HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Working Paper 2006-C ar!

"-0# $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Transfer of Training: Literature Review
Alan Clardy Towson University

Note: this is a working draft and is not for quotation. Some se tions are still under develo!ment and"or may need format modifi ations. #lease identify and re!ort any editorial and"or om!osition errors for orre tion.

Se!tem$er %&' ())& Transfer of Training: Literat ur e Review

*ormal em!loyee training ty!i ally involves learning new knowledge' skills' attitudes or other hara teristi s in one environment +the training situation, that an $e a!!lied or used in another environment +the !erforman e situation, +-oldstein and *ord' ())(,. #resuma$ly' what was learned in training should $e a!!lied to !erforman e on the .o$. /owever' a ommon e0!erien e is that learning from a formal training !rogram is not arried $a k for a!!li ation on the .o$. 1n their study of sales training at 2ero0' Ra kman and Ruff +%33%, re!orted there was an 456 of loss of skills within one month of the om!letion of the training. 7aldwin and *ord +%344, note some estimates that suggest only %)6 of training out omes are transferred $a k to the .o$. 8ith re!orted annual training investments e0 eeding 9:) $illion in the United States +1ndustry Re!ort' ())),' the amount of dollars wasted $y non;transfer an $e staggering. The issue of arry;over from training to the !erforman e situation is referred to as the !ro$lem of the <transfer of training.= 7aldwin and *ord +%344, define the !ositive transfer of training >as the degree to whi h trainees effe tively a!!ly the knowledge' skills and attitudes gained in a training onte0t to the .o$> +!. &?,. This $asi definition has $een ela$orated in two related ways. *irst' there an $e transfer to <near= situations +similar to the training onditions, and"or to <far'= dissimilar situations +Laker' %33),. A se ond ela$oration is that of generalizing learned skills to different settings' !eo!le and situations +far transfer, as well as maintaining the a!!li ation of learned skills over time +*ord and 8eiss$ein' %335,. -iven the stakes involved' it $e omes very im!ortant to understand the dynami s of transfer in order to look for ways to minimi@e transfer losses while im!roving the yield from any training !rogram. 8hile the question of transfera$ility of training has $een !resent in the field of a!!lied !sy hology nearly from the start +e.g.' ThorndikeAs work in the early %3))As onsidered the transfer of learned $ehaviors from one setting to another,' s!e ifi ally fo used interest on transfer in the onte0t of formal

organi@ational training only surfa ed in the mid;%35)As. This !a!er is intended a !rimer on transfer of training in work settings. The early theoreti al musings on transfer will $e e0amined first' followed $y a review of the ways $y whi h transfer is o!erationally measured. Then' the resear h literature on transfer will $e e0amined. *inally' the resear h findings will $e summari@ed in a series of !ro!ositions a$out managing transfer of training.

The Transfer of Training #ro$lem: 1nitial *ormulations An early ommentator on training transfer issues was Bosel +%3:5,. Noting that a situation when trainees learn $ut do not use what they learn on the .o$ is like an o!eration $eing su essful even though the !atient died' Bosel ontended that three onditions were essential if transfer was to o ur. *irst' the ontent of the training had to $e usea$le. Se ond' the trainee had to learn that ontent' and third' the trainee had to $e motivated to hange his or her $ehavior on the .o$ in order to a!!ly these new skills. <Trainees must not only $e motivated to learn. They must also $e motivated to use their learning= +!. :5,. Botivation regarding .o$ !erforman e would $e a fun tion of the reward stru ture on the .o$. Rewards an $e $oth formal and informalC the su!ervisor ontrols formal awards' while the work grou! ontrols informal ones. 1t is !ossi$le that the overall limate of the work!la e an mitigate against transfer. This !uts a res!onsi$ility on the su!ervisor to reate a limate that su!!orts the use of trained skills in .o$ !erforman e. Another early dis ussant on the to!i of training transfer was Ruth Salinger +%35?,' working for the then United StatesA Civil Servi e Commission' who !ut together a model of the >disin entives to effe tive em!loyee training and develo!ment.> 1n this model' la k of u!!er management awareness of training $enefits leads to la k of their su!!ort in $udgeting' reinfor ement and !lanningC in turn' when training is finally re ogni@ed' it is done ha!ha@ardly ;; onfirming to! managementAs ske!ti ism. Salinger em!hasi@ed how events a!art from what goes

on in the lassroom an make or $reak the eventual su ess of any training effort. 1n the late %35)As and early %34)As' a num$er of !a!ers in a!!lied training .ournals re ommended various +untested, a tion strategies for meeting transfer !ro$lems +see Clardy' %34D' for a summary,. 1n these !a!ers' transfer was referred to as the >negle ted half> of training A ma.or theme of these arti les was the reali@ation that the su ess of any training !rogram de!ended on more than what trans!ired in the lassroom itself. 1ndeed' the su ess of any training !rogram de!ended on $oth the nature and quality of training as well as a num$er of other fa tors at the work!la e $eyond the immediate a tions of the trainer and"or the instru tional quality of the materials used. Eelsma' van Berrien$oer and 7i.lstra +%33), identified two different s hools of thought $ehind the early theories on the transfer of training. An Asso iationist s hool emerged under the tutelage of Thorndike and 8oodworth +%3)%,C this s hool held that transfer would only o ur when the tasks !ra ti ed in the training situation and those !erformed in the !erforman e situation involved >identi al elements>. 1t was assumed that the more identi al the elements $etween the situations' the more the transfer. The -estalt s hool took a different ta k: transfer would o ur when a learned !ro edure was so fully understood that it a!!lied to other situations. 7y learning $asi !rin i!les' the !erformer should $e a$le to generali@e and a!!ly those !rin i!les to new situations. Famnill and B Lean +())), alled these the identi al theory and !rin i!les theories of transfer of training. /unter +%35%, !rovided a good o!erational a!!li ation of the identi al elements a!!roa h to the transfer of training !ro$lem. Transfer of learning was defined as the >a$ility to learn in one situation and then use that learning !ossi$ly in modified or generali@ed form in other situations where it is a!!ro!riate....> +!. (,. *our fa tors' shown ne0t' make or $reak the transfer !ro ess. No one fa tor is de isive' and the !oten y of ea h de!ends u!on the learning task involved.

%. Similarity $etween the learning environment and the a!!li ation environment. The more the learning and !erforman e situations are similar' the $etter the transfer of learning. Similarity an $e $uilt into or training !rograms:

environmentally' as when the hara teristi s of the training situation +!hysi al features of the training setting' ty!es of !eo!le !resent' ty!es of tasks !erformed' et ., losely mimi the !erforman e situation'

$y evoking ertain emotional rea tions in the student trainee that will $e !resent in the !erforman e situation +su h as stress' failure' et .,' and"or

$y using learning a tivities that mat h ognitive !ro esses in the !erforman e situations +sensory modalities required' how !ro$lems are !resented' et .,.

8hi hever methods are used' the instru tor should identify and highlight those !oints of similarity in order to $ring them to the full attention of the learners when they enter !erforman e situations. (. #er e!tion of essential or unvarying elements $etween situations. 1f there are un hanging features $etween the learning and a!!li ation environments' transfer is fa ilitated. *or e0am!le' using ues in the training that are the same as those found in the a!!li ation environment in rease transfer. This raises the a$ility to generali@e $etween training and !erforman e situations. ?. Asso iation of new learning with old. Transfer an $e en ouraged $y linking newly learned tasks to e0isting knowledge and a$ility. D. Gegree of effe tiveness of the original learning. The more om!lete the original learning' the $etter the transfer. This means that a ertain level of mastery in the training is needed. /unter on luded that the following guidelines should $e used for tea hing for transfer. *irst' look for !rior knowledge as a $ase u!on whi h to $uild the new learning. 1dentify and la$el any
:

similarities $etween the training and !erforman e situations. Hli it the a!!ro!riate motivational set to !erform: for e0am!le' if the task requires a om!etitive orientation or mind set' use training onditions that are om!etitive. Bake sure the original learning takes !la e to the fullest degree. 1dentify the ues used in the training that will $e found in the a!!li ation task environment. #ra ti e transfer and how to generali@e learned $ehaviors to the !erforman e situation. A more re ent theoreti al a!!roa h to transfer is the AGA#T model of Eelsma' Ian Berrien$oer and 7u.lstra +%33),. They !ostulate strong transfer will follow from strong original learning. Strong original learning is a result of strong training !rogram design' using what they all the A!!ly Gelayed Automation for #ositive Transfer +AGA#T, model. To use new skills' one must $e a$le to a ess the learning en oded in memoryC training !ro edures should $e designed to !rodu e automati !erforman e or easy a essing of information +s hemati@ation,. They identified a variety of training !ra ti es to use in order to reate automati or s hemati !erforman e. 1n summary' these early formulations of the transfer !ro ess !ointed to a num$er of fa tors that an im!a t transfer. *a tors in luded training motivation' training design' and onditions at the work!la e. These early des ri!tions laid the foundation for the em!iri al resear h that was to follow.

J!erationali@ing Transfer: Beasurement and Criteria The em!iri al e0amination of transfer theories de!ends on an a$ility to measure transfer as a de!endent varia$le. A framework useful for understanding the measurement issues relating to the transfer of training is Kirk!atri kLs +%35:, four;level model of training evaluation. /e identified four distin t riteria for training !rogram evaluation: immediate !ost;!rogram !arti i!ant reactions to the eventC the amount of learning that resultedC the e0tent to whi h behaviors learned

&

in the training transfer to the .o$C and organi@ational results a hieved. /e !osited that the four levels were ausally linked. Consider a sales training e0am!le: high levels of !arti i!ant satisfa tion with the training should lead to high levels of learning' whi h in turn should transfer to .o$ !erforman e that in turn leads to in reased sales. Ha h level is measured in its own distin t way. The methods for measuring learning +through a hievement or !erforman e testing, and results +through ounts of !erforman e out!uts, are fairly standard and well known. 8hat is at issue' though' is how to measure transferM 8ithout $eing a$le to offer eviden e of transfer' it would not !ossi$le to on lude that training ontri$uted to any hanges in results. A large num$er of riteria varia$les have $een used to measure the e0tent to whi h transfer has a tually o urred. These riteria an $e grou!ed into three ategories: measures of learning' self;re!orted measures of hange' and rated measures of !erforman e.

