Category Archives: Training

Error Management Training: What’s Age Got to Do with It?

2

Topic: Training
Publication: Personnel Psychology (AUTUMN 2010)
Article: The effectiveness of error management training with working-aged adults
Authors: M. Carter and M.E. Beier
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

Two recent trends that have important implications for training and workforce development include: (1) the aging workforce and (2) the increase in learner-led, online training.  One intervention that has shown great potential is Error Management Training (EMT).  EMT is a fairly simple intervention that allows trainees to explore the learning environment and frames errors/mistakes as “good for learning” (during training at least).  In other words, in EMT, errors are not considered things that should be avoided, but rather opportunities to learn. 

When the use of EMT is considered in light of the fact that the workforce is aging – and the fact that much of the research in support of EMT has been conducted on college-aged adults – questions arise about its appropriateness for older working adults.  Aspects of cognitive ability such as short term memory (working memory) capacity, reasoning ability, and speed at which we process information decline as we age (starting at about 30-35 years of age – how very depressing…).  Importantly, these aspects of ability play important roles in determining one’s success in learner-led online training. 

In their study of working-aged adults, Carter and Beier (2010) found that EMT interventions (e.g., explicitly informing trainees that making errors is “good for their learning”) is generally beneficial for learners when training is learner-led.

Continue reading →

Learner Control in E-Learning: To Each, His Own

1

Topic: Training
Publication: International Journal of Training and Development
Article: The perplexing role of learner control in e-learning: Will learning and transfer benefit or suffer?
Authors: B. P. Granger & E. L. Levine
Publication: International Journal of Training and Development
Reviewed By: Katie Bachman

Score one for the home team! Our very own Ben Granger published an article in the latest issue of the International Journal of Training and Development. Heavy on the theoretical ponderings and empirical research, the article details the pros and cons of giving users control of their training experience in e-learning environments. And honey, he’s got the references to back up his work—90 citations in a little over 15 single-column pages of text!

Learner control refers to a trainee’s ability to manipulate the pace, order, content, and help offered during a training experience. E-learning and learner control are somewhat intertwined because the most lauded aspects of e-learning (e.g., time flexibility, adaptability to individuals, etc.) are often only possible when trainees have control over their own learning. The article details the positive and negative aspects of learner control on the amount of information learned, the satisfaction individuals have with their training experience, transfer of training, and participation in training, just to name a few.

The pros are what you would expect: trainees get a customized experience where they can spend the time they need to explore options, learn new skills, and engage with the training materials.

Continue reading →

Giving Learners Control over Control

Reply

Topic: Training
Publication: International Journal of Training and Development
Article: Trainee reactions to learner control: An important link in the e-learning equation
Authors: S.L. Fisher, M.E. Wasserman, and K.A. Orvis
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

 

One of the most unique characteristics of e-learning is that it typically places trainees in the driver’s seat of their own learning by giving them control over important aspects of the training environment (e.g., the pace at which they progress, sequence of course materials).This key characteristic is known as learner control and there is a rich research literature comparing training programs that offer high degrees of learner control with training programs that offer less or no learner control (e.g., instructor-led classroom courses). To date, there is no definitive answer to the question of which approach is best (high learner control v. low learner control). What is clear,however, is that some trainees benefit from high degrees of control in e-learning and some do not.

In a special issue on e-learning in the International Journal of Training and Development, Fisher et al. (2010) report on a study that explores the importance of considering learners’ preferences for engaging in learner-controlled training. This study acknowledges that trainees have different preferences when it comes to online training and their preferences might be important for determining how effective e-learning is for them.

In their study, Fisher et al. assigned one group of business management students to engage in a short learner-controlled leadership training course.

Continue reading →

Another Shot at the Transfer Problem

1

Topic: Training
Publication: Journal of Management (JUL 2010)
Article: Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review
Authors: B.D. Blume, J.K. Ford, T.T. Baldwin, and J.L. Huang
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

Organizations spend massive amounts of money on employee training and development every year with the expectation that what is learned in training will be transferred to and used on the job.  But there’s a problem: it has been well established that employees often do NOT transfer what they learn to the job.  In the continuing pursuit of solutions to this “transfer problem”, Blume et al. present a meta-analysis that explored predictors of transfer of training.

Confirming the existence of the “transfer problem”, Blume et al. found that post-training knowledge (usually measured with a post-test) is only a modest predictor of transfer of training.  Utility reactions, which refer to trainees’ perceptions of the usefulness or relevance of the training content to their jobs, were also only modestly related to transfer.  Other measures of training effectiveness that had small but meaningful relationships with transfer included post-training self-efficacy and motivation.  However, finding out how much employees enjoy their training experience is NOT a good indication of how effectively they will transfer their learning to the job.

