Training Experiences A Personal Account

My Worst and Best Training Experiences

Name

Institution

Course Code: Title

Instructor Name

October 15, 2023

This paper is my own work that I created specifically for this course and this section. All research or material I used in preparing this paper has been properly acknowledged within the assignment in accordance with academic standards for complete and accurate citation of sources.

My Best and Worst Training Experiences

This assignment identifies one of my worst and best training experiences. It analyses the target audience in each training, the training objectives, training site, and the training methods used to demonstrate what aspects made the training good or bad. The assignment is based on the concepts of transfer of learning, training evaluation, training methods, design of training, and learning theories covered in weeks 4 to 8 of the course.

My Worst Training Experience

My worst training experience was a two-day training themed ‘Optimizing Leadership’, which targeted departmental heads and members of the marketing department at an organization where I worked as a human resource intern. The training was held at the organization’s interview room, which was barely large enough to accommodate all twelve trainees. The training sought to realize three main objectives: to develop strategic leaders, build seamless decision-making, and build holistic stewardship. The primary training method was the lecture, which was complemented by short discussions among trainees in groups of between two and three.

Factors that Contributed to the Training’s Ineffectiveness

Several factors contributed to the ineffectiveness of the training. To begin with, the objectives did not align with trainees’ expectations. From the onset, the trainees expected the training to focus on marketing, with the objective of building strategic marketers and market leadership. This was why all members of the marketing department were involved. However, there was miscommunication between the organization and the trainers, who designed the training to focus on teamwork and leadership in general, with marketing only assigned two hours in the entire training program. Unfortunately, the training program was not shared with participants until the day of the actual training.

Despite the confusion, the training site partly catered to the trainee’s needs. There was proper ventilation to ensure comfort, the walls and fixtures incorporated bright colors that helped boost focus, and the upholstered chairs and tables created a professional atmosphere throughout the training period. However, the space was severely limited, making it challenging to hold proper group discussions.

The trainers primarily used the lecture delivery method, which they complemented with group discussions from time to time. According to Blanchard and Simmering (n.d.), the lecture method is most appropriate when the trainer aims to create a general understanding about then study topic, rather than to build skills or instill strategic and procedural knowledge. In this case, the training sought to improve the trainees’ leadership and strategic management skills by creating new facts and insights, and not to create a general understanding of what such leadership entails. Thus, behavioral approaches such as in-basket techniques, role play, business games, and case studies would have been more helpful in simulating strategic decision-making among trainees (Blanchard & Simmering, n.d). For instance, one of the topics covered in the training was big picture leadership. Instead of lecture, the trainer would have developed a more relevant session if they came up with case studies involving either real or imaginary situations, where the trainees could conduct analyses, weigh possible alternatives, and come up with the most appropriate solution in view of the bigger picture.

At the same time, the lecture method was not appropriate for the audience given that the trainees are not experts in the topic and may require some time to process the ideas learned and put them into perspective. The lecture passed too much information within a limited time, which made retention difficult (Blanchard & Simmering, n.d.). The trainers could have realized greater efficacy if they delivered the information in small bits over a longer period and if they used techniques that allowed more trainee engagements such as open discussions or role playing to help the audience retain more information.

Theoretical Foundation

The training was based on Knowles’ adult learning theory (andragogy), which postulates that adults learn differently from children. They are more independent and prefer self-directed rather than instructor-led learning (self-concept), they draw most of their knowledge from their years of experience (adult learner experience), and are intrinsically motivated to learn (Culatta, 2015). At the same time, they exhibit more readiness to learn when such learning promises to improve their work and when learning addresses an existing problem (Culatta, 2015). In line with Knowles’ theory, the trainers injected a lot of real world examples into the lecture to ensure the content had an immediate benefit and application for the trainees. They also included several assessments and simulations, including leadership and personality tests to help trainees determine their areas of strength and weaknesses as leaders. This may have been an attempt to make the learning self-directed and ensure that training addresses existing gaps in leadership rather than simply transfer knowledge.

