Exploration of factors affecting

transfer of training into the

workplace
A case study of selected capacity building training
courses in Western Australia

August 2002
This research was carried out as partial requirement towards a Master of
Rural Systems Management (University of Queensland), by Jenny Crisp,
(then) NHT Training Coordinator with the (then) Department of Agriculture
Western Australia
The full research report and appendices are available by contacting Jenny
Crisp at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia
(jcrisp@agric.wa.gov.au)

Contents
Page
List of Tables and Appendices
Abstract

3
4

The issue

Literature review on transfer of training

What is transfer of training?

Factors affecting transfer of training

Evaluating training effectiveness

14

Summary

15

Background to training project

16

Research focus

17 (parts not included this

version)

Methodology

19

Methods & Analysis

21

Method 1: Desktop study of existing data (focus groups)

21

Method 2: Structured e-mail survey

23

Results: Focus group key themes

Not included this version

Results: Summary of e-mail survey responses (all courses)

27

Learning Project

27

Motivation to attend

30

Job role

31

Confidence

33

Management

37

Colleagues

41

Target audience

44

Recognition and reward

48

Other factors

50

Any other comments?

53

Discussion

54

Conclusion and recommendations

62

References

65

Appendices

Not included this version

List of Tables
#

Title

Page

Research question links to the three broad areas of transfer of training research

Not inc.

Stakeholders in the outcomes of this research, and the outcomes they are most
interested in

Not inc.

Methods used to gather data, and why chosen?

19

Population, sample and response information

24

Potential and actual number of double counted surveys

25

Stage to which survey respondents progressed in their learning projects, for each of
the 4 courses and for all 4 courses combined

27

Extent to which job role provided opportunities to apply, for each of the 4 courses and 31
for all courses combined

Time lapsed between the course and first work application, for each of the 4 courses
and for all courses combine

32

Level of confidence to apply course theory, for each of the 4 courses and for all
courses combined

33

10

(Approximate) years of experience in job before attending course, for each of the 4
courses

34

11

Management support, for each of the 4 courses and for all courses combined

37

12

Colleague support, for each of the 4 courses and for all courses combined

41

13

Target audience support, for each of the 4 courses

44

List of Appendices
#

Title

Page

Running sheet for focus groups

Not inc.

Focus group transcripts

Not inc.

E-mail survey population and sample information

Not inc.

Cover letter attached to each e-mail survey as context

Not inc.

E-mail survey questions

Not inc.

Raw data and summary data for each course from the e-mail survey

Not inc.

Check for rigour in e-mail analysis (from raw data to course summary)

Not inc.

Not inc. = not included in this version. Original report and appendices available on request from Jenny
Crisp, Department of Agriculture and Food WA, jcrisp@agric.wa.gov.au

Acknowledgements

Id like to acknowledge and thank Eliza Dowling, Colin Holt, Steve Lloyd, Katherine McCann
and Gillian Westera for their valuable and always generous help throughout the process. Id also
like to thank Dr Jessica Dart and Dr Jeff Coutts for their earlier comments on the research
proposal.

Abstract
The focus of this research was to explore factors affecting transfer of training into the workplace.
Participants of a series of capacity building training courses run through the Natural Heritage
Trust landcare training coordination project provided the basis for a case study in this area.
Existing data from two focus groups run with past participants from one course type (Adult
learning) was analysed for depth of information, to provide insight for question development at
the next stage. The next stage was an e-mail survey sent to past participants from four course
types (Adult learning, Group skills and facilitation, Philosophy and practice of extension and
Evaluation), representing the greatest number and diversity of past participants.
The main conclusions from the study were that for this client group: the learning project process
is a valuable part of training course deign, facilitating transfer of training in a number of ways;
there is scope for management to improve conditions for transfer of training; the need for reward
and recognition, and preferred type of reward and recognition are wide-ranging individual trainee
characteristics; the most widely desired reward is formal accreditation; there is scope to improve
colleague support for increased transfer of training, and that confidence, motivation and
opportunity to apply do not seem to be major limiting factors to transfer of training for this client
group.

The issue
It is estimated billions of dollars are spent annually on training and development by organisations
around the world. For the relatively small, non-profit training courses coordinated by the NHT
landcare training coordination project, at least A$200,000 were spent in 2001 alone, by course
participants for that training.
More to the point though, what are the returns from that spending? Georgenson (1982) estimated
a low 10% transfer of training to the job, from about US$100 billion spent across American
industries in a single year. Other researchers have similarly concluded that much organisational
training fails to transfer to the work setting (Goldstein 1986, Wexley and Latham 1981).