1. Measures of Learning. Several studies have used various measures of learning to indi ate transfer. *rom the Kirk!atri k model' though' learning would not te hni ally indi ate transfer. Hven measures of the retention of learning would only re!resent the retained a!a ity to !erform' not the a tual a!!li ation of learned skills to .o$ !erforman e. A. Test of how to res!ond to task situations. Students attending a negotiations seminar were !resented with nine negotiation s enarios and asked to identify whi h negotiation strategy they would use' $ased on the material overed in the training +-ist' 7avetta and Stevens %33),. The a ura y of the strategy sele ted was used to identify transfer. Hri kson +%33), used a similar strategy to assess how mu h learning ivilian graduates of a U.S. Navy !ersonnel management training !rogram retained ? to & months after om!leting the ourse. /ere' the graduates were given realisti ase studies of issues overed in the training. 1f a

graduate <used= a om!eten y overed $y the training on two different o asions' the

om!eten y was onsidered learned. 11. Self-report Measures. 8ith these measures' trainees rate themselves on the e0tent to whi h they $elieve they have shown ertain hanges in $ehavior on the .o$. A. Self;re!ort on hanges made in .o$ !erforman e due to training. Trainees rated how often they $elieved they had !erformed trained tasks +T@iner' /a oun and Kadish' %33%' 8e0ley and 7aldwin %34&,. 7urke +%335, used a !ost;then' <retros!e tive $ehavioral measurement= !ro edure +similar to a $ehavioral o$servational format,. #arti i!ants in her study rated how often they used the assertiveness skills taught in the training they attended in the !ost;training setting' then rated how often they used those same skills <then= +!re;training,. The differen e s ore was used as a measure of transfer. 2iao +%33&, asked his su$.e ts to answer & items as !art of a survey to identify their <out!ut of transfer $ehavior=. 7asi ally' the items asked for res!ondents to note how mu h the learned KSALs have hel!ed them im!rove their work effi ien y' quality' and !rodu tivity. Kutner et al. +%335, suggested that a team of trainees +in their e0am!le' a team of adult edu ators, monitor their own !ost;training !ra ti es in order to assess the degree to whi h they im!lemented what they learned in the training. 7. Giary he klist of a tivities !erformed. Students attending a time management training !rogram had to om!lete a he klist of their a tivities three times a week for four weeks after the on lusion of the !rogram +8e0ley and 7aldwin' %34&,. 7urke +%335, also had !arti i!ants in her study kee! a daily re ord of their !rogress in using targeted skills. Kutner et al. +%335, re ommended tea hers kee! a .ournal that des ri$es what !ra ti es the tried' how often' and what effe ts they o$served from those !ra ti es on students' learning and tea hing. C. Attitude hange. 7ennett' Lehman and *orst +%333, used a measure of ustomer servi e

orientation to assess the e0tent to whi h a quality servi e management !rogram led to hanges in em!loyee attitudes a$out ustomers among em!loyees in a ity government. G. Botivation to transfer. Bilitary !ersonnel !arti i!ating in a train the trainer !rogram om!leted a si0;item' five;!oint Likert s ale on the motivation to a!!ly what they learned $a k to their .o$ +T@iner' /a oun and Kadish' %33%,.

111. Rated Measures of Performance. /ere' some kind of rating instrument and !ro edure is used $y someone other than the !rogram !arti i!ant to identify the e0tent to whi h on;the;.o$ task !erforman e has hanged after the training has $een om!leted. A. Su$ordinate !er e!tions of manager +trainee, .o$ !erforman e. Su$ordinates of managers who attended su!ervisory training were interviewed $efore and after their managers attended a training !rogram. The interviews yielded data a$out any !er eived differen es in the su!ervisory !erforman e of their managers attri$uta$le to the training +7yhams' Adams and Kiggins' %35&,. Bulti;rater a!!raisals an $e used here' too +Ri hman;/irs h' ())%,. 7. Su!ervisory o$servations of !erforman e. 1n their study' Re$er and 8allin +%34D, had su!ervisors of em!loyees use a s!e ifi he klist of safety $ehaviors in order to measure

hanges in !erforman e. +See also 8e0ley and 7aldwin' %34&., C. Simulated !erforman e of a task away from the training setting. Banagers in a !erforman e a!!raisal training !rogram were audio;ta!ed arrying out a simulated !erforman e review dis ussion. #erforman e in these simulations was evaluated against the $ehaviors taught in the training +/i ks and Klimski' %345C see also -ist' 7avetta and Stevens' %33),. G. Trainee a tion !lans. Salinger +%353, suggested using a tion !lans !re!ared $y trainees at the on lusion of a !rogram to assess transfer. 8ith su h !lans' trainees des ri$e what

a tions they will take $a k on the .o$. The trainer kee!s a o!y of the !lans' then onta ts the trainee after some !eriod to time to determine the e0tent to whi h those a tions have $een taken. H. Levels of use assessment. /all and asso iates +%35:, identified eight !rogressively more in lusive and ela$orate levels of ado!tion and use of an innovation +in luding what was learned in training,. Nielsen and Turner +%34:, used a stru tured interview guide $ased on this ty!ology to assess the degree to whi h tea hers in a tea her training !rogram ado!ted and a!!lied three urri ular !rogram innovations into their instru tional !ra ti es. *. J$served !erforman e on the .o$. 8hile not s!e ifi ally used with a transfer evaluation study' Shore et al. +%33:, showed how a rating he klist an $e used $y o$servers to rate the !resen e or a$sen e of $ehaviors in a .o$ setting. They develo!ed a () item he klist of su h fa tors as safety' leanliness' resident a tivity and su!ervisory !ra ti es to evaluate the quality of are at a nursing home. Two o$servers would randomly arrive at a .o$ site' then mark off whether items on the he klist were !resent or not. At 7a0ter Giagnosti s' after ustomer servi e re!resentatives +CSRLs, om!lete ustomer servi e training' they were required to ta!e five tele!hone alls ea h month. Then' after listening to the ta!e' !arti i!ants rated their !hone !erforman e using the key !oints taught in the training for the rating instrument. They also reviewed the ta!e and the assessment with their su!ervisor. 1n addition' 7a0ter also used a Bystery Sho!!er !rogram to assess a!!li ation of trained skills to !hone onversations. The sho!!ers N anonymous 7a0ter em!loyees !osing as ustomers N used the same rating instrument and results were also fed $a k to the CSRLs +Sugarman' %33?,. -. Com!osite measure of !erforman e. Re$er and 8allin +%34D, onstru ted a om!osite measure of !erforman e on a de!artmental level. Using the o$served in iden e of safe

%)

$ehaviors' they reated a de!artmental safety !erforman e inde0 of the num$er of em!loyees working safely divided $y the total num$er of em!loyees in the de!artment. /. #erforman e !ortfolios. Kutner et al. +%335, suggested that a !ortfolio of !rodu ts $e olle ted and used as the $asis for assessing im!a ts of training on tea her !erforman e. *or e0am!le' in the ase of tea hers' a !ortfolio might ontain ourse !lans' sylla$i' instru tional materials' handouts and o!ies of student work. 1f these materials were olle ted $oth $efore and after the training' hanges in quality ould $e used to indi ate transfer of learned skills $a k on the .o$. 1. Li ense ertifi ation. #ovenmire and Ros oe +%35?, measured the amount of !ra ti e flight time needed !rior to su essfully om!leting the !rivate !ilotLs li ense. The inde!endent varia$le in this study was the amount of time allowed in an air!lane simulator +)' ?' 5 or %% hours, used as !art of the larger !ilot training !rogram. +There was a slight' signifi ant relationshi!: the more hours in the simulator' the less time needed.,

7ased on these e0am!les' the main guideline for measuring transfer is that there should $e some assessment of the e0tent to whi h material overed in a training situation is used in a task !erforman e a!art from the training. The various riteria noted here illustrate a num$er of !ossi$le methods for arrying out su h an assessment. Beasures of learning sometime after the end of the !rogram are $etter seen as assessment of learning retention. This may $e the $est o!tion availa$le when it is unlikely that the trainees had o!!ortunity to use the trained skills +Hri kson' %33),. Su h measures would indi ate more a$out the retained capacity to use learned skills or the !otential for transfer than a$out the a tual transfer itself' $ut again' for ertain skills' that may $e all that an $e assessed. Self;re!orts of transfer are su$.e t to ommon rating and attri$ution errors and an $e a onstant threat to validity. Stronger measures involve assessing

%%

the use of trained skills on task !erforman e. These measures an range from task simulations to a tual o$servations of !erforman e on the .o$. The o!timum measures of transfer are those indi ators that dete t hanges in task !erforman e in a tual' field o!erating onditions +that is' $a k on the .o$,. 1n their review of the <s ien e of training= in the %33)Ls' Salas and Cannon;7owers +())%, on luded that <measurement !ro$lems remain Oin the study of training transferP. Bost studies still use surveys as the !referred method for measuring transfer. Jther methods need to $e develo!ed and used= +!. D43,. Jne additional issue is the question of when transfer should $e assessed. #resuma$ly' the trainee should have suffi ient time $a k on the .o$ to e0!erien e the task duties for whi h the training was !rovidedC if the trainees were from Customer Servi e and the training overed methods of managing ustomer onfli t' for e0am!le' it is likely the trainee might run a ross irate ustomers the ne0t day on the .o$. Jn the other hand' if the training was in C#R' the situation for using those skills might $e far into the future. Tannen$aum' in his %33( review of re ent work in training and develo!ment' o$served that there are <no guidelines for determining the a!!ro!riate length of time to wait $efore olle ting !ost;training measures= +!. D(Df,.

Affe ting the Field of Training: Theory and Resear h on *a tors Affe ting Transfer Sin e the %34)Ls' resear hers have tested various theories a$out what fa tors or !ra ti es an affe t the transfer of training. The intent of this resear h is to isolate !ra ti es that ould in rease transfer. Several theoreti al models suggest what those fa tors might $e. 2iao +%33&, !ostulated that transfer +2, is a fun tion of the amount of learning a hievement from the training +TA,' !lus the workerLs hara teristi s +8C,' the traineeLs motivation to use what was learned

%(

+JC,' how well the training mat hed .o$ duties +BC,' rewards re eived +RC,' and su!ervisor +SC, and !eer su!!ort +#C,. 1n short' 2 Q f +TA' 8C' JC' BC' RC' SC' #C,. The e0a t weights of ea h fa tor and relations $etween them would $e determined em!iri ally. /olton et al. +())), !ro!osed a model for managing learning transfer systems +*igure %,. This a!!roa h an a!!ly to either individual or team !erforman e. Su h !erforman e is affe ted $y the learning +or training, !ro essC the learning event an $e des ri$ed in terms of $oth its ontent and design. LearnerLs enter the learning event with im!ortant hara teristi s' su h as a$ility' motivation' !rior e0!erien e and so on. There an $e interventions made to im!rove the entry onditions' the quality of the training' and"or the nature of !ost;training .o$ e0!erien e. *igure % a$out here

The $ody of a umulated resear h on transfer of training an $e grou!ed into the following varia$les: trainee hara teristi s' trainee e0!erien es !rior to attending a !rogram' the limate of the work!la e' hara teristi s of training design and delivery' and !ost;training e0!erien es. All will $e reviewed in that order. This literature is shown in Ta$le %. Ta$le % a$out here.

A. Trainee Characteristics Iarious individual differen e fa tors N motivations' traits' !ersonality hara teristi s' $eliefs and e0!e tations' and individual a$ilities N ould $e e0!e ted to influen e $oth learning and the eventual transfer of learned material to !erforman e on the .o$. 1n general' studies on trainee hara teristi s an $e su$divided into two sets: !ersonality and related sta$le or enduring traitsC and varia$le !ersonal hara teristi s.

%?