Evaluation of the Learning and Effectiveness of Training

At the end of the second day, the trainers carried out a mini-evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the training. The evaluation was based on the Kirkpatrick’s four-level model, which evaluates effectiveness by measuring reactions, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). However, the evaluation was not very effective as it was only conducted up to the reaction level. The trainers asked trainees to rate, using a smile sheet, how happy they were with the training, how relevant it was to their role, and the effectiveness of the mode of delivery. They also asked about potential areas of improvement and the trainees suggested incorporating behavioral learning approaches to make the training more relevant to the workplace. The feedback was given verbally as the trainers took note. To evaluate effectiveness of the learning, the trainers asked the trainees to organize a sitting the following week to develop a proper marketing plan for the organization based on the knowledge gained in the training. However, this did not take place and the trainers did not make any follow-up attempts.

Factors that Hindered the Successful Transfer of Learning

Close to one year after the training, I can conclude that we did not transfer what we learned in the training to our roles. According to Grosman and Salas (2011), how well one transfers learned knowledge depends on several factors, including trainee characteristics (perceived utility of training, motivation, self-efficacy, and cognitive ability), the work environment (follow-up, opportunity to perform, support, and transfer climate), and training design. In my view, transfer failed partly because the trainees did not perceive the training as useful (low perceived utility). This was largely because most of us expected the training to focus on ways of improving our strategic marketing skills, but it ended up focusing on leadership. The work environment did not also facilitate transfer. First, the leadership did not offer the needed support for trainees to transfer what they learned. For instance, they did not make attempts to gather the trainees after the training to develop a marketing plan as per the agreement and there was no attempt to delegate the responsibility. Moreover, there was no follow-up by the trainers to facilitate transfer. The trainees would be more willing to transfer if the trainers guided the process of developing the marketing plan and followed up to ensure potential challenges that hindered its development were addressed.

Trainers’ Competency, Knowledge and Skills

The ATD competency model provides a set of capabilities (behaviors, abilities, knowledge, and skills) that talent development professionals could develop to improve their professional development capacity and foster learning (ATD Las Vegas, 2023). First, trainers need to have and display an understanding of relevant adult learning theories to deliver optimal solutions (ATD Las Vegas, 2023). The trainer demonstrated an adequate understanding of the principles of Knowles’ adult learning theory. For instance, he involved us, the trainees, in planning and evaluating the training, took time to explain why certain topics in the training were important, and attempted to make learning task-oriented rather than content-oriented through group discussions. The trainer also demonstrated effectiveness in training delivery and facilitation (ATD Las Vegas, 2023). He was able to build rapport with his trainees, getting to know us by name, asking us to give our personal and professional backgrounds, smiling, maintaining eye contact, and allowing opportunities for feedback and questions throughout the training. This helped the participants create trust, learn at their pace, and become more open to give their ideas.

However, the trainer did not adequately demonstrate competence in selecting the instructional design - the lecture may not have been the most appropriate delivery method for the training. Given that the trainees had limited knowledge about the study topic and the training focused on building skills, behavioral approaches such as case studies and use of business games to help trainees develop strategic leadership skills may have been more effective (ATD Las Vegas, 2023). At the same time, the trainer failed to demonstrate coaching skills, which involves helping trainees move towards the ideal state by strengthening conversations, developing action plans, and making follow-ups. He left us with the assignment of developing a marketing plan using the strategies learned in the topic of marketing, but did not make follow up or offer guidance on how to go about developing the plan.

To improve the training, I would recommend that the trainers incorporate more behavioral techniques to complement cognitive approaches in instilling practical skills in trainees. At the same time, there is a need to incorporate more levels of training evaluation beyond reaction evaluation. It would be beneficial to incorporate evaluation at the learning level to assess the extent to which trainees have gained new knowledge and skills from the training, as well as the behavior level to assess how well they apply the concepts to their roles. Such evaluation that continues beyond the training period would also facilitate the transfer of learning to the workplace.