Literature review on transfer of training

What is transfer of training?
Positive transfer of training is defined as the degree to which trainees effectively apply the
knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in a training context to the job (Newstrom 1984,
Wexley and Latham 1981). Transfer of training therefore, is more than a function of
original learning in a training program (Atkinson 1972, Fleishman 1953). For transfer to
have occurred, learned behaviour must be generalised to the job context and maintained
over a period of time on the job.
(Baldwin and Ford 1988)

It is useful to think about evaluation of training with two levels of outcome, training outcomes
and transfer outcomes. Baldwin and Ford (1988) define training outcomes as the amount of
original learning that occurs during a training program, and the retention of that material after the
training is competed. Training outcomes are generally gathered during or immediately after
training. Transfer outcomes however, are typically assessed by measuring how trained skills have
been maintained and generalised by the trainee after being on the job for some time (Baldwin and
Ford 1988).
There has been much research and thinking in the area of transfer of training, documented
mainly in psychology and human resource management journals. In addition, a number of
comprehensive reviews of the topic have been published in the past 10 to 15 years, including
Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001), Ford and Weissbein (1997), Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992), and
Baldwin and Ford (1988). This body of knowledge has been particularly useful in exploring the
potential factors to affect transfer of training into the workplace, as presented below.

Factors affecting transfer of training

According to a broad range of literature (discussed in detail below), the factors that affect training
transfer outcomes can be grouped into three broad areas:
1. Training design
2. Individual trainee characteristics
3. Environment and context in which training and transfer takes place.
All three areas can influence transfer outcomes directly. In addition, transfer environment and
context often impact indirectly on transfer outcomes through trainee characteristics. The three
areas will be used as a broad structure, within which to context the details of the review, as
follows.

Training design
The training design factors which affect transfer of training, can be grouped into four areas of
literature: Learning principles, Developments in cognitive psychology, Guidelines for increasing
training effect and Adult learning theory.

Learning principles
A large proportion of the empirical research on transfer has concentred on improving the
design of training programs through the incorporation of learning principles. Research has
centred on four basic principles: identical elements, teaching of general principles, stimulus
variability, and various conditions of practice.
Baldwin and Ford (1988)

Identical elements refer to having identical stimulus and response elements in training and
transfer settings, and research has shown incorporating these elements increases retention of both
motor (Gagne et al 1950) and verbal (Duncan and Underwood 1951) behaviours.
General principles refer to teaching the general rules and theoretical principles that underpin
training content, rather than just applicable skills. This approach has been found to enhance
trainees analysis and problem solving skills in the topic area, thus facilitating transfer (McGhee
and Thayer 1961).
Stimulus variability refers to using a variety of relevant training stimuli, for example several
different examples rather than one repeatedly. The trainee is more likely to see applicability of a
concept to a new situation, and therefore transfer is also more likely (Ellis 1965).
Conditions of practice refer to a number of training design issues. Should training be divided into
segments? Evidence suggests segmented training is generally retained longer than material
learned as one mass (Naylor and Briggs 1963). Should practice be incorporated in parts at a time
or as a whole? Evidence suggests practice as a whole is advantageous when: intelligence of
learner is high, training is segmented, or when training material is high in task organisation but
low in task complexity (Naylor and Briggs 1963). Feedback to trainees is also a key condition of
practice, with timing and specificity of feedback shown to be critical variables (Wexley and
Thornton 1972). Overlearning refers to process of providing trainees with continued practice
beyond the point where task has been performed successfully (McGee and Thayer 1961). The
greater the overlearning, the greater the retention of material.
In their 10-year training review, Salas and Canon-Bowers (2001) refer to research involving the
manipulation of specific conditions of practice. Findings were documented on the positive effects
of overlearning on retention (Driskell et al 1992), the benefits of collaborative learning
(Shebiliske et al 1992, 1998), the conditions under which team training works, and different
approaches to arranging practice sessions (Goettl et al 1996, Schmidt and Bjork 1992).
Baldwin and Ford (1988) and Ford and Weissbein (1997) however, discuss the limitations of the
traditional design parameters. The main concern is that while robust, the majority of studies were
carried out for relatively simple motor (involving or relating to movement of muscles) and
memory skills. The question arose whether the results could be generalised to the much more
complex and systems-based skills required by many learners and organisations today. Perhaps in
response to this need, the late 1980s and 1990s saw significant developments in the field of
cognitive psychology.