While there were many individual and organizational characteristics that lead some employees to transfer their knowledge more effectively than others, the best predictors of transfer of training were cognitive ability, conscientiousness, a work climate that facilitates transfer and voluntarily participating in training.

Importantly, Blume et al. distinguish between closed skills and open skills.  While closed skills are performed similarly or exactly like they are taught in training (e.g., computer program), open skills refer to sets of principles that can be applied in many different ways (e.g., leadership skills).  That is, there is no one “right way” to perform open skills. Interestingly, Blume et al. discovered that most of the predictors investigated were more predictive of transfer for open skills.  The exception is cognitive ability, which was found to be much more strongly related to transfer of closed skills than for open skills.

Blume et al. conclude that there is “no magic bullet” for predicting transfer of training and thus the transfer problem must be attacked from multiple angles with multiple strategies.  The authors note that strategies for increasing trainees’ motivation prior to training and preparing coworkers and supervisors to support employees in transferring their learning to the job have high potential for improving transfer of training.

Despite their practical suggestions, Blume et al. suggest that the most effective way for an organization to enhance transfer of training is to integrate learning into its culture.  In other words, new (and possibly expensive) processes are not necessary to enhance trainees’ transfer.

 

Blume, B.D., Ford, J.K., Baldwin, T.T., & Huang, J.L. (2010). Transfer of
training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105.

Want more Bang For Your Training Buck? Then make sure your employees feel supported.

3

Topic: Training

Publication: International Journal of Selection and
Assessment  (JUN 2010)

Article: Social support in the workplace and training
transfer: a longitudinal analysis

Authors: D.S. Chiaburu, K. Van Dam, & H.M. Hutchins

Reviewed By: Jared Ferrell

Images-4 With the extreme amount of money spent on training each
year, researchers are constantly working to understand how to increase the
transfer of the knowledge and skills learned during training back to the
job.  The authors here suggest that
perceived organizational support (POS) and supervisor support will indirectly
affect transfer of training through the effects it has on trainee perceived
self efficacy, goal orientation, and motivation to transfer.  POS in this case refers to the extent
an employee believes the organization cares about his or her well being. 

In this study, researchers found that higher POS and
supervisory support led trainees to have higher training self-efficacy (“I can
do this!”), a mastery goal orientation (“I am going to set goals for mastering this
new skill and reach them!”), and higher motivation to transfer learning (“I
really want to learn this!”) – , all directly or indirectly leading to higher
transfer learning.   In addition, the authors found
supervisor support to show slightly more impact in affecting the individual
factors than POS.  And the researchers
suggest POS may become more effective if the support put forth by the
organization is restated by training supervisors. 

The bottom line of this article is this:  if you want to get more of a bang for
your training buck, be sure your training participants feel supported by the
organization and most of all, their supervisors.  And this support will do much more than just increase your
training ROI, but that’s another study…  

Chiaburu,
D.S., Van Dam, K., & Hutchins, H.M. (2010). Social Support in the Workplace
and Training Transfer: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 18, 187-200.

Using Simulations to Study, Assess, and Grow Managers

Reply

Topic: Assessment, Training

Publication: American Psychologist

Article: Developing Managerial Talent
Through Simulation

Authors: G. C. Thornton, J. N. Cleveland

Reviewed By: Rachel Marsh

 


User-group Simulations
are replications of essential parts of a job and have been utilized by
organizations for over 55 years. They are used to study, assess and develop
talent, especially managerial talent, and offer more information about
assessees than questionnaires.  Job simulations can range from being low
fidelity and very simple (e.g.,  asking
employees what they would do in certain situations, to very high fidelity and
quite complicated (e.g., behavioral simulations that include analyzing many
different aspects of company information). 

Standardized
simulations are often performed by trained assessment center personnel who can
quantify the actions of employees into usable data that is based upon the
performance of managers or managerial candidates who have gone through these
simulations in the past.  Because trained assessors perform the
simulations in a controlled setting, there is also more control over the
different variables the managers must deal with in the job simulation.  This allows the organization to make a
simulation very specific for each position or employee/applicant.     

The general
assumption regarding simulations as an assessment tool is that employees will behave
similarly in real work situations as they do in the simulation, thus helping
companies make better hiring/promotion decisions.  When used in a training
and development context, simulations help identify competencies that need
improvement so that a specific training plan can be developed for the employee,
saving the company time and money.   