1. Personality and Stable Traits Resear hers have looked at the relationshi! $etween sta$le !ersonality fa tors and learning and transfer. 1n their study of the effe ts of various !ersonality hara teristi s on motivation to im!rove work through learning +B18L,' Naquin and /olton +())?, assessed the relationshi! $etween !ersonality traits' affe tivity' and work ommitment' and B18L in a sam!le of (?3 em!loyees !arti i!ating in in;house training !rograms with a single !rivate;se tor health insuran e firmC data were olle ted at the start of the training !rogram. The traits most strongly asso iated with B18L were !ositive affe t +a general tenden y to e0!erien e !ositive emotional states,' Cons ientiousness' Agreea$leness' and H0traversion. /erold' Gavis' *edor and #arsons +())(, also assessed the effe ts of !ersonality +here' three of the 7ig *ive !ersonality traits Cons ientiousness' Hmotional Sta$ility' and J!enness to H0!erien e, on transfer of training among a grou! of !ilot trainees. Reasoning that the training !ro ess is a series of learning e!isodes + lassroom study' om!uter;$ased training' !ra ti e e0er ises' and so on, where one stage had to $e su essfully om!leted !rior to advan ing to the ne0t' transfer should o ur not sim!ly from the training to the .o$' $ut also $etween different stages of the training !ro ess itself. The $etter the intra;training transfer' the qui ker the training would $e om!leted and transferred into a li ense to !erform +i.e.' a !ilotLs li ense,. They found that those students with higher levels of emotional sta$ility and o!enness to e0!erien e were a$le to !rogress faster. 8hile ons ientiousness $y itself was not signifi ant' there was an intera tion $etween ons ientiousness and learningC it a!!eared that high levels of ons ientiousness sustained those students with low initial levels of learning through the early training e!isodes. #oor learners with low ons ientiousness lagged or dro!!ed out in the early stages. Jn e !ast the initial learning trials' though' ons ientiousness was not a fa tor. 1n the later <hands;on= !hases of learning +simulations and a tual !iloting,' emotional sta$ility was im!ortantC this was

%D

!ro$a$ly due to the alming tenden ies that sta$ility !rovides in the onte0t of more an0iety; !rodu ing and negative feed$a k;indu ing training !ra ti es +like simulated rash landings,. Along similar lines' *ord' Smith' 8eiss$ein' -ully and Salas +%334, found that trainees with a mastery orientation to learning had higher levels of knowledge and more self;effi a y at the end of a two;day training !rogram on radar o!erationsC in turn' these higher states were asso iated with $etter !erforman e on transfer tasks. Several on lusions an $e drawn at this !oint. *irst' the fo us on !ersonality traits likely has more a ademi than !ra ti al value. 7y definition' traits are sta$le whi h means they annot $e mani!ulated or ontrolled !rior to entryC trainees arrive in training as they are defined $y their !ersonality. Hven so' !ositive affe t' agreea$leness' and e0troversion are favora$le to motivation to learn and to transfer. Se ond' emotional sta$ility' ons ientiousness' and a mastery orientation to learning may su!!ort !ersisten e in learning during a training !rogram. Hven though these fa tors annot $e ontrolled or affe ted !rior to entry' they an $e im!ortant in e0!laining the e0tent to whi h trainees a!!ly and sustain themselves to the learning !ro ess. To the e0tent that !ersisten e o urs' learning in the training should in rease' ena$ling further transfer.

2. Variable personal characteristics A more !ra ti al a!!roa h to understanding how trainee hara teristi s affe t learning and transfer fo uses on varia$le or situationally modifia$le individual differen es. An im!ortant varia$le onsidered in this onte0t is <motivation to learn.= An initial attem!t to identify how various trainee hara teristi s an im!a t learning and transfer was !ro!osed $y Noe +%34&,. /is model entered on an im!ortant individual differen e varia$le: motivation to learn +see *igure (,. *or Noe' the entral issue is the traineeAs >traina$ility> or sus e!ti$ility to $eing hanged as a result of !arti i!ating in a training !rogram. Traina$ility is a fun tion of the learnerAs a$ility'

%:

motivation and !er eived work environment. The !ivotal varia$le is >motivation to learn>. A high motivation to learn not only de!ends u!on a work environment that favors learning and transfer $ut also requires that the trainee: $elieve in his or her dire t res!onsi$ility for results +internal lo us of ontrol, $elieve that training will lead to desired !ersonal results manage his or her areer' and res!ond favora$ly to feed$a k.

Botivation to learn should lead to more learning from training. 8hether this learning is taken $a k and used in the work!la e de!ends' however' on the !ersonLs <transfer motivation=. That motivation should $e high when the trainee is onfident in using new skills' knows when to use them' and $elieves that the skills will $e effe tive in handling work tasks or !ro$lems. *urther' Noe ontends that transfer will im!rove if managers make sure their trainees know the reasons for attending training' em!loyees a tively manage their areers' assessment feed$a k is !rovided' and a diagnosis of training favora$ility in the organi@ation is used to reate a more re e!tive limate. *igure ( a$out here

/olton' *ord and Naquin +())), re ently argued that the two onstru ts of motivation to learn and motivation to transfer' !reviously held inde!endent' ould $e more !rofita$ly used in om$ination. The result was a new onstru t <motivation to im!rove work through learning=. They !ostulated four fa tors that an affe t motivation to use learning on the .o$ +see also Famnill and B Lean' ())%,: +%, trainee e0!e tations +to what e0tent did the training meet trainee e0!e tationsM,C +(, self;effi a y +to what e0tent did the trainees in rease their sense of self; onfiden e and effi a y in using skillsM,C +?, .o$ satisfa tion and organi@ational ommitment +the

%&

higher' the $etter,C and +D, the e0!e ted value or utility of the skills a quired in training +higher !er eived value should lead to greater motivation,. *a teau and his asso iates +%33:, surveyed 3&5 managers and su!ervisors in a state government who had !arti i!ated in training. Three fa tors were signifi antly asso iated with motivation to learn: intrinsi motivation' !rogram re!utation' and organi@ational ommitment. Bost im!ortant was intrinsi motivation or the $elief that training would satisfy !ersonally desired or meaningful goals' like $eing a$le to do a $etter .o$ or go through a growth or develo!ment o!!ortunity. Botivation to learn was in turn moderately asso iated +r Q .?:, with !er eived transfer of learning to the .o$. Tesluk' *arr' Bathieu and Ian e +%33:, used surveyed data from (:( su!ervisors and em!loyees who had !arti i!ated in an Hm!loyee 1nvolvement +H1, training !rogram. They measured the e0tent to whi h !arti i!ants generali@ed skills learned in the H1 !rogram to other !arts of their .o$s. Three fa tors were im!ortant in e0!laining differen es: organi@ational ommitment' the num$er of H1 a tivities in whi h they !arti i!ated Osee *ord' et al'' %33(' for training a!!li ation stru tureP' and less yni al attitudes a$out the !ros!e ts for organi@ational hange. These three fa tors a ounted for (:6 of the varian e in generali@ation s ores. Two other varia$le !ersonal hara teristi s in !arti ular have $een studied in this onte0t: a tive areer management and self;effi a y. *or e0am!le' the test of NoeAs model +Noe and S hnitt' %34&, found su!!ort at several !oints. Regarding transfer' em!loyees who were a tively managing their areers showed more on;the;.o$ im!rovements following training. Self;effi a y refers to <a $elief in oneLs a!a$ility to mo$ili@e the ognitive resour es' motivation' and ourses of a tion needed to meet task demands= +-ist' Stevens and 7avetta' %33%' !. 4?4,. *or e0am!le' high entry levels of self;effi a y should also lead to more learning in the training' while high exit levels of self;effi a y would !ro$a$ly mean greater !ersisten e in a!!lying new skills on the .o$ +Tannen$aum' %33(,. -ist' Stevens and 7avetta +%33%, assessed self;effi a y levels of 53 B7A

%5

students as !art of a D;hour salary negotiation skills training !rogram. Si0 weeks later' self; effi a y was again measuredC transfer was assessed in a negotiation simulation. They found that self;effi a y was !ositively related to $oth learning and skills maintenan e +or transfer,. 1n summary' the effe ts of motivation to learn on transfer are un lear' and the refined onstru t on motivation to im!rove work through learning' while !romising an im!rovement in $oth theory and measurement' has not $een assessed in terms of a tual transfer effe ts. Hntry levels of self;effi a y may im!a t motivation to learn while e0it levels may im!a t motivation to transfer. Sin e $eliefs a$out oneLs a$ilities an hange' self;effi a y may $e more amena$le to treatmentC that is' self;effi a y levels in regards to some ontent area ould $e raised. As seen in the -ist et al. study' self;effi a y is res!onsive to !ost;training transfer !lanning modules' too. An attitude of a tive areer management also !lays a role.

. Pretraining !xperiences Associated "ith Training #rior to attending a training !rogram' trainees re eive ommuni ations a$out the !rogram. Communi ations may ome through offi ial hannels or an ome through the <gra!evine=. They an $e delivered through written te0t or $y a ver$al ommuni ations with either the traineeLs o; workers and"or su!ervisor. 1n one of the earliest studies of transfer issues related to em!loyee training' /u @ynski and Lewis +%34), ondu ted an e0!loratory survey of D4 !arti i!ants in a three;day training !rogram. A third attended an o!en enrollment version of a !rogram offered at a university' while the $alan e !arti i!ated in the same !rogram !rovided $y their em!loying organi@ation. +1t was in this study that the oft;used figure of %)6 transfer"3)6 loss may have $een first re!ortedC this datum was a self;re!ort estimate made $y !ast !arti i!ants of this same ourse a$out the amount of <attem!ted a!!li ation= made over a !rior nine year !eriod., Results identified a num$er of fa tors that seemed to distinguish <e0!erimenters= +those who attem!ted

%4

transfer, with those who did not. Several fa tors o urred !rior to the start of the !rogram: e0!erimenters tended to voluntarily attend the !rogram +the likely e0!lanation of why half of the university grou! vs. only a quarter of the om!any grou! re!orted making transfer attem!ts,C they $elieved that the !rogram would have utilitarian value in hel!ing them do their .o$C and they had dis ussed the ontent of the !rogram with their su!ervisors !rior to oming. After the training' the e0!erimenters re!orted more su!!ort for a!!li ation $a k on their .o$ site' !arti ularly from their su!ervisors. Transfer was also affe ted $y various fa ilitating or inhi$iting onditions at the work !la e. 1n !arti ular' returning to a worksite where there was task overload or risis demands as well as diffi ulty in onvin ing others a$out the value of the training inhi$ited attem!ts at transfer. *rom this foundation' several as!e ts of an em!loyeeLs !re;training e0!erien e have $een tested to see what their transfer effe ts might $e. A ma.or fo us has $een on ommuni ations to the trainee a$out the training. At least four dimensions of training announ ement and ommuni ation have $een studied: whether attendan e is voluntary or requiredC whether the des ri!tion of the !rogram is a realisti or a !ositive endorsementC whether it is !romoted as an o!!ortunity or notC and whether assignment to training is for advan ed or remedial reasons. /i ks and Klimski +%345, studied the effe ts of training !rogram announ ement and the degree of hoi e a$out attendan e on motivation to learn. A grou! of over ?)) managers from a non;!rofit RRG organi@ation !arti i!ated in a training !rogram on !erforman e a!!raisals. -rou!s of managers were randomly assigned to one of four treatment onditions: grou! one re eived a realisti announ ement of the training that also ommanded or required their attendan eC grou! two re eived an announ ement trum!eting the $enefits of the training $ut gave them a hoi e of attendingC grou! three re eived a realisti announ ement and a hoi e of attendingC and grou! four re eived the trum!eted announ ement and were required to attend. Gata were olle ted on