Developments in cognitive psychology

The dictionary defines cognition is the mental process of knowing, including aspects such as
awareness, perception, reasoning and judgement. Cognitive approaches are especially useful for
guiding the design of training for tasks involving cognitive processes, such as monitoring,
problem solving and decision making (Tannenbaum and Yukl 1992). Several insights into
training design from cognitive research are described by Howell and Cooke (1989). One is the

use of mental models for conceptual learning of complex tasks. Another is greater understanding
of the relationship between metacognition and learning skills, useful in developing improved
feedback mechanisms for tasks requiring analytical processing. (Metacognition is a reasoning
about the relation of own knowledge to the world and to the goals we pursue. A learner with
high metacognitive ability will be confident to learn, able to accurately assess why they succeed,
or why they fail, and actively seek to expand their range of learning strategies.)

Guidelines for effective training design

After the rather heavy psychological research into transfer of training, it was refreshing to see a
more simple and holistic set of guidelines for effective training design (Campbell 1988). These
guidelines include five elements:

The instructional events that comprise the training method should be consistent with the
cognitive, physical or psychomotor processes that lead to mastery, guiding the learner to the
most appropriate encoding operations for storing information in memory.

The learner should be induced to produce the capability actively, ie practice behaviours, recall
information from memory, and apply principles when doing a task.

All available sources of relevant feedback should be used, and feedback should be accurate,
timely and constructive.

The instructional processes should enhance trainee self-efficacy (the belief one can perform
specific tasks and behaviours) and trainee expectations that the training will be successful,
and lead to valued outcomes.

Training methods should be adapted to differences in aptitudes and prior knowledge.

Salas and Canon-Bowers (2001) simplified the key elements even further, suggesting that the
most effective instructional strategies are created around four basic principles:

Present relevant information or concepts to be learned.

Demonstrate the knowledge, skills or attitudes to be learned.

Create opportunities to practice.

Provide feedback during and after practice.

On the surface, these principles perhaps focus more on training outcomes, while Campbells
guidelines above seem targeted at transfer outcomes?
Some elements of these key principles and guidelines, such as relevant information and adapting
to prior knowledge of the trainee, overlap into another more humanist body of literature, that of
adult leaning theory.

Adult learning theory

9

At the centre of adult learning theory is an androgogical (adult learning) model of education,
originating from comparisons with the more traditional pedagogical (child learning) model. The
andragogical model looks at the core principles underlying why and how adults learn.
The most well known and referenced is by Knowles (1990), who presents six main assumptions
or principles of adult learning:
1. Adults need to know why they need to learn something, before undertaking to learn it. They
will invest energy into exploring the potential benefits of learning, and consequences of not
learning.
2. Adults have a self concept of being responsible for their own decisions, for their own lives.
They like to direct their own learning (to different levels) and resent having the will of others
imposed upon them.
3. Adults come to an educational activity with a depth and variety of experiences, and it is
important to acknowledge and build on these experiences.
4. Adults become ready to learn those things they need to know to cope effectively with real life
situations. This is important when considering such things as timing and promotion of
learning opportunities.
5. Adults have a task/problem centred approach to learning. They are most motivated to learn
when they perceive it will help them deal with real life problems and situations.
6. The most potent motivators for adults to learn are internal factors, rather than external.
Another useful model to consider is the action learning cycle (Kolb 1984, Mumford 1993). This
is a four-stage cycle based on adults learning through their experience.

Stage 1. Concrete experience, where the learner is involved in an action or activity.

Stage 2. Reflective observation, where the learner reflects on and makes observations about
the action or activity.

Stage 3. Abstract conceptualisation, where the learner builds their reflections and
observations into a theory; matches them with what they already know.

Stage 4. Active experimentation, where the learner considers how the theory could be
applied in real life situations, and actively plans how to implement.

The cycle then continues into a new and improved action or experience, based on the improved
planning. This cycle or similar was also briefly referred to in the psychological literature, in the
context of sequencing training design for greatest effectiveness.
Personal experience, and evidence from trainee evaluations over many years, has convinced the
author that incorporating adult learning principles and the learning cycle (with associated learning
styles) into training design, results in training outcomes being achieved well. But what about
transfer outcomes? Does incorporating adult learning theory into training design help
generalisation and maintenance of learning in the long term in the workplace? The author

10

considers that a number of elements, such as relevance, experience-based training processes, and
the action learning cycle, would certainly help generalisation. Maintenance however, is a
different matter.