In their
review article, Thornton and Cleveland suggest that in order to best utilize
simulations for training they should be used in conjunction with other training
methods such as lectures and demonstrations, and that employees should start
with the simplest methods or training, then move to more complex methods. 
Constant feedback should also be included in the training process to ensure
employees’ optimal learning from the training.  In order to best utilize
simulations for research and assessment, the authors suggest that several
different methods of simulations should be used, as this will ensure companies
get the most accurate employee information.      

Thornton,
G. C., & Cleveland, J.N.  (1990) Developing managerial talent through
simulation. American Psychologist, 45, 190-199.

Is What We Think We Know, What We Actually Know?

1

Topic: Assessment, Training

Publication: Academy of Management Learning
& Education (JUN 2010)

Article: Self-assessment of knowledge: A
cognitive learning or affective measure?

Authors: T. Sitzmann, K.E. Ely, K.G. Brown
and K.N. Bauer

Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

 


Self_assessment Evaluating the effectiveness of an organizational
training program is a necessary but expensive process.  Oftentimes, the success of a training
program is evaluated by how much trainees learn or how much they know after
completing the program.  The classic
post-training test/exam is a great way to do this.  But, because developing and administering well-constructed
learning measures can be costly, one option is to simply ask trainees how much
they have learned.  But how “good”
are trainees’ self-assessments of their learning/knowledge?  That is, how well do self-assessments really measure actual learning/knowledge
gain?

In an extensive meta-analysis that
included a total of over 41,000 study participants from 166 studies, Sitzmann
et al. (2010) found that self-assessments of knowledge and learning are
actually more highly related to motivation and satisfaction with training than with
actual knowledge/learning.  In
fact, even in training programs that provide trainees with feedback and give
trainees access to information about their learning/knowledge, self-assessments
of learning are more strongly related to motivation and satisfaction than actual
learning.  

Additionally, Sitzmann et al. found
that self-assessments of one’s current knowledge level (How much do I know) are
much more strongly related to actual learning than self-assessments of
knowledge gain (how much have I learned). 
In fact, self-assessments of knowledge gain were unrelated to actual learning.


Yet another interesting finding is
that self-assessments of learning are more accurate when training is classroom
based v. web-based. Sitzmann et al. suggest that classroom-based and blended
training allow for trainees to observe others and thus gauge their knowledge or
mastery of the topic being trained. 
Such information is not as readily available in online training.

Though self-assessments of learning
are cheap to develop and generally easy to administer, they are not appropriate
alternatives to tried and true measures of knowledge gain (e.g., written tests,
skill assessments).  Decisions made
about training programs (e.g., “It’s a success!”) that are based on trainees’
self-assessments of their own learning may be misinformed, because what
trainees think they know, may not be what they actually know!

 

Sitzmann,
T., Ely, K.E., Brown, K.G., & Bauer, K.N. (2010). Self-assessment of
knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 9(2), 169-191.

Computer-Based Training Games: What You Need to Know!

3

Topic: Training
SIOP Presentation: A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games
Presenters: T. Sitzmann
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

In a SIOP session on “designing quality training games,” Traci Sitzmann presented the results of a recent meta-analysis that explored the effectiveness of simulation-based training games.  Today, many organizations use training games (aka “Serious Games”) to enhance the knowledge and skills of their employees.   The common problem, though, is that the use of this technology in practice has outpaced the research on its effectiveness.  So it is still unclear if (and when) training games work.

Presumably, training games keep employees engaged throughout training and motivated to increase their exposure to the training content.  Think about it this way: would you rather read text on a computer screen, listen to someone’s pre-recorded voice via computer, or actively play a computer-based game?

In her presentation, Sitzmann pointed out that the term “training games” is very broad. For example, while some games are “fun” and “engaging,” others can be quite “boring.” In addition to differences in the entertainment value of training games, some game-based activities are highly relevant to the knowledge/skills being trained while others are not.

As a notable example, Sitzmann described a game for which the goal was to teach students about the American Revolution. This particular game is a tactical war game that allows trainees to kill enemy soldiers with their own armies.  The training content is presented periodically via “pop-ups” that include historical information about the war and interrupt game play (which, I might add, is not exactly ideal when you’re in the middle of routing King George’s cavalry).  Clearly, if the training content is significantly less exciting than the simulation, this type of game would NOT be very effective at keeping trainees motivated to learn the pertinent material (i.e., American Revolution History). Sitzmann ended her presentation with several important conclusions about the use of training games for enhancing learning:

(1) Games are more effective when they allow trainees to be actively involved.