%3

trainee !erforman e in a simulated !erforman e review and from questionnaires om!leted $y the managers after the training. The manager"trainees with the realisti announ ement in high hoi e onditions were signifi antly more likely to $elieve the training was a!!ro!riate' that they ould $enefit from the training' and had a higher motivation to learn. /owever' the realisti announ ement did not affe t any of the three measures of learning used in the study' while amount of hoi e did affe t two of three learning measures. The *a teau et al. +%33:, study of state government managers and su!ervisors who !arti i!ated in training !rograms found that mandatory attendan e was negatively orrelated with !re;training motivation. They also found that a !rogramLs re!utation was an im!ortant fa tor affe ting !re;training motivation to learn. Barto hio +%33(, studied the effe ts of !rogram la$eling on attitudes a$out and learning from a training !rogram on mi ro om!uter usage. A$out half of the 45 !arti i!ants were notified that the training was an <o!!ortunity= while the remainder re eived a neutral noti e. 8hen the training was defined as an o!!ortunity' trainees were less an0ious and had a greater sense of effi a y a$out using the om!uter. Trainees also learned more. Suinones +%33:, tested what effe ts the nature of assignment to a training !rogram might have on learning and transfer' reasoning that em!loyees who were told to attend training for remedial or dis i!linary reasons might have different motivations than if they were told they were !i ked for training for their advan ed a!a$ilities. A sam!le of &3 undergraduate students' told they were testing a Navy radar training !rogram' were randomly assigned to either a remedial or advan ed ondition. Contrary to e0!e tations' the remedial ondition was asso iated with higher levels of !erforman e on the .o$. Another as!e t of !reliminary training e0!erien e that has $een e0amined is the traineeLs intera tion with his or her su!ervisor. 7yhams' Adams and Kiggins +%35&, studied a ounting su!ervisors in a nine;module su!ervisory training !rogram. The managers of the trainees went

()

through a two;hour $riefing on the !rogramAs ontent that showed them how to reinfor e skills a!!lied $y their em!loyee"trainees on the .o$. A randomly hosen grou! of su$ordinates of the su!ervisor;trainees om!leted stru tured interviews !rior to the training and seven months after the training. A ontrol grou! of su$ordinates of su!ervisors not attending the training were also interviewed after the !rogram. The interviews olle ted data on how the su$ordinates !er eived their managerAs handling of inter!ersonal issues +the ontent of the training,. 1n general' the su$ordinates of the trained managers re!orted im!rovements related to seven modules' no hange in one module' and a de rement in one module' om!ared to their ontrol grou! ounter!arts. 7e ause the a tual design used was not re!orted learly' it is diffi ult to se!arate out the effe ts of the manager $riefing from the design of the training !rogram itself' though. Clark' Go$$ins and Ladd +%33?, surveyed (D: trainees attending various ourses in %( different organi@ations. They found that training motivation was affe ted $y !er eived .o$ utility +similar to a tive areer management and intrinsi motivation,. *urther' !er eived .o$ utility was affe ted $y trainee involvement in the training attendan e de ision as well as $y the redi$ility of the traineeLs su!ervisor in e0!laining the training and the su!ervisorLs trustworthiness in su!!orting the em!loyeeLs !erforman e and a hievement. #er eived .o$ utility was also somewhat affe ted $y the anti i!ated su!ervisory su!!ort limateC s!e ifi ally' if the em!loyee thought the su!ervisor su!!orted and $elieved in the training' !re;training motivation was enhan ed. A0tell' Baitlis' and Fearta +%335, used self;re!ort questionnaires to assess the amount of transfer from an inter!ersonal skills training !rogram. This data were olle ted at one month and one year after the !rogram was over. Two fa tors were im!ortant in e0!laining the amount of transfer at one month: trainee !er e!tions of the value or utility of the ourse' and their motivation to transfer. At one year' one fa tor was the amount of transfer made at one month. Thus' longer term transfer de!ended on early transfer whi h was in turn driven $y motivation to use skills that

(%

were seen as useful. Hn ouraging near;term a!!li ation' !erha!s $y goal;setting' would seem to $e im!ortant. 7rinkerhoff and Bontesino +%33:, looked at the effe ts of !re; and !ost;training manager su!!ort on transfer $ehaviors among a grou! of trainees enrolled in various !ersonal develo!ment ourses +time management' ommuni ations' et ., with a *ortune ()) !harma euti al om!any. Randomly formed grou!s of the su!ervisors of registrants for the various ourses were asked to hold a !re;training $riefing meeting with their em!loyees who registered for the training. The $riefing was to review !rogram ontent' e0!e tations for the trainees' and en ouragement to transfer what they learned' as well as !ost;training meetings to review what was learned. Survey questionnaires on self;re!orted transfer !ra ti es' manager a tions' and $iogra!hi al data were olle ted %.: months after the training. As hy!othesi@ed' those managers who su!!orted the training had $etter transfer effe ts among their em!loyees. 7ates +())), develo!ed a list of om!eten ies that managers and su!ervisors need in order to $e $etter <learning transfer agents=. The s!e ifi om!eten ies of su h agents were

grou!ed in two $road ategories. The first was a transfer results orientation' whi h in luded the om!eten ies of taking the initiative to im!rove learning transfer' diagnosing transfer !ro$lems' managing the elements of the transfer system' and assessing transfer results. The se ond was transfer su!!ort and influen e' whi h involved setting hallenging transfer goals' using rewards to su!!ort transfer' and !roviding oa hing on the .o$. 1n on lusion' there is lear eviden e a$out the effe ts of various !re;training onditions and a tivities on transfer. *irst' !roviding !arti i!ants a hoi e in attending seems to im!rove entry motivation and learning. Jften in organi@ational settings' though' voluntary attendan e is not an o!tion. 1n addition' a realisti training !review seems to im!rove trainee attitudes a$out the training' in luding motivation to learn. Similar effe ts were o$served when the training !rogram

((

was !u$li i@ed an o!!ortunity to grow and learn new skills. Se ond' there are $enefi ial effe ts on transfer from $riefing the managers of trainees a$out the training their em!loyees will $e attending and on how to su!!ort the training !ro ess. At least in some ases' indi ating that the training is of a remedial nature may !rodu e $etter entry motivation. +This situation undou$tedly needs mu h more resear h., Third' a !rogramLs re!utation will understanda$ly influen e entry motivation a$out the training. Re!utation an $e affe ted $y the !er eived value or utility of the training for .o$ !erforman e. *inally' the unifying on ern throughout all these studies is how to !re!are the learner"trainee to o$tain the most from the training. 7etter entry motivation should lead to $etter learning that in turn should ena$le $etter transfer.

C. #or$place Trans%er Climate and Conditions Trainees will also have some understanding a$out the general e0tent to whi h fa tors in the work!la e su!!ort em!loyee training. These general !er e!tions of work!la e su!!ort are referred to as <the transfer limate=. Rouiller and -oldstein +%33?, develo!ed an instrument to identify the e0tent to whi h an <organi@ational transfer limate= e0ists' using the following fa tors: situational ues that remind the trainee of the training and"or !rovided o!!ortunities to use the trainingC and onsequen es +!ositive' negative or neutral,. 1n studying an Assistant Banager training !rogram at a fast food hain' they found that the $etter the transfer limate' the more the transfer. 1n ondu ting a follow;u! validation study on the Rouiller and -oldstein transfer limate instrument' /olton' 7ates' Seyler and Carvalho +%335, studied %43 te hni ians in a !etro hemi al !lant as !art of a safety training !rogram. They found nine fa tors that were somewhat different than those used $y Rouiller and -oldstein' in luding: su!ervisor and !eer su!!ort' the design of the training to !rodu e transfer' !ersonal out omes from the training +that ould either $e !ositive or negative,' o!!ortunity to use the training' su!ervisory san tions if the

(?

training was not used' resistan e to using skills if they violated work!la e norms' and the !er eived ontent validity of the training +whether the training was seen as aligned with .o$ duties,. 1n a somewhat more fo used study of the effe ts of limate on transfer' Tra ey' Tannen$aum and Kavanagh +%33:, used the Rouiller and -oldstein survey to assess transfer limate while also se!arately surveying ontinuous learning limate. Su$.e ts were more than %)) store management !ersonnel from a large hain of su!ermarkets in the northeast who were attending a su!ervisory skills training !rogram. Their managers om!leted a he klist of su!ervisory $ehaviors demonstrated $y the !arti i!ants a$out ? weeks $efore the !rogram and a$out two months after it was om!leted. #arti i!ants om!leted the two limate surveys at the end of the training. Results of a knowledge test +given $oth !re and !ost;training, indi ated a signifi ant in rease in learning asso iated with the training. There were also signifi ant in reases in su!ervisory $ehaviors on the .o$ after the training. *urther' $oth transfer limate and ontinuous learning limate' as !er eived $y the !arti i!ants' dire tly influen ed training transfer. 1n addition' they found that so ial su!!ort among the immediate network of su!ervisors and oworkers was most riti al to transfer. 7urke and 7aldwin +%333, develo!ed a (: item' seven;!oint Likert s aled instrument that was om!leted $y 54 training !rogram !arti i!ants. 1t had an al!ha oeffi ient Q .4?. Sam!le items in luded: <By su!ervisor and 1 dis uss my training needs and develo!mental !lans to meet those needsC= <my !eers feel that training adds no valueC= <only li! servi e is !aid to the value and usefulness of training.= Arguing that transfer was ne essary in order to !rodu e transformational hange' 7ennett' Lehman and *orst +%333, looked at the effe ts of onte0tual fa tors +te hnology and goal stru tures' ena$ling fa tors of leadershi! and teamwork' and organi@ational limate, on transfer of

(D

training. 1n this study' a ity government initiated an organi@ational hange !rogram stressing ustomer orientation and servi e. Climate was o!erationali@ed in terms of em!loyee !er e!tions of fa tors relating to su!ervisory or oworker su!!ort' workload' role am$iguity and de!artment !oli ies and !ro edures they though hel!ed or hurt transfer. Transfer was measured in terms of em!loyee self;re!orted attitudes a$out ustomer servi e. Bore than 3)) em!loyees om!leted surveys. 7ased on the res!onses' there was a moderately high orrelation $etween a !ositive transfer limate and em!loyee !er e!tions of some training goals +rQ.?% for teamwork and .?D for ustomer servi e, $ut not for others +rQ.%% for ommitment to total quality,. Hm!loyees who re!orted a !ositive transfer limate also re!orted a higher ustomer orientation. Study limitations +!ost;test measures only without a ontrol grou!, aution the a e!tan e of these results. /olton +())), develo!ed a Learning Transfer 1nventory System +LTS1, as a diagnosti devi e for assessing !otential areas where transfer may $reak down. -iven to training !rogram !arti i!ants at the on lusion of a !rogram' the LTS1 measures %& fa tors' in luding motivation to transfer' !ersonal out omes +!ositive and negative,' !ersonal a!a ity to transfer' !eer and su!ervisor su!!ort' !er eived ontent validity' and o!!ortunity to use. 1t also in ludes items a$out e0!e tan ies for training' resistan e to hange' and self;effi a y. /olton' Chen' and Naquin +())?, surveyed the res!onses of %)33 individuals in eight different US organi@ations +four !rivate' three !u$li ' and one non!rofit, who om!leted the LTS1 instrument immediately after attending a training !rogram $ut $efore they left the training lass. Gifferent ty!es of training !rograms were re!resented. They found statisti ally signifi ant differen es among ty!es of organi@ations on all riteria e0 e!t two: learner readiness and !erforman e self;effi a y. 1n !arti ular' there was higher motivation to transfer and more su!ervisor su!!ort in the non!rofit organi@ationC more resistan e to learning' greater likelihood of su!ervisor o!!osition' and more !er eived negative out omes from not use the training in the !u$li organi@ationsC and more

(:

o!!ortunity to a!!ly training and a $elief that !erforman e hanges will lead to more valued out omes in the !rivate organi@ations. Hven so' in general' transfer limates were low. -iven the varia$ility in transfer limates a ross organi@ations' transfer interventions should $e tailored to the s!e ifi organi@ation. 1n summary' the limate of the work!la e regarding learning and transfer an $e des ri$ed' although no standard instrument for doing so is yet a e!ted. The LTS1 does offer a ri her and more varied set of fa tors that the initial' $ehaviorally;oriented instrument $y Rouiller and -oldstein. Climate does seem to affe t $oth learning and transfer' although there is no onsensus yet as to what the definitive fa tors are. The ross;organi@ational study $y /olton et al. found variation on all $ut two fa tors measured $y the LTS1.