Individual trainee characteristics

Numerous studies have found individual trainee differences can determine the amount of
information learned during training, and transferred to the job. These effects have been shown to
be independent from training design factors (Fleishman and Mumford 1989). The following four
individual characteristics are discussed below: Cognitive ability, Self-efficacy, Goal orientation
and Motivation.

Cognitive ability
Cognitive ability relates directly to general intelligence. A large body of research (including Ree
et al 1995, Ree and Earles 1991, Randel et al 1992) indicates that cognitive ability is a strong
predictor of learning and training performance. Generally, the higher an individuals cognitive
ability, the more successful they will be in learning and training. They have higher self-efficacy
(see below) and higher performance and skill acquisition.
Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001) raise the caution that high training performance does not
necessarily transfer to better performance on the job. Other factors such as motivation to apply,
and actual job requirements will also affect transfer outcomes.
Cognitive ability is inherent, not something which can be changed. It might be useful though, to
design specific training approaches for those with lower/ higher cognitive ability?

Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is an individuals belief that they can perform specific tasks and behaviours (Salas
and Cannon-Bowers 2001). Gist and Mitchell (1992) define it slightly differently, as an
individuals expectations for their future level of performance on a task. It is well established
(including Cole and Latham 1997, Ford et al 1998, Mathieu et al 1993, Martocchio 1994,
Quinones 1995) that self-efficacy enhances learning outcomes and performance, whether an
individual has it already, or acquires it during training.
The implications for transfer outcomes are summarised by Bramley (1996). He explains that
individuals who are low in self-efficacy have difficulty coping with environmental demands.
They imagine potential difficulties are more formidable than is actually the case, and dwell on
personal deficiencies. People who are strong in self-efficacy focus on the demands of a situation,
and treat obstacles as challenges.
Bramley goes on to offer strategies to help increase self-efficacy. As much of the issue is about
being able to predict and manage perceived threats, learning skills to master the situation that

11

feels threatening, and practicing these in a safe environment helps to improve self-efficacy. It is
also useful during training to provide a wide range of experiences on what is being learned, so
learning can be applied to situations that dont quite fit.
Bramley also suggests several post-training strategies. Self-efficacy increases when experience
fails to support fears, so interspersing training with job experience, and setting up systems to
ensure support and reward for application are both beneficial interventions. Part of the support
system should be supervisors involvement and understanding, with goals and specific measures
of progress set. Feedback systems are also important.

Goal orientation
Dweck and Leggett (1988) discuss two classes of goal orientation:

Mastery (or learning) goal orientation, where individuals seek to develop competence by
acquiring new skills and mastering novel situations.

Performance goal orientation, where individuals pursue assurances of their own competence
by seeking good performance evaluations and avoiding negative ones.

Although more research is needed, recent studies have demonstrated goal orientation does
influence learning outcomes and performance. Mastery goal orientation was shown to be
positively related to self-efficacy (Phillips and Gully (1997), and to metacognitive activity in
training (Ford et al 1988). Also, Fisher and Ford (1998) found mastery to be a strong predictor of
knowledge-based learning outcomes.

Motivation
Motivation is typically defined as variability in behaviour not attributable to individual
differences or strong situational coercion, and can affect whether or not a trainee chooses to
attend training, expend effort during training, or apply trained skills in the workplace (Baldwin
and Ford, 1988). Mumford et al (1988) revealed trainee characteristics such as aptitude and
motivational levels were among the most consistent predictors of trainee performance, stronger
even than course content variables.
Recently, several studies have confirmed that trainees motivation to attend training and to learn,
affects their level of skill acquisition, retention, and willingness to transfer learning to the
workplace (Martocchio and Webster 1992, Mathieu et al 1992, Quinones 1995, Tannenbaum and
Yukl 1992). Many factors are thought to have an influence on motivation, including cognitive
ability, self-efficacy, age, and anxiety of the individual, as well as a situational conditions such as
organisation, peers, and supervisors (Colquitt et al 2000). A deeper understanding of how these
factors affect motivation, and how they might interact with each other, is a useful direction for
future research (Salas and Cannon-Bowers 2001).