(2) The entertainment value of a game does not affect learning.

(3) Standalone games are probably not in learners’ and organizations’ best interests; training games are best when they are blended with other instructional methods (lectures, group discussions, etc.) and serve as practice opportunities for trainees.

(4) To realize the potential benefits of a training game, it should be constantly available to trainees; placing strict limits on the time trainees can play a game defeats its purpose (which is to keep trainees coming back for more learning!).
 

Experiential Learning and Leadership Development

2

Topic: Leadership, Training and Development
Publication: Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice
Article: Recasting Leadership Development
Authors: M. McCall
Selected commentary authors: P. R. Yost & M. M. Plunkett; , B. E. Baran & M. Adelman; D. Day; D. S. DeRue & S. Ashford
Reviewed By: Samantha Paustian-Underdahl

Despite a large body of research and knowledge showing that experiential-based development can be implemented effectively and strategically, the HR community has been slow to embrace the idea that on-the-job experience should be the driving force in development. McCall (2010) highlights seven conclusions that have been drawn from research over the past few decades about the role of experience in leadership development:

1. To the extent it is learned, leadership is learned from experience. Research on twins done at the University of Minnesota has looked at how personality and experience contribute to ‘‘leadership role occupancy’’. These researchers found that 30% of the variance in the leadership role occupancy outcomes is explained by heredity but the vast majority (the remaining 70%) is due to experience (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, & McGue, 2006; Arvey, Zhang, Krueger, & Avolio, 2007).

2. Certain experiences are more important than others. Multiple studies across  organizations (e.g., Douglas, 2003; McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988), have shown that successful managers describe similar experiences that shaped their development in different ways. These experiences include early work experiences, short-term assignments, major line assignments, other people (almost always very good and very bad bosses or superiors), hardships of various kinds, and some miscellaneous events like training programs.

3. These on-the-job experiences are powerful because of the challenges they present. The factors that make an experience challenging—the high stakes, complex, high pressure, novel and unexpected events—are what make each experience a learning one (see McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlot, & Morrow, 1994).

4. Different types of experiences can teach people different lessons. Depending on each person’s personality and other traits, it is difficult to determine whether or not a specific person will actually learn what the experience offers.

5. Job experiences and assignments can become more developmental. High caliber
learning experiences can be enhanced by providing feedback on learning progress, and challenges (DeRue &Wellman, 2009).

6. In spite of obstacles commonly faced throughout individuals’ careers, people can
obtain many of the experiences they need. Whether an immediate boss or some organizational process such as succession planning makes the call, getting people into the experiences they need is a matter of knowing who needs what experiences, having the experiences available, and being willing to put developmental moves ahead of other
priorities.

7. Learning is a complex process that takes place over time. It can be planned, but a lot of learning takes place sporadically. McCall (2010) argues that competency models—which define leadership development (LD) procedures throughout most American organizations—may not be the best way to build a foundation for leader development.

McCall (2010) believes that experience makes a much better starting point for LD.  A single set of competencies applied to all leaders can create a straightforward way to talk about leadership and even an integrated system of HR practices. However, the author claims that since there is no one ‘‘best’’ way to lead, there is no one “best” set of competencies that an organization can use to effectively develop leaders. Successful leaders often have different styles, skills and personalities. For example, Herb Kelleher, Jack Welch, and Anne Mulcahy were all successful leaders, but they achieved that success with their own unique styles and abilities.  Thus, leadership development should be tailored to the specific strengths and weaknesses of each leader.

The author also discusses ways organizations can better focus their LD on the business strategy by targeting their leaders’ work experiences. One obstacle HR managers may face in this process is how busy leaders are. Despite these forces working against leaders’ full commitment to development, leaders need to be educated on how to take responsibility for their own development. Leaders should create personal development plans based on the business strategy and the needs and goals of their job. In collaboration with their manager and HR team, leaders should identify the experiences that could offer meaningful lessons; find a way to get the needed experiences; and create the necessary feedback, support, and incentives to actually learn the lessons sought.