&. Training Program &esign and &elivery Learning from a training !rogram is a ne essary $ut not suffi ient ause for transfer of training to o ur +Ro$inson and Ro$inson' %343,. That is' the !otential for transfer de!ends on the quality and de!th of the original learning that o urs in the trainingC Rouiller and -oldstein +%33?, found that $etter learners did $etter at transferring what they learned. The quality and de!th of learning de!end on the hara teristi s of the design and delivery of the training. 7aldwin and *ord +%344, !ro!osed a model of fa tors in the training !ro ess that an affe t transfer +see figure ?,. A ording to this model' transfer will $e enhan ed when the training design in ludes identi al elements' the general !rin i!les of a skill are taught' a variety of stimulus onditions are !resented in the training to in rease generali@a$ility' and' generally' distri$uted training !ra ti es are used. *igure ? a$out here

A National Resear h Coun il Re!ort +NRC' %33%,' looking at methods of enhan ing human

(&

!erforman e' noted two as!e ts of learning that relate to !ost;training !erforman e: the retention or dura$ility of newly learned !ro edural knowledge' and the fle0i$ility with whi h these newly learned skills an $e generali@ed into new onditions. Su!erfi ial and a$$reviated training !ro esses an om!romise $oth the retention and fle0i$ility of learning. Retention and transfer in rease to the e0tent that >original learning> in the training is strong' an out ome that an $e !rodu ed' in !art' $y overlearning training designs. 8ith overlearning' !ra ti e training in a skill ontinues $eyond the !oint of skill mastery. That is' overlearning involves re!eated !ra ti e to a !oint of automati ityC overlearning an also $uild trainee onfiden e or self;effi a y in using the skills $a k on the .o$ +7inder' %33),. Jther onditions noted $y the National Resear h Coun il that fa ilitate transfer in lude: e0!lanations that $uild the learnerAs understanding of the task' a tive learner !arti i!ation in the training' refresher training' and a high degree of !er eived identity $etween training and real;world onditions. 1n a field e0!eriment with ?4 frontline su!ervisors in an a tive listening training !rogram' Bay and Kahnweiler +())), om!ared the effe ts of mastery or overlearning training to that of a more traditional +limited !ra ti e, design on learning' $ehavior demonstration and transfer $a k to the .o$. There was a moderately strong and signifi ant relationshi! +rQ .?D' !T.):, $etween knowledge retention as tested after the !rogram +learning, and $ehavior re!rodu tions of the skills +transfer, as o$served in rated video;ta!ed e0am!les. Transfer was rated $y oworkers in surveys four weeks after the !rogramsC there was very little eviden e that mastery training led to transfer' though. The authors s!e ulated that the reason for the low transfer im!a t may have $een due to limited !ra ti e o!!ortunities and deflated transfer rates on the trained skills. Cannon;7owers' Rhodeni@er' Salas and 7owers +%334, summari@ed the literature on the effe ts of <!re;!ra ti e onditions= on learning and transfer. #re;!ra ti e onditions are those training !ro edures that im!a t the traineeLs re e!tivity and a quisition of knowledge !rior to skill

(5

!ra ti e e0er ises in the training !rogram. They noted that the following fa tors should ontri$ute to transfer: attentional advi e that tea h general strategies for doing the taskC meta ognitive strategies that tea h self;regulationC and team !re;$riefs that define !erforman e e0!e tations and larify team mem$er roles and res!onsi$ilities. Jther !re;!ra ti e onditions N advan e organi@ers' !romotion of learning mastery goals' and !roviding !re!aratory information a$out !ra ti e e0er ises and likely onsequen es N should lead to $etter skills a quisition' whi h should in turn lead to $etter original learning. 7ased on this review' they re ommend the use of these various !ro edures as !art of the design of training !rograms. Bar0 +%34(' %34&, argued that >rela!se !revention> +R#, training $e in luded as !art of the design of a training !rogram. Training transfer is similar to !reventing sli!s and total rela!ses among addi ts seeking re overy. That is' after gaining so$riety or withdrawal' the !ro$lem for the addi t is how to maintain that newly a quired state $a k in the world. The addi t an $e warned a$out the !otential for rela!se $y identifying high;risk situations +su h as !arties where al ohol may $e served, and !re!ared +trained, to deal with rela!se;!otential situations with o!ing res!onses. A!!lied to training' rela!se !revention strategies in lude various self;management te hniques. Bar0 +())), identified the key features that a rela!se !revention transfer model should in lude. *irst' the trainee should identify a $ehavior to $e hangedC this $ehavior should $e under the !ersonLs voluntary ontrol and at risk of rela!se. Routine' me hani al a tions that must $e !erformed on a moving assem$ly line would not qualify' for e0am!le' while sar asti res!onses to aggressive ustomers on the !hone would. Se ond' the !erson should set a s!e ifi and hallenging goal for using the new $ehavior. Third' the !erson should $e a$le to distinguish $etween a momentary sli! and a full;$lown rela!se. *ourth' the trainee should arti ulate the advantages of retaining the new skill and the disadvantages of rela!sing to the old. *ifth' the trainee should learn s!e ifi strategies for !reventing rela!ses'

(4

su h as esta$lishing a su!!ort network' identifying high;risk situations' redu ing dysfun tional emotions $y in reasing rational thinking' and reating self;administered reward and !unishment ontingen ies. Si0th' the trainee should !redi t when rela!ses will o ur. *inally' the trainee should !ra ti e those skills riti al to maintaining the new $ehaviors and dealing with rela!se threats. *ree;-ardiner +%33D, !resented an e0am!le of a <rela!se !revention !lan= for !eo!le with hemi al de!enden ies' as shown in the ta$le $elow. The translation of su h a !lan format into use with training should $e straightforward. See Ta$le (. Ta$le ( a$out here

Biles +%3:3, stressed similar guidelines in his !res ri!tions for relating training to .o$ e0!erien es. *or e0am!le' he re ommended devoting time in training to hel!ing mem$ers identify the !ro$lems they may fa e in a!!lying their learning $a k to the .o$. 7y using ase study vignettes of !ost;training .o$ situations to !rom!t attention to these issues' !lans and strategies for dealing with the !ro$lems an $e develo!ed. *o0 +%34D, e0tended this !osition $y identifying several likely o$sta les to transfer' in luding values that may dis!arage learning and hange' goal onfli ts $etween what the o!erating system wants and what the training re ommends' and the so ial organi@ation of the work environment. *o0 re ommended that the training over how to !rodu e hange in the work!la e $y having trainees ma! out the likely im!a ts of training on the status quo of the .o$ as the $asis for !lanning how to address those im!a ts onstru tively. T@iner' /a oun and Kadish +%33%, re!orted a study om!aring the effe ts of a rela!se !revention module on various training out omes. Bilitary instru tors attending a train the trainer !rogram were randomly formed into two grou!s. Jne grou! re eived a two;hour rela!se !revention module at the on lusion of the two;week training !rogram that overed the !ro$lem of transfer. Trainees identified situations in whi h transfer might $e !ro$lemati ' followed $y a

(3

review of !ossi$le ways to handle those !ro$lems. Trainees in the rela!se !revention grou! showed signifi antly higher levels of ourse knowledge and greater use of transfer strategies. >1t thus a!!ears that rela!se !revention is effe tive in im!roving traineesA a$ility to use transfer strategies> +!. %5D,. Contrary results were re!orted $y 7urke +%335, from an e0!eriment using a sam!le of 3) undergraduate students in an assertiveness training !rogram. #arti i!ants in the rela!se !revention grou!s showed no differen e in either learning or transfer $ehaviors three weeks after the training. #ro$lems with this study' though' raise dou$ts a$out the findings. *or e0am!le' the training was a relatively weak intervention for this su$.e t +a D) minute le ture,' and there were e0ternal validity !ro$lems with the study. 7urke and 7aldwin +%333, tested the effe tiveness of a om!lete R# module and a shortened R# version against a ontrol ondition. A sam!le of 54 RRG s ientists' organi@ed into three grou!s' took a management develo!ing training !rogramC ea h grou! was randomly given one of the onditions. Gata were olle ted from the !arti i!ants on four varia$les: a!!li ation of transfer strategies' their !er eived transfer limate' their learning' and the re!orted use of the skills from the training $a k on the .o$ +also gathered from the !arti i!antLs su$ordinates, after four weeks $a k on the .o$. The !arti i!ants showed they had learned the material. 8hile the ty!e of R# method used had no main effe t' transfer limate did. *urther' there was an intera tion $etween R# method and transfer limate. 1n the less su!!ortive transfer limates' the om!lete R# !rogram did make a signitifi ant differen e. /owever' in the more su!!ortive environments' only the !artial R# !rogram made a differen e. They on luded that the need for and the e0tent of R# !rograms de!ends on the nature of the transfer limate found $a k on the .o$. A goal;setting a tivity may $e in luded as !art of a training !rogram as a way to affe t transfer of training. 1n this !ro edure' trainees write their own goals for when and how to a!!ly what they have learned to their work. Two studies have found that $enefits when trainees set transfer goals.

?)