12

Links
As discussed above, individual trainee characteristics such as cognitive ability, self-efficacy, goal
orientation and motivation all play a direct role in achieving training outcomes, and to varying
degrees transfer outcomes. As presented by Quinone 1997, they also play and indirect role
linking training and transfer outcomes with contextual influences. They potentially impact at all
stages; in the choice to attend training, the effort expended during training, and the application of
trained skills and knowledge in the workplace.
Some individual characteristics such as self-efficacy and motivation, are malleable and can
potentially be influenced and developed. Others, such as cognitive ability cannot be changed.
(The malleability of goal orientation is not yet known.)

Environment and context in which the transfer takes place

Much research and review surrounds the potential impact of environmental and contextual factors
on transfer of training. It is easy to become bogged down in the literature, as a number of authors
have presented slightly different theories in the subject area, with many overlapping factors and
links. The review below groups the literature into nine general areas: Organisational context,
Organisational climate, Situational cues and consequences, Social support, Organisational
learning environment, Opportunity to perform, Skill decay over time, Near and far transfer of
training and Multi-level and multi-dimensional transfer.

Organisational context
Quinones (1997) integrates number of studies examining the role of contextual influences, such
as participation, framing of training, and organisational climate, on training effectiveness. A key
feature of the discussion is the central role played by individual trainee characteristics, such as
motivation and self-efficacy, in linking contextual factors to training effectiveness.
Participation refers to the level of involvement trainees have in training decisions. A review by
Wagner and Gooding (1987) states the benefits of participation as being increased decision
acceptance, commitment, motivation and productivity. In particular, a number of studies have
been carried out around the issue of choice (Mathieu et al 1993, Baldwin et al 1991, Hicks and
Klimoski 1987); should trainees be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they attend
training? In general, positive links have been found between a trainee choosing to attend and
motivation, self-efficacy, and learning.
Framing is the context created by the information an organisation provides about a training
program. This could be information about content and outcomes, leading to particular
expectations. It could also be something about the wording or framing of the message that
conveys a subtle (or not so subtle) threat to some people, for example a perceived threat to job
security. Tannenbaum at al (1991) found that high levels of training fulfilment were associated
with increased training motivation, self-efficacy and organisational commitment, their training

13

fulfilment measure incorporating expectations of content, perceptions of actual content and

desired content. This finding suggests organisations should be active in ensuring training content
matches expectations. It also highlights the need for organisations to think hard about the
information they communicate to trainees. Quinones (1997) suggests the most important aspect
of framing is for organisations to be aware of how information can be perceived and interpreted.
The final area of influence on organisational context discussed by Quinones (1997) is
organisational climate. This broad area has generated much research in recent years, and is
summarised in the next section.

Organisational climate
Organisational climate refers to a range of characteristics of an organisation, such as policies,
reward systems and managerial behaviour, to which employees attach meaning on the basis of
their own values, beliefs, needs and other individual characteristics (Tracey et al 1995).
Schneider and Reichers (1983) define climate as perceptions of the environment that evolve out
of interaction among organisational members. An organisational climate is said to exist when a
group of individuals share a common perception of the work context (Joyce and Slocum 1984).
An example of this is the positive correlation shown between social support and motivation to
learn (Noe and Wilks 1993) and between social support and trainee self-efficacy (Maurer and
Tarulli 1994). Other studies proved a positive relationship between an updating climate (one
that encourages updating of technical knowledge and skills and personal growth) and attendance
and interest in training, seminars and professional meetings.

Situational cues and consequences

The additional concept of organisational transfer climate was introduced by Roullier and
Goldstein (1993); defined as situations and consequences that inhibited or helped trainees apply
the skills gained in training to a job setting. Tracey et al 1995 examined the transfer climates of
supermarkets, and found managerial trainees in more positive transfer climates showed the largest
increases in performance after attending a 3-day training seminar on basic supervisory skills.
There is some evidence to suggest the organisational transfer climate affects transfer outcomes
through its effect on individual trainee characteristics Quinone (1997).
Roullier and Goldstein (1993) suggest the transfer climate consists of two components, situational
cues and consequences. Both cues and consequences act as reminders for trainees to use their
training on their return to the job. Situational cues refer to the extent to which aspects of a
situation encourage an employee to use what has been learned in training. Specific cues proposed
by Roullier and Goldstein are goal cues, social cues, task and structural cues, and self control
cues. Consequences refer to the degree to which employees are rewarded for applying what has
been learned in training, and includes positive feedback, negative feedback, punishment and no
feedback (Roullier and Goldstein 1993).

