this technique, the learner represents the key ideas in a lesson as nodes (circles) with spokes depicting key details emanating from the node.
Thus, you get more bang for your bucks using graphic representations. . . when it comes to note taking, perhaps Mihai Nadin was right in that we are moving to a more visual type literacy (The Civilization of Illiteracy).
Instructor Effectiveness
"Teaching behavior systematically influence the acquisition of subject matter knowledge by students" (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p94). There are six general dimensions of teacher effectiveness:
- Skill: pedagogical adroitness
- Rapport: empathy, accessibility, and friendliness
- Structure: plan and organizes the instruction
- Difficulty: the amount and difficulty of work expected
- Interaction: the extent to which students are encouraged to become actively involved
- Feedback: the extent to which feedback is provided on the quality of the student's work
The dimensions are largely independent of class size and "have statistically significant positive correlations with course achievement" (p95). In addition correlations between instructor rating and achievement were larger for full-time (verses part-time) faculty when an external evaluator (not an instructor) graded student's course achievement.
The two dimensions of teacher behavior that stand out as being particularly salient in terms of potential influence on learning are skill and structure. The positive association found between an instructor's skill and student learning depends more on instructor clarity and understandability than on constituent factors such as instructor subject matter knowledge or sensitivity to class level and progress.
In addition, some specific teacher behaviors that influence learning are the ability to use examples to illustrate concepts, identifying key points, and clearly signaling topic transitions (p96).
Prior subject matter and background in a content area affect the ways in
which teachers select and structure content for teaching, choose
activities and assignments for students, and use textbook and other
curriculum materials. (Shulman & Grossman, 1988, p.12)
In another study (Marzano, 1998), the author paints a picture of an effective teacher (p135). He quotes Shulman who described the missing paradigm in education as one that bridged the gap between content knowledge and instructional techniques. Marzano suggests that this paradigm is the understanding of the relationships among the knowledge domains, the cognitive system, the metacognitive system, and the self-system, and uses that understanding to make a myriad of instructional decisions that occur in a single lesson. Note: for more information on these systems and domain see 