8erner and his olleagues +%33D, looked at the transfer !ra ti es of %:) undergraduate students taking an assertiveness training !rogram. All students re eived the same one hour training !rogram' $ut a randomly formed e0!erimental grou! was also !ut through a !re;training !rogram !ointing out situations when assertiveness skills were needed' and !ost;training efforts at setting goals and kee!ing a he klist of assertiveness a tivities for D weeks following the !rogram. The !re;training intervention showed no effe t. /owever' the !ost;training goal;setting and diary kee!ing work did yield signifi ant im!rovements in retention of what was learned and re!rodu tion of the skills in a simulated situation where assertiveness skills ould $e a!!lied. The se ond study +7rown' ()):, e0!erimented with the effe ts of two kinds of goal;setting a tivities against a <do your $est= +GF7, a tivity. Seventy;two managers from Canadian government organi@ations' !arti i!ating in the same university;$ased management develo!ment !rogram' were randomly assigned to one of three grou!s. A <distal goals= grou! was told to set a goal for how many times they would use the trainingLs skills over the ne0t si0 week !eriodC they then shared these goals with a$out : !eers. A se ond' <!ro0imal goals= grou! did the same thing' e0 e!t they were told to make goals for two' four and si0 week !eriods. The third grou! was sim!ly told to do their $est in a!!lying what they learnedC they also talked a$out this in small grou!s. After si0 weeks' self;re!orts of skill usage were olle ted. The distal goal grou! was less effe tive in transfer than the other two grou!s. #rior resear h +Latham and Sei.ts' %333, found that GF7 goals are $etter than distal goals when learning new tasks. S!e ifi ' near;term goal;setting seems re ommended. Several studies have om!ared the relative effe ts of goal;setting and rela!se !revention modules. The results have $een mi0ed and in on lusive. 8e0ley and 7aldwin +%34&, looked' in !art' at the effe t of goal;setting on training out omes. Undergraduate students' taking a ourse in time management' were randomly assigned to one of four treatment onditions: assigned goals'

?%

!arti i!atively set goals' rela!se !revention' and a ontrol grou!. The assigned goals grou! showed signifi antly greater amounts of learning than the other three grou!s +among whi h there were no differen es,. 7oth goal;setting grou!s re!orted more $ehavior hanges than the rela!se and ontrol grou!s. There were no differen es $etween the goal;setting grou!s' however. -oal;setting a!!ears to ontri$ute to transfer' although !arti i!ative goal;setting does not seem to add any marginal im!rovements over assigned goals. -ist' 7avetta and Stevens +%33), om!ared the effe ts of goal;setting transfer training with >self;management> Orela!se !reventionP transfer training on a sam!le of B7A students attending a negotiating skills training !rogram. A week after the training' students returned to a two;hour session overing either self;management te hniques or goal;setting methods. Si0 weeks later' student self;effi a y was again assessed' and transfer was measured in terms of negotiated salary in a simulation a tivity. *irst' they found a relatively small differen e in the average salary $etween the two onditions. Fet' there were signifi ant differen es within the grou!s $ased on student self;effi a y levels +high' medium' or low,. *or the goal;setting grou!' students with high self;effi a y negotiated signifi antly $etter salaries than their medium or low olleagues. *or the self;management grou!' though' there were no differen es a ross the three self;effi a y levels. 1t a!!ears that the more om!rehensive a!!roa h to transfer !re!aration +self;management, elevates !erforman e regardless of self;effi a y levels and leads to higher levels of skills maintenan e. This suggests that the use of a transfer !re!aration module may need ontingent a!!li ation' here' de!ending on the level of trainee self;effi a y: the less the self;effi a y' the more de!th needed in transfer !re!aration. Ri hman;/irs h +())%, ondu ted a field e0!eriment with more than ()) em!loyees attending a ustomer servi e training !rogram at a mid;western university. #arti i!ants were randomly !la ed in either a ontrol ondition' or one of two treatment onditions. 1n one treatment'

?(

!arti i!ants ended the !rogram with a one;hour session on goal;setting' while in the other' !arti i!ants ended it with a one;hour !rogram on rela!se !revention. 1n su!!ortive onditions at the worksite' goal;setting was most effe tive in transfer generali@ation' yet $e ame least effe tive in unsu!!ortive onditions. Self;management +rela!se !revention, was uniformly effe tive in $oth work!la e onditions. 1n short' there was an intera tion effe t $etween work!la e su!!ort and ty!e of transfer intervention used: essentially' the less su!!ortive the work!la e' the more intensive the !ost;training intervention needed. -audine and Saks +())D, studied the effe ts of two transfer interventions N rela!se !revention +R#, and transfer enhan ement +TH, N on self;effi a y +SH,' transfer $ehavior' and !erforman e of nurses in training on om!le0 inter!ersonal skills. A TH intervention hel!s trainees identify those situations at the work!la e where the a!!li ation of newly trained skills is likely to $e most useful. The su$.e ts' nurses in mid;si@ed Canadian hos!ital' !arti i!ated in a (0( fa torial study +mi0ing the !resen e or a$sen e of either the R# or TH module,. The training !rogram was given %( times with a$out %( nurses for ea h (;day session. Their $osses attended a !re!aration !rogram on the training. Gata were olle ted !rior to the training' and then after two and si0 months. Su!ervisors rated the !erforman e of their nurses at the three time !eriods using a (3;item list of $ehaviors for $oth transfer and !erforman e. There was no main effe t for either intervention. 7ut in general' they found that the trainees in all four onditions showed marked in rease in SH' transfer $ehavior and !erforman e over ourse of study and the s ores remained high. 1n other words' training was effe tive regardless of transfer intervention. They on luded that the entire !rogram o urred in an organi@ational onte0t of su!!ort' so transfer interventions may not have a tually $een needed. 1ndeed' they s!e ulated that transfer interventions may only $e needed in onditions where there is little if any su!!ort for training. #ost;training goal setting may $e most a!!ro!riate in organi@ational onditions that are su!!ortive. Thus' whether to use

??

an !ost;training intervention and if so' whi h one' seems to de!end on the kind of organi@ational training transfer limate that e0ists. This !oints to the im!ortan e of assessing training transfer limate. 1n summary' there are a num$er of lessons for how training !rograms an $e designed and organi@ed to !romote transfer. *or e0am!le' su h !rin i!les as overlearning' e0!lanation' a tive !arti i!ation' and identi al elements all are argued to ontri$ute to transfer. Another design !rin i!le that has re eived em!iri al su!!ort is that of rela!se !revention. /ere' trainees anti i!ate !ro$lems they may e0!erien e $a k on the .o$' !lan ways to deal with those !ro$lems' and manage their $ehaviors a ordingly. 1n general' resear h on rela!se !revention strategies su!!orts its effe t on !rodu ing transfer' although the eviden e is not uniformly favora$le. Another !ra ti e that an $e in luded as !art of a training !rogram is the setting of goals for !erforman e $a k on the .o$. 8hen om$ined with feed$a k' goal setting also !rodu es results. -oal;setting a!!ears to work $etter in su!!ortive onditions at the worksite' while su h moderating fa tors for rela!se !revention have not $een noted. Com!aring goal;setting or rela!se !revention' it is not yet known whether one method is $etter than the other' or whether it makes any differen e if they are om$ined. 1t a!!ears that the relative effe tiveness of either does de!end on $oth the self;effi a y levels as well as the transfer limate at the work!la e. The lower the s ores on either' the more an intensive !re!aration +R#, module is indi ated. H0a tly what s!e ifi fa tors may $e most im!ortant in the transfer limate is not known' though' although other resear h would suggest that su!ervisory fa tors would $e im!ortant..

!. Post'training !xperiences at the #or$site Hven if the dura$ility and fle0i$ility of original learning were strong' there may $e onditions $a k at the worksite that mitigate against transfer. *or e0am!le' *ord et al. +%33(, studied how the

?D

>o!!ortunity to !erform> trained tasks $a k on the .o$ affe ted training transfer. 1n effe t' *ord !ostulated a training a!!li ation stru ture on the .o$. That stru ture an $e hara teri@ed in three ways: first' in terms of its $readth +how many tasks on the .o$ are overed $y the training,C se ond' its a tivity level +the num$er of times trained tasks are a tually done on the .o$,C and third' task om!le0ity +from sim!le to om!le0,. This a!!li ation stru ture is in turn de!endent u!on the de!artment in whi h the task o urs and $y the work onte0t +how mu h the su!ervisor likes the trainee' the amount of workgrou! su!!ort and the !a e of the workflow,. *ord studied Air *or e maintenan e airmen in an %4;week te hni al training !rogram' finding that airmen returned to a training a!!li ation stru ture that varied in terms of $readth' a tivity level and ty!e of task. *or e0am!le' only half of the ?D tasks overed in training were done on e during the first four months $a k on the .o$. The su!ervisorLs attitudes a$out the trainee +how mu h the trainee was liked and the !er eived !otential for the trainee, and workgrou! su!!ort were !arti ularly im!ortant in esta$lishing how mu h of an o!!ortunity the trainee had to !erform trained tasks on the .o$. +Note that this finding suggests the o!eration of a self;fulfilling !ro!he y in the onte0t of a leader;mem$er e0 hange relationshi!C that is' a su$ordinate who is a favored mem$er of a su!ervisorLs in;grou! will likely re eive more en ouragement and su!!ort for learning and a!!lying skills on the .o$., As !rograms like 8eight 8at hers and Al oholi s Anonymous have dis overed' grou! su!!ort after a treatment intervention an $e essential. Biles +%3:3, suggested that trainees meet again after the training is over to dis uss transfer and a!!li ation !ro$lems they may $e e0!erien ing. Trainees ould $e en ouraged to network with ea h other as !art of a su!!ort grou!' or there ould $e more formal follow;u! meetings of trainees to re!ort on their !rogress in dealing with the training $a k of the .o$. There have a!!arently $een no !u$lished studies on this !oint' though.

?:

2iao +%33&, looked at a num$er of fa tors related to the transfer of training among %)& young women working in the ele troni s industry in China. #arti i!ants om!leted a survey a$out their e0!erien es with the training and at the .o$ site a$out nine months after om!leting the training. Two fa tors stood out as !arti ularly im!ortant in !romoting the transfer: su!!ortive su!ervisory $ehaviors +su h as hel!ing set goals for a!!lying the training' !roviding assistan e when trying the new $ehaviors' and feed$a k on task !erforman e,' and mat hing of trainee skills with work duties. 1n summary' transfer an $e fa ilitated when the trainee has the o!!ortunity to !ra ti e new learned skills $a k on the .o$. This an de!end on su!ervisory su!!ort and assistan e. Jne suggestion' as yet untested' is to form su!!ort grou!s among trainees following a training e0!erien e.

#ro!ositions for #ra ti e *rom this review' ertain fundamental !ro!ositions a$out the transfer of training !ro ess an $e !ut forward as guidelines for !ra ti e:

%. Trainee entry motivation to learn is im!ortant' $e ause it an affe t the amount of original learning that takes !la e in the training' and the amount of original learning influen es su$sequent transfer. Iarious !ersonality traits have $een asso iated with motivation to learn and to transfer: o!enness to e0!erien e' !ositive affe t' ons ientiousness' agreea$leness' and e0traversion. 8hile informative' these findings have limited !ra ti al value' $e ause !ersonality fa tors annot $e mani!ulated !rior to a training event. (. Self;effi a y is an im!ortant !ersonal fa tor.

?&

?. A traineeAs entry motivation to learn an $e affe ted $y various !retraining onditions' !arti ularly the degree to whi h the !arti i!ant is given a hoi e of attending. 8hether this o!tion is availa$le or feasi$le' though' is another matter. Referring to the training as an o!!ortunity seems to redu e entry an0iety while in reasing self; onfiden e. ?. #re;training ommuni ations to the em!loyee"trainee $y his or her manager that shows su!!ort for training an im!rove transfer. The om!eten ies that managers need for this ommuni ation may in lude an a tive interest in im!roving transfer onditions and su!!ort for training. Banagers an $e trained to !rovide !re;training $riefings. D. The !otential for transfer an $e in reased $y the use of various instru tional !rin i!les and !ra ti es into the training !rogram. There are three ty!es of instru tional !ra ti es that an $e in luded in training design to ontri$ute to learning and its eventual transfer: a. Some !ra ti es an in rease the degree of original learning' !romoting greater a quisition and retention of learned skills. These !ra ti es in lude the !romotion of learning goals' attentional advi e and advan e organi@ers' self;regulation training' and !re;!ra ti e $riefings that e0!lain the e0er ise sequen e and larify roles and duties. Training designs that in or!orate overlearning' e0!lanations of !rin i!les' !ositive role models' a tive learner !arti i!ation' and refresher training in rease the amount of original learning that o urs. $. Some !ra ti es an !re!are the trainee for real onditions at the worksite $y using a!!ro0imations of real;world onditions +identi al elements, in the training. . Some !ra ti es an fa ilitate the a!!li ation of new skills $a k on the .o$ $y in luding s!e ial transfer !lanning with the training. +The two main !ro edures are overed se!arately ne0t., :. Training designs that in or!orate goal;setting and"or rela!se !revention training im!rove

?5

transfer. 1t is not lear' though' whi h a!!roa h' either individually or together' is $etter. The amount of !ost;training intervention needed may $e inversely related to the transfer limate and the traineeLs self;effi a y. -oal;setting N identifying oneLs o$.e tives for using the new skills ;; is also re ommended' !arti ularly when the trainee is returning to a su!!ortive work!la e. &. Jrgani@ational and management onditions $a k on the .o$ also affe t the degree of transfer. 1f there is seldom the o!!ortunity to !erform a task on the .o$ that was taught in the training' then transfer will suffer. Likewise' the nature of su!!ort and reinfor ement' as well as the kinds of o$sta les !resent' an also im!a t the quality of transfer a hieved. The general limate of the work!la e N whether it su!!orts transfer or not N will also affe t the e0tent to whi h transfer o urs.