14

Social support
According to Noe (1986) a supportive social context is one in which employees believe others
will provide them with the opportunities and reinforcement for practicing skills and using
knowledge acquired in training. Social support includes all levels of management, supervisors,
peers, subordinates and other trainees. It plays a central role in transfer of training, in the form of
situational cues and consequences, and also in pre-training motivation. The more positive the
social interactions, the more likely it is that trainees will apply trained behaviours and skills
(Roullier and Goldstein 1993).
In a specific example, Brinkerhoff and Montessino (1995) explored the impact of two
management interventions, a pre-training expectations discussion and an after-training follow up
discussion. Results clearly showed increased transfer of training in the group who had these
interventions. In a more recent example, Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) demonstrated positive
transfer effects through team leader support.

Organisational learning environment

Tannenbaum (1997) discusses a theory close to organisational context/ organisational transfer
climate, the continuous learning work environment. Tannenbaum presents the characteristics of a
positive continuous learning environment as:

Individuals are aware of the big picture.

Individuals are assigned tasks where they can apply what they have learned, and also where
they can be stretched and challenged.

Mistakes are tolerated during learning and early application, when individuals are trying new
skills.

Individuals are accountable for learning, and performance expectations are high enough to
necessitate continuous personal growth.

Situational constraints to learning and performance are identified and minimised.

New ideas are valued and encouraged.

Supervisors and co-workers provide support, allowing individuals to learn and attempt to
implement new ideas.

Policies and practices support the effective use of training.

In a small study, Tannenbaum (1997) examined the continuous learning environments of seven
companies, and found that the companies with the strongest learning environment also exhibited
the strongest overall organisational performance. This is consistent with prior research
demonstrating organisations that apply more progressive human resource practices, are on
average superior performers (Kravetz 1988).
15

Opportunity to perform
The opportunity is the extent to which a trainee is provided with, or actively obtains work
experiences relevant to the tasks for which they were trained (Ford et al 1992). Ford et al (1992)
cited a review by Ford et al (1991), in which three measures of opportunity to perform were
identified. The most direct measure is breadth, or the number of different trained tasks used on
the job. The second measure is activity level, or the number of times each trained task is used on
the job. This is useful as the more times a task is performed, the more likely it is that
performance will improve. The third is task type, or the difficulty of the trained tasks performed
on the job. Ford et al (1992) suggests these three measures provide a multi-dimensional
perspective to the opportunity to perform.
Ford et al (1992) also documents factors affecting opportunity to perform. These are
organisational, such as which department and function individuals are assigned to, work context,
and individual characteristics. Work context in particular links closely to the organisational
transfer climate elements discussed above, involving supervisor attitudes, workgroup support, and
the pace of work flow in the workgroup. More detailed research into some of the factors
affecting opportunity to perform was carried out by Quinones et al (1995).

Skill decay over time

Skill decay refers to the loss or decay of trained or acquired skills (or knowledge) after periods of
non-use (Arthur et al 1998). A comprehensive analysis of the literature by Arthur et al (1998)
indicates substantial skill loss over time with non-practice or non-use, citing seven main
influencing factors.

Length of retention interval

Degree of overlearning

Task characteristics

Methods for testing for original learning and retention

Conditions of retrieval

Instructional strategies or training methods

Individual differences.

Near and far transfer of training

Bramley (1996) briefly discusses another pertinent concept, that of near and far transfer of
training. Near transfer is where the job situation is accurately specified and can be simulated in
training. Far transfer is where the requirement is to apply learning in a variety of situations.

16

For near transfer, Bramely (1996) cites that training design and support should emphasise:

Maximising identical elements between training and job (Adams 1987)

High psychological fidelity, where trainees perceive the training situation to be very like on
the job (Goldstein 1993)

Overlearning procedures (Goldstein 1993)

For far transfer, Bramley cites:

Teaching general principles (McGhee and Thayer 1961)

Teaching in a variety of relevant situations (Baldwin and Ford 1988)

Application of learning to new situations both during the training and afterward, with
encouragement from trainers and others (Goldstein 1993)

The possible implications of near and far transfer are interesting, as Bramley (1996) notes that
maximising near transfer is likely to hinder far transfer, and vice versa. He suggests it is
necessary to identify the type of transfer intended before designing the training.