Selected Commentaries:
Several commentaries agreed with the focal article, and expanded upon McCall’s (2010) discussion. Yost and Plunkett (2010) focus on how organizations can strategically and systematically leverage on-the-job experiences to make LD most effective. They believe that organizations should continue using competency models for leader development, but that they should expand these models to form a leadership map that includes experiences, relationships, and learning agility or capabilities. Baron and Adelman (2010) argue that one of the most important contexts for using experiential learning may be to prepare leaders to manage crises. They believe that leadership development for organizational crises should involve vicarious learning, or learning from others who have experienced crises or narrowly avoided failure. They believe that simulations and interpersonal communication training may be the most effective types of experiential learning to prepare leaders for crises.

Despite agreeing with McCall about the importance of experience in LD, some of the commentaries highlighted the difficulties associated with using experiential learning for LD. Day (2010) discusses how the construct of work experience has been historically difficult to conceptualize and operationalize scientifically. He argues that there are three difficulties in implementing experiential learning in LD: (a) there is not always an awareness that there is something to learn; (b) even if such an awareness exists, it is not always clear what is to be learned; and (c) there is a good deal of ambiguity and uncertainty in determining if or when learning has occurred.

DeRue and Ashford (2010) believe that on-the-job development is important for LD, however they argue that individual leaders need to be more cognizant of their own LD. Individuals need to set development goals, be aware of and manage how they frame the experience, and approach the experience with a learning orientation. The authors believe that these principles will protect individuals from feelings of learned helplessness, overconfidence, and the fear and anxiety that come with leadership, and will ultimately enhance the learning of leadership.

The Takeaways:
Leaders should be selected, trained, and promoted to (a) understand that leadership is critical to the business, (b) accept that talented people can learn to lead, (c) believe that they learn it through experience, and (d) have a longer-term perspective (McCall, 2010). If this takes place, then the odds are good that they will model development and hold others accountable for it. Further, McCall (2010) recommends that organizations should consider developing people in the organization who understand strategic issues and know what and where challenging experiences will arise for leaders. These “wise counselors” can understand how experience works to help people understand their strengths and weaknesses, and can use that information to help executives tweak on-the-job experience for developmental reasons. Finally, researchers and practitioners should consider the situations and contexts through which experiential learning may be most important for LD—for example, in managing organizational crises.

McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting Leadership Development. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 3-19.

Commentaries:
Baran, B.E. and Adelman, M. (2010). Preparing for the Unthinkable: Leadership Development for Organizational Crises. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 45–47. Day, D. (2010). The Difficulties of Learning From Experience and the Need for Deliberate Practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 41-44. DeRue, D.S. and Ashford, S. (2010) Power to the People: Where Has Personal Agency Gone in Leadership Development? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 24–27. Yost, P.R. and Plunkett, M.M. (2010). Ten Catalysts to Spark On-the-Job Development in Your Organization. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 20–23.

Citations:
Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Quarterly , 17, 1–20. Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Krueger, R., & Avolio, B. (2007).Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy among females. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693–706. DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94:4, 859–875. Douglas, C. A. (2003). Key events and lessons for managers in a diverse workforce: A report on research and findings. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How  successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. McCauley, C., Ruderman, M., Ohlot, P., & Morrow, J. (1994). Assessing the developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 544–560.

Better Training Outcomes are just a Few Reminders Away

Reply

Topic: Training
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JAN 2010)
Article: Sometimes you need a reminder: The effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning and attrition.
Authors: T. Sitzmann and K. Ely
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

Have you ever taken a training course and noticed your mind wandering?  Or have you ever found that the decisions you made during training (“I already know this stuff, I think I’ll skip it”) weren’t exactly the best for facilitating your learning?  Don’t feel bad, you’re not alone.  Many adult trainees are guilty of the same bad habits.

To address these problems, several researchers have begun exploring interventions that are expected to help trainees make better decisions during training, especially when given a great deal of control over their learning (characteristic of e-learning courses). One intervention that is gaining in popularity is self-regulatory prompting which presents trainees with questions that are intended to focus their attention and behaviors toward learning the training content.  Self-regulatory prompts basically serve as periodic reminders to trainees.  It simply involves periodically presenting trainees with questions such as, “Am I concentrating on learning the training material?” and “Are the studying strategies I am using effective for learning the material?”

Sitzmann and Ely found that this simple intervention does indeed lead to better learning and attrition as long as it is delivered continuously throughout the entire training course.  Additionally, Sitzmann and Ely found that continuous prompting leads trainees to learn more because trainees who receive continuous prompting spend more time on the training course.

Overall, Sitzmann and Ely’s findings demonstrate that trainees can use a reminder every now and then, and even the simplest of interventions can have a big impact on training outcomes.

Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder: The effects of prompting
self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning and attrition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 132-144.