*urther Resear h 1ssues This review of the transfer of training literature has some im!ortant im!li ations for the design and delivery of training !rograms. 8hile some as!e ts of training design and !ra ti e seem to $e learly indi ated $y the resear h' there are a num$er of questions still waiting attention. *irst' the methods for assessing transfer of training are varied and often la$or intensive. They are ty!i ally designed for single;!ur!ose resear h rather than on;going administrative use. *inding methods that !ra titioners an more onveniently use that would also !rodu e meaningful results would $e a hel! to the field. TJTHB Se ond' how an low levels of entry motivation $e im!rovedM *or e0am!le' one area not studied is the !otential im!a t that !retraining assessment and feed$a k an have on motivation to learn. 1n their study on the effe ts of !arti i!ation in assessment enters' S hmitt' *ord and Stults +%34&, found that !arti i!ant self;assessments hanged sim!ly from !arti i!ating in the

?4

assessment enter e0er ise' even if assessor feed$a k is not !rovided. *or e0am!le' in;$asket e0er ises affe ted self;assessed !lanning skillC grou! dis ussions affe ted self;assessed de ision; making skill. 8hat effe ts would !re;training feed$a k $ased on simulated task !erforman es have on motivation to learnM Could a low s ore on some !retraining assessment e0er ise N ommuni ated to the trainee in advan e of attending N in rease a traineeAs entry level of motivation' for e0am!leM Su h relationshi!s might e0!lain the effe ts of a <remedial= e0!lanation for training sele tion. That is' a su!ervisorLs e0!lanation that an em!loyee is $eing sent for remedial reasons is in effe t a glo$al !erforman e assessment. Bore resear h would $e needed to e0!lore that !otentially e0!losive ommuni ation. A third area involves !rogram re!utation. -ood !rogram re!utations an in rease !er eived utility and entry transfer motivationC re!utations may also e0ist a$out how en.oya$le' intimidating' and"or hallenging a !rogram is. To what e0tent an a desired re!utation $e reated in advan eM The use of testimonial or other demonstration te hniques drawn from advertising and !u$li relations may $e useful here. Su h ommuni ations ould !resent a more ontrolled message than su!ervisory $riefings. /ow qui kly do !rogram re!utations s!read from those who attendedM /ow an an organi@ationLs informal ommuni ation network $e monitored or trainee o!inions assessed to identify what the word;of;mouth re!utation isM A fourth area that ould $enefit from further resear h is the relationshi! $etween the ty!es of training;ending transfer !re!aration modules used +s!e ifi ally goal;setting and R#, and transfer limate. 1f so' are there any s!e ifi as!e ts of the transfer limate that are !arti ularly im!ortant to monitor and a ommodateM *ourth' if $arriers to $ehavior hange deriving from a training !rogram an $e s!otted and offset' will transfer o ur more effe tivelyM 1n this onte0t' would it $e !ossi$le to $rief a grou! of managers of trainees on the $arriers to transfer and train then to assess and orre t !ossi$le

?3

situational onstraints using a he klist' for e0am!le' or the results of an LTS1 surveyM S!e ial transfer !ra ti es ould also $e studied. *or e0am!le' does the use of a trainee su!!ort grou! to meet regularly after the training is over make a differen e overt time in transfer resultsM Goes it make any differen e on transfer if the entire workgrou! is in luded in the design of a training !ro ess as a grou!M *or e0am!le' !rior to a training event' all the mem$ers of a work grou! ould $e $riefed on what the training will over and then asked for their in!ut into how to hel! the trainee su eed. Goes the use of line !ersonnel as trainers make a differen eM 8hile not ne essarily final' one additional area for future study would $e the e0tent to whi h this entire $ody of work on the transfer of training !ro$lem a!!lies to e;learning systems. H;learning systems re onfigure training in several ways' $y often moving it dire tly to the worksite' fa toring in some favora$le design features +role modeling' !ra ti e' and ra!id feed$a k' for e0am!le,' and allowing the em!loyee"trainee some hoi e in when to a ess the training. 1s transfer of training even an issue in this onte0tM 1f so' what are those issuesM

List of Referen es Annett' E.' R S!arrow' E. +%34:,. Transfer of training: a review of resear h and !ra ti al 1m!li ations. Programmed (earning and !ducational Technology) 22' %%&;%(D. A0tell' CB' Baitlis' S' R Fearta' SK. +%335,. #redi ting immediate and longer;term transfer of training. Personnel *evie") (&' ?' ()%;(%). 7aldwin' T.T. and *ord' E.K. +%344,. Transfer of training: a review and dire tions for future Resear h. Personnel Psychology) +1' &?;%):. 7ates' R. +())),. Gevelo!ing managerial om!eten y as learning transfer agents. 1n H.*. /olton' T. 7aldwin' and SS Naquin +eds.,. Banaging and Changing Learning Transfer Systems +!!s. D3;&(,. 7aton Rouge' LA: A ademy of /uman Resour es Gevelo!ment.

D)

7ennett' E7' Lehman' 8HK' and *orst' EK. +%333,. Change' transfer limate' and ustomer orientation. ,roup and -rganization .anagement) 2+) (' %44;()5. 7inder' C. +%33),. Closing the onfiden e ga!. Training) 2/' 3' D3;:&. 7rinkerhoff' R.J.' and Bontesino' B. +%33:,. #artnershi!s for training transfer: lessons from a or!orate study. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly) 2' ?' (&?;(5D. 7rown' TC. +()):,. Hffe tiveness of distal and !ro0imal goals as transfer of training interventions: a field e0!eriment. 0uman *esource &evelopment 1uarterly' %&' ?' ?&3;?45. 7urke' L.A. +%335,. 1m!roving !ositive transfer: a test of rela!se !revention training on transfer out omes. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly 3) () %%:;%(4. 7urke' LA' and 7aldwin' TT. +%333,. 8orkfor e training transfer: a study of the effe t of rela!se !revention training and transfer limate. 0uman *esource .anagement' ?4' ?' ((5;(D(. 7yham' 8.C.' Adams' G.' and Kiggins' A. +%35&,. Transfer of modeling training to the .o$. Personnel Psychology) 24' ?D:;?D3. Cannon;7owers' EA' Rhodeni@er' L' Sala' H' and 7owers' CA. +%334,. A framework for understanding !re;!ra ti e onditions and their im!a t on learning. Personnel Psychology) 51' (' (3%;?(). Clardy' A. +%34D,. Banaging the onditions of su essful hange: a trainerAs .o$ is never done. 7altimore' Baryland: Eohns /o!kins University J asional #a!er in the A!!lied 7ehavioral S ien e' U?. Hri kson' #R. +%33),. Hvaluating training results. Training and &evelopment) ++' %' :5;:3. *a teau' ER' Go$$ins' -/' Russell' EHA' Ladd' RT' and Kudis h' EG. +%33:,. The influen e of general !er e!tions of the training environment on !retraining motivation and !er eived

D%

training transfer. 6ournal o% .anagement) 21' %' %;(:. *ord' E.K.' Suinones' BA' Sego' GE' and Sorra' ES. +%33(,. *a tors affe ting the o!!ortunity to !erform trained tasks on the .o$. Personnel Psychology) +5' ?' :%%;:(5. *ord' EK' Smith' HB' 8eiss$ein' GA' -ully' SB' and Salas' H. +%334,. Relationshi!s of goal orientation' meta ognitive a tivity and !ra ti e strategies with learning out omes and transfer. 6ournal o% Applied Psychology' 4?' (' (%4;(??. *ord' EK' and 8eiss$ein' GA. +%335,. Transfer of training: an u!dated review and analysis. Per%ormance 7mprovement 1uarterly' %)' (' ((;D%. *o0' R.G. +%34D,. *ostering transfer of learning to work environments. 1n T.E. Sork +ed,. Gesigning and 1m!lementing Hffe tive 8orksho!s. Cha!ter ?. *ree;-ardiner' L. +%33D,. Changing ourse for rela!se treatment. !mployee Assistance) Novem$er' (:;(4. -audine' A#' and Saks' AB. +())D,. A longitudinal quasi;e0!eriment on the effe ts of !osttraining transfer interventions. 0uman *esource &evelopment 1uarterly' %:' %' :5;5&. -ist' B.H.' 7avetta' A- and Stevens' CK. +%33),. Transfer of training method: its influen e on skill generali@ation' skill retention and !erforman e level. Personnel Psychology) +8' ?' :%);:(D. -oldstein' 1L' and *ord' EK. +())(,. Training in organizations. 7elmont' CA: 8adsworth. /all' -.H.' Lou ks' S.R.' Rutherford' 8.L.' and Newlove' 7.8. +%35:,. Levels of use of the innovation: a framework for analy@ing innovation ado!tion. 6ournal o% Teacher !ducation) 22' %' :(;:&. /erold' GB' Gavis' 8' *edor' G7' and #arson' CK. +())(,. Gis!ositional influen es on transfer of learning in multistage training !rograms. Personnel Psychology' ::' D' 4:%;45).

D(

/i ks' 8.G. and Klimski' R.E. +%345,. Hntry into training !rograms and its effe ts on training out omes: a field e0!eriment. Academy o% .anagement 6ournal) 89' ?' :D(;::(. /olton' H.*.' 7ates' R.A.' Seyler' G.L.' and Carvalho' B.7. %335. Toward onstru t validation of a transfer limate instrument. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly) 3' (' 3:;%%D. /olton' H*. +())),. 8hatLs really wrong: diagnosis for learning transfer system hange. 1n H.*. /olton' T. 7aldwin' and SS Naquin +eds.,. .anaging and Changing (earning Trans%er Systems. +!!. 5;((,. 7aton Rouge' LA: A ademy of /uman Resour es Gevelo!ment. /olton' H.*.' 7aldwin' TT' and Naquin' SS. +())),. Banaging transfer $efore learning $egins: enhan ing the motivation to im!rove work through learning. 1n H.*. /olton' T. 7aldwin' and SS Naquin +eds.,. .anaging and Changing (earning Trans%er Systems. +!!. (?;?:,. 7aton Rouge' LA: A ademy of /uman Resour es Gevelo!ment. /olton' H*' Chen' /;C' and Naquin' SS. ())?. An e0amination of learning transfer system hara teristi s a ross organi@ational settings. 0uman *esource &evelopment 1uarterly) %D' D' D:3;D4(. /u @ynski' AA' and Lewis' E8. +%34),. An em!iri al study into the learning transfer !ro ess in management training. 6ournal o% .anagement Studies' %5' ((5;(D). /unter' Badeline. +%35%,. Teach %or Trans%er) A Programmed oo$. Hl Segundo' CA: T1# #u$li ation. 1ndustry Re!ort ())). +())),. Training' J to$er' D:;&D. Eelsma' J' Ian Berrien$oer' E.E.-. and 7i.lstra' E.#. +%33),. The AGA#T design model: towards instru tional ontrol of transfer. 7nstructional Science) 14' 43;%(). Kirk!atri k' G.C. +%33D,. !valuating Training Programs: The ;our (evels. San *ran is o: 7errett;Kohler. Kutner' B.' Sherman' R.' Ti$$etts' E.' and Condelli' L. +%335,. !valuating Pro%essional

D?