Multi-dimensional and multi-level transfer

More recently, two studies have looked at the gaps in transfer of training research. Yelon and
Ford (1999) analysed 18 transfer research studies from 1990-1996, as reviewed by Ford and
Weissbein (1997). Yelon and Ford found that by far the majority of studies were about workers
performing closed skills (where circumstances for use and performance are standard) under
supervision. The next most often studied category was workers supervised while performing
open skills (adaptable, creative, not one right way to perform, eg problem solving or
communicating). There was a very small group of studies about closed skills without
supervision, and no work on autonomous workers performing open skills. As a result, Yelon and
Ford (1999) proposed a multi-dimensional model of transfer that considers the possible
interactions between these elements.
Kozlowski et al (2000) presents a multi-level model that considers both horizontal and vertical
transfer of training. Horizontal transfer is across different settings or contexts at the same level,
and Kozlowski et al found this to be the primary focus for traditional transfer models. Vertical
transfer on the other hand, refers to transfer through different levels in the organisational system.
Research into organisational context, as discussed above, considers vertical transfer from the top
down. How though, do individual level training outcomes contribute to higher level group and
organisational outcomes? Kozlowski et al suggest this is a large gap in research, which could be
the key to strengthening the link between training and organisational effectiveness.

Evaluating training effectiveness

17

It is important to note that evaluation of training effectiveness is not the focus of this research,
and will not be included in the literature review. Traditionally, evaluating training effectiveness is
about assessing the results and impacts of training. Transfer of training research is focused more
on the factors and processes that help and hinder transfer getting to the desired outcomes.

18

Summary
What stood out from the literature?

Research into transfer of training is a large and active field.

Much of the prior research into transfer of training has utilised education, knowledge, skills
and understanding of psychological research practices.

There is a difference between training outcomes and transfer outcomes.

There are many factors affecting transfer of training, the main three areas being training
design, individual trainee characteristics, and the environment and context in which transfer
takes place.

Many of these factors are interlinked, particularly through individual trainee characteristics.

The main points of discussion within each of the three broad areas affecting transfer of
training were:

1.Training design

2.Individual trainee
characteristics

3.Environment and context in which transfer

takes place

Learning principles

Cognitive ability

Organisational context and climate

Developments in cognitive
research

Self-efficacy

Situational cues and consequences

Goal orientation

Social support

Motivation

Organisational learning environment

Guidelines for effective

training
Adult Learning theory

Opportunity to perform
Skill decay over time
Near and far transfer of training
Multi-level and multi-dimensional transfer

19

Background to training project

Purpose of project
The Natural Heritage Trust Landcare Training Coordination Project for Western Australia is a
state-wide project, that has been operating in its current format since 1998. The aim of the
project is to provide Natural Heritage Trust (NHT)-funded coordinators and facilitators, and other
key natural resource management stakeholders, the opportunity to acquire skills and knowledge
to assist their communities to progress towards their landcare objectives. The main strategy to
achieve this is through training and education.
Training course details
In the four years since May 1988, the project has coordinated and delivered 57 courses or
workshops to 876 participants, resulting in over 3000 person-training days. They are broadly
about building human capacity, with a focus on application in the workplace.
Participants are diverse, coming from state agencies and local government organisations, as well
as from rural and urban communities. They range from very experienced to having no experience
in the job. Job backgrounds range from anything in agriculture to environmental management
programs associated with caring for land, coast, rivers or bush. The common thread is a need to
develop new knowledge, skills and capacity in the area of extension and community
development.
Workshops are 1-day events. Courses however are usually live-in, running from 3-5 days in
length. Specific course topics include Adult learning, Group skills & facilitation, Evaluation of
programs and projects, Philosophy & practice of extension, Introduction to marketing, Planning
for natural resource sustainability and more. Workshop topics include Secrets of effective
promotion, Great school presentations, Focus groups, Managing meetings for community groups
and more.
To facilitate application of learning in the workplace, and complete the action learning cycle
(Mumford 1993), all courses include a learning project, involving four stages:

1. Develop a plan by the end of the course, and receive feedback on the plan by course
presenters and peers

2. Implement the plan in the workplace over the next few months.
3. Attend a review session with course presenters and peers, to present main results and
learning, and to receive feedback by course presenters and peers.

4. Document learning project methodology and results in a written final report.

For the past three years, some courses (Evaluation and Philosophy and practice of extension)
have been accredited on completion through the University of Queensland. Others, such as Adult
learning, Group skills and facilitation and Marketing were only accredited for a short time within
that period. After completing a number of subjects, some participants gained sufficient
accreditation for a Certificate in Extension, or a Postgraduate Diploma in Rural Systems
Management (Extension) through the University of Queensland. Apart from a recent few, all
non-accredited courses result in a certificate of completion.