My Best Training Experience

My best training experience was a five-day on-site training on Project Management and Fundraising. The training targeted departmental heads and social workers at a not-for-profit organization. The training site was the organization’s conference hall, which had sufficient room to accommodate all eight trainees. The objectives were to: i) equip participants with skills and knowledge in the project management cycle; ii) equip participants with knowledge and skills in project monitoring, evaluation, and learning; iii) acquaint participants with skills in computerized project management tools; iv) equip participants with the principles and best practices of grant management; and v) apply skills and knowledge gained in the training to develop an award-winning funding proposal for a not-for-profit organization. The trainers used a combination of cognitive, behavioural, and on-the-job training techniques to deliver their content.

Factors that Contributed to the Training’s Success

To begin with, the training site was big enough to accommodate the participants, who had sufficient room to move around and hold group discussions effectively without disrupting others. The chairs had swivels and wheels, with backs that offered support for the lower back to ensure comfort throughout the long hours of training. The walls of the room were covered with materials related to the training, which created an intense learning atmosphere. The air conditioning systems were working properly and the room’s location away from the administrative offices ensured minimal noise and interruptions, allowing trainees to concentrate fully.

The methods used to deliver the training also contributed to its effectiveness. The trainer used a combination of lecture, group discussions, written case studies, and coaching to deliver the training content ((Blanchard & Simmering, n.d). The lecture was mainly used to explain the theoretical aspects of the training, while discussions served to share ideas on case studies and respond to critical questions posed by the trainer. Since we were not all experts in the field of project management, the group discussions were beneficial in keeping us engaged in the lecture content, enhancing recall, and providing room for cross-learning (Blanchard & Simmering, n.d). The trainer used coaching to guide participants through each step of developing their funding proposals for one month after the training, until each participant submitted their final proposal and was awarded a certificate of completion.

The use of behavioural and on-the-job training techniques to complement the lecture enhanced the relevance of the content, while instilling the practical skill of proposal-development. The one month of coaching that followed the training provided an adequate opportunity for the trainees to practice what they had learned and to receive regular feedback from the trainer on their draft funding proposals.

Theoretical Foundation

The training was founded on Albert Bandura’s social learning theory, which postulates that people learn through observing, imitating, and modelling other people’s behaviour (McLeod, 2023). According to Bandura, the process of observational learning and modelling involves a series of four steps: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation (Cherry, 2022). Attention has to do with obtaining information or course content, while retention has to do with being able to store the information as part of the learning process. The third step is reproduction, which involves practising the learned behaviour as a means to advance one’s skill (Cherry, 2022). The final step is motivation, which occurs through punishment or reinforcement to help the individual model and integrate the learned behaviour (Cherry, 2022).

The training was aligned with the above four steps of the social learning theory. The lecture was used to pass theoretical information on the principles of project management and proposal writing (attention). Discussions and assessments were used to enhance retention, after which trainees were required to reproduce the learned behaviour though developing their own funding proposals for fictitious or existing projects. Finally, to help trainees model the skills learned, the trainer issued certificates of completion to participants who were able to submit their funding proposals (motivation).

Evaluation of the Learning and Effectiveness of Training

The effectiveness of the learning and overall training was assessed at the Reaction, Learning, and Behaviour levels as per the Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). At the end of the five-day training session, the trainer administered a smile sheet asking the trainees to indicate their level of satisfaction with the training content, the trainers’ competence, and the training methods used. This was the reaction level evaluation, which assesses whether the trainees found the training useful, engaging, and relevant (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

To evaluate the extent to which the trainees had acquired the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that the training sought to pass; the trainers conducted a pre and post-assessment. Participants completed the same assessment before and after the completion of the training, and the scores were compared to determine the change in knowledge and skills. The assessment contained basic multiple choice questions on different areas of the training content. This was the Learning level evaluation of the Kirkpatrick’s model. The final evaluation was conducted four months after the completion of training, when the trainers organized a follow-up meeting with participants to assess the extent to which they had instituted changes in their departments in line with the knowledge and skills learned. Participants reported the advancements made in their respective projects as well as the challenges faced in implementation. The trainers then gave their insights and advice on how to address the challenges to ensure smooth implementation.