&evelopment: A ;rame"or$ %or Adult !ducation. 8ashington' GC: US Ge!artment of Hdu ation Givision of Adult Hdu ation and Litera y. Laker' G. R. +%33),. Gual dimensionality of training transfer. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly) 1' ?' ()3;(?:. Barto hio' EE. +%33(,. Bi ro om!uter usage as an o!!ortunity: the influen e of onte0t in em!loyee training. Personnel Psychology) +5) :(3;::(. Bar0' R.L. +%34(,. Rela!se !revention for managerial training: a model for maintenan e of $ehavior hange. Academy o% .anagement *evie") /' ?' D??;DD%. Bar0' R.L. +%34&,. Self;managed skill retention. Training and &evelopment 6ournal ' :D;:5.

Bar0' R.L. +())),. Transfer is !ersonal: equi!!ing trainees with self;management and rela!se; !revention strategies. 1n H.*. /olton' T. 7aldwin' and SS Naquin +eds.,. Banaging and Changing Learning Transfer Systems +!!. ?&;D4,. 7aton Rouge' LA: A ademy of /uman Resour es Gevelo!ment. Bay' -.L. and Kahnweiler' 8.B. +())),. The effe t of a mastery !ra ti e design on learning and transfer in $ehavior modeling training. Personnel Psychology) 58' (' ?:?;?5?. Biles' B7. +%3:3,. (earning in ,roups. New Fork: Tea hers College #ress. Bosel' E.N. +%3:5,. 8hy training !rograms fail to arry over. Personnel) Novem$er;Ge em$er' :&;&D. National Resear h Coun il. %33%. 7n the .ind<s !ye) !nhancing 0uman Per%ormance. 8ashington' GC: National A ademy #ress. Naquin' SS' and /olton' H*. +())(,. The effe ts of !ersonality' affe tivity' and work ommitment on motivation to im!rove work through learning. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly) 18' D' ?:5;?5&. Nielsen' L.A. and Turner' S.G. +%34:,. Beasuring out omes of in;servi e training !rograms.

DD

!valuation *evie") 4) &' 5:%;55%. Noe' RA. +%34&,. TraineesA attri$utes and attitudes: negle ted influen es on training effe tiveness. Academy o% .anagement *evie") 11' D' 5?&;5D3. Noe' RA' and S hmitt' N. +%34&,. The influen e of trainee attitudes on training effe tiveness: a test of a model. Personnel Psychology) 84' ?' D35;:(?. #ovenmire' /K' and Ros oe' SN. +%35?,. 1n remental transfer effe tiveness of a ground;$ased general aviation trainer. 0uman ;actors' %:' &' :?D;:D(. Suinones' BA. +%33:,. #retraining onte0t effe ts: training assignment as feed$a k. 6ournal o% Applied Psychology' 4)' (' ((&;(?4. Ra kham' N. and Ruff' R. +%33%,. .anaging .a=or Sales. New Fork: /ar!er7usiness. Re$er' R.A. and 8allin' EA. +%34D,. The effe ts of training' goal;setting and knowledge of results on safe $ehavior: a om!onent analysis. Academy o% .anagement 6ournal) 2/' ?' :DD;:&). Ri hman;/irs h' 8. L. +())%,. #ost;training interventions to enhan e transfer: the moderating effe ts of work environments. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly) 12' (' %):;%(). Ro$inson' G.-.' and Ro$inson' E. +%343,. Training for im!a t. Training and &evelopment) Rouiller' E.V. and -oldstein' 1.L. +%33?,. The relationshi! $etween organi@ational transfer limate and !ositive transfer of training. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly) +' D' ?55;?3). Salas' H. and Cannon;7owers' E.A. +())%,. The s ien e of training: a de ade of !rogress. 1n WWWWWWWW' +ed.,. Annual *evie" o% Psychology) 52' D5%;D33. Salinger' R. +%35?,. &isincentives to !%%ective !mployee Training and &evelopment. 8ashington' GC: US Civil Servi e Commission. Salinger' R. +%353,. Beasuring $ehavioral hange with results from training. 1n R.J. #eterson

D:

+ed.,. &etermining the Payo%% o% .anagement Training +!!. %%?;%:),. Badison' 81: ASTG #ress. S hmitt' N' *ord' K' and Stults' G. +%34&,. Changes in self;!er eived a$ility as a fun tion of !erforman e in an assessment enter. 6 occupational psychology) :3' D' ?(5;??:. Shore' 7A' Lerman' GC' Smith' R-' 1wata' 7A' and GeLeon' 1-. +%33:,. Gire t assessment of quality of are in a geriatri nursing home. 6ournal o% Applied ehavioral Analysis) 23' D' D?:;DD4. Sork' T.E. +ed.,. +%34D,. &esigning and 7mplementing !%%ective #or$shops. San *ran is o: Eossey 7ass New Gire tions for Continuing Hdu ation' U((. Sugarman' E. +%33?,. Retaining training. 0uman *esource !xecutive' A!ril' ?D;&. Tannen$aum' S. +%33(,. Training and develo!ment. Annual *evie" o% Psychology) +8) ?33;DD(. Tesluk' #H' *arr' EL' Bathieu' EH' R Ian e' RE. +%33:,. -enerali@ation of em!loyee involvement training t the .o$ setting: individual and situation effe ts. Personnel Psychology' D4' &)5;&?(. Thorndike' H.L. and 8oodworth' RS. +%3)%,. The influen e of movement in one mental fun tion u!on the effi ien y of other fun tions. Psychological *evie") 3) (D5;(&%. Tra ey' E7' Tannen$aum' S1' and Kavanagh' BE. +%33:,. A!!lying trained skills on the .o$: the im!ortan e of the work environment. 6ournal o% Applied Psychology) 39' (' (?3;(:(. T@iner' A.' /a oun' RR' and Kadish' A. +%33%,. #ersonal and situational hara teristi s influen ing the effe tiveness of transfer of training im!rovement strategies. 6ournal o% -ccupational Psychology) 2+' (' %&5;%55. 8erner' EN' JLLeary;Kelly' A' 7aldwin' T. and 8e0ley' KN. +%33D,. Augmenting $ehavior modeling training: testing effe ts of !re and !ost training interventions. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly) 5' (' %&3;%4?.

D&

8e0ley' K.N. and 7aldwin' TT. +%34&,. #ost training strategies for fa ilitating !ositive transfer: an em!iri al e0!loration. Academy o% .anagement 6ournal) 24' ?' :)?;:(). Famnill' S. and B Lean' -.N. +())),. Theories su!!orting transfer of training. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly) 12' (' %3:;()4. 2iao' E. +%33&,. The relationshi! $etween organi@ational fa tors and the transfer of training in the ele troni s industry in Shen@hen' China. 0uman *esources &evelopment 1uarterly) /) %' ::;5?. Ta$le %. Ba! of the Transfer of Training Literature

Trainee Chara teristi s. 1ntrinsi in entives +*a teau' %33:,C !ositive affe t' aggrea$leness and e0traversion +Naquin and /olton' ())?,' motivation to learn +Noe' %34&,C self;effi a y +Tannen$aum' %33(,C motivation to im!rove work through learning +/olton et al.' ())),' Bastery learning orientation +*ord' et al.' %334,.. #re;training e0!erien es X Realisti training Announ ements +/i ks and Klimski' %345,. X *reedom to attend +/i ks and Klimski' %345,. X Training as o!!ortunity +Barto hio' %33(,. X Su!ervisory #re!aration +7yham et al.' %35&C 7rinkerhoff and Bontesino The Training #ro ess X Training Gesign +Cannon; 7owers et al.' %334, X Jverlearning +NRC, X -oal Setting +Re$er %34DC 8e0ley and 7aldwin' %34&C -ist et al.' %33)C Ri hman; /irs h' ())%C 7rown' ()):C 8erner et al.' %33D, X Rela!se !revention +Bar0' %34(C T@iner' %33%C 7urke. %335,
D5

After Training X *eed$a k on .o$ !erforman e +Re$er' %34D, X J!!ortunity to #erform +*ord' %33(, X Jrgani@ational $ehavior Banagement +*ord %34(, X Su!!ort grou!s +Biles' %3:3, X Su!ervisory su!!ort +2iao' %33&,

+%33:,.

Transfer limate X Rouiller and -oldstein +%33?,. /olton et al. +%335,. 7urke and 7aldwin +%333,.

Ta$le (. A Rela!se #revention Contra tual #lan RHLA#SH 1NTHRIHNT1JN #LAN Sin e hemi al de!enden y is a disease that sometimes results in rela!se' it is wise that 1 onsider an intervention !lan. 1 am onstru ting this !lan while 1 am so$er and rational. #lease $e assured that this is the ourse 1 want you to follow. 1f 1 rela!se' 1 will make many false statements and deny the !ro$lem ;; my disease will $e a tive again. #lease understand that the !lan $elow is the ourse that may save my life. Signature WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW By signs that !redi t a rela!se is on the way look like this: 8arning sign U%WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 8arning sign U(WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 8arning sign U?WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 1f 1 find 1 am tem!ted to slide $a k to old $ehaviors' 1 will do the following: 1f 1 am a tively using"drinking again' a tions 1 want you to take:

D4

*igure %. Banaging the Learning Transfer System +/olton' *ord' and Naquin' ())),
Jrgani@ational 1nterventions #re onditions Su!!ort

Learner or Team A$ility X Botivation X 1ndividual differen es X #rior e0!erien e

Learning Hvent or #ro ess WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Content' Gesign

1ndividual or Team #erforman e

#re!aration Baintenan e WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Learner or Team 1nterventions

*igure (. NoeAs +%34&, Transfer of Training Bodel Rea tions to Assessment *eed$a k Hnvironmental *avora$ility Transfer

D3

Botivation Lo us of Control H0!e tan ies of self; effi a y Botivation to Learn Rea tion to training Career R Eo$ Attitudes Learning 7ehavior Change Results

*igure ?. Transfer 1ssues +7aldwin and *ord' %344,

Training 1n!uts

Training Jut!uts

Conditions of Transfer

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Trainee Chara teristi s XA$ility X#ersonality XBotivation Training Gesign X#rin i!les of learning XSequen ing XTraining Content 8ork Hnvironment XSu!!ort XJ!!ortunity to use

Learning Retention

-enerali@ation and Baintenan e

:)

:%

:(