20

Adult learning principles (Knowles 1990, Malouf 1997) and action learning theory (Kolb 1984,
McGill and Beatty 1995) underpin the design and delivery of all training. All courses are
evaluated to reaction level at the end of the course.
Evaluation so far
Much time, resources and effort are expended to run and attend the NHT training courses. To
date, the NHT training coordinator has evaluated all courses.

Surveying needs of potential participants (once per year).

Finding out expectations and needs of actual participants (pre-course or at start of course).

Evaluating for content and process improvement during courses (daily participant and peer
review sessions).

Evaluating for improvement, reactions and intent immediately post course. Questions are
asked in a written format about what has been learned, and how that might be put into
practice. This provides information on the immediate impact of the training for those
participants, and also on how to improve the next course. It also provides a record of what
participants intend to put into practice post-course.

What is not known, is what participants gained and applied in the longer term, once back in the
workplace with normal routine and pressures. A series of focus groups were carried out (but not
analysed) in December 2000, to gather data towards answering this question. This data will be
used as existing data/desktop study for this research.

Research focus
Focus
To identify the range of factors affecting transfer of training for participants of the capacity
building training courses run through the NHT training coordination project, and move some way
towards understanding how they affect it.

Outcomes of the research will be:

Knowledge of the main factors helping and hindering transfer of training for this particular
client group (NHT training coordination project clients)

Knowledge about how to better support (future) course participants in their application of
training in the workplace

Recommendations for improved training transfer support systems for (future) course
participants

Recommendations for improved (future) course processes, to enhance training transfer

outcomes

21

22

Scope
The case study involves participants from a range of job types, employers and geographic
locations, all of which could influence transfer of training in the workplace. The scope of the
research was narrowed by investigating only four course types, brief outlines of which are
presented below:
1.Adult learning
This subject is a three-day course. It focuses on adult learning concepts such as learning
principles, learning styles and strategies, action learning, and session design to meet learning
needs. There have been ten courses run in the past four years, and about 50% of these were
accredited through the University of Queensland. There was not a strong expectation that
participants complete and write up their learning project, as required for accreditation.
Certificates of completion are provided for those who did not gain accreditation.
2.Group skills and facilitation
This is a two-module course (four days each), designed to give an introduction to the theory and
practice of facilitation, workshop processes, group discussion, and group dynamics. The course
focus is how you can get the best out of a group, and also how to get the best out of you as a part
of that group. There have been ten courses run in the past four years, and only about 5% of these
were accredited through the University of Queensland. As such almost no participants have
written up their learning projects for accreditation. Certificates of completion are provided for
those who did not gain accreditation.
3.Philosophy and practice of extension.
This is a five-day course, aimed at developing skills and knowledge in strategic level extension
planning. Participants will be provided with tools to help analyse and think critically about
different extension models and situations, and gain an understanding of the history of extension
and extension through time. There have been three courses run in the past four years, and all of
these were accredited through the University of Queensland. Unlike Adult learning and Group
skills, the cost of accreditation is included in the course fee, and most participants expect to
complete and write up their learning projects for accreditation. Certificates of completion are not
provided for those who did not gain accreditation.
4.Evaluation of programs and projects
Evaluation is a five-day course. On completion participants have the skills to plan and implement
a solid evaluation process in their workplace, at a broad or specific level. They will become
familiar with many methods of evaluation, both qualitative and quantitative, and be able to
identify the five forms of evaluation, and six steps of evaluation planning. There have been four
courses run in the past four years, and all of these were accredited through the University of
Queensland. Similarly to Philosophy and practice, the cost of accreditation is included in the
course fee, and most participants expect to complete and write up their learning projects for
accreditation. Certificates of completion are not provided for those who did not gain
accreditation.

23

These four courses have the greatest number and diversity of past participants, and will be useful
in building a rich picture of post-course application. In addition, the differences in accreditation
systems and scales of application might lead to some differences in training transfer issues?
The scope will be further narrowed by excluding participants who completed the course within
six months of the time of research, as there may not have been sufficient opportunity for
application. The first course from each of the subject areas is also excluded as not representative
of later courses (first three courses for Adult learning).

Methodology
Two consecutive methods were used to answer the research questions, for a range of reasons (see
Table 3 below). Using more than one method to gather data adds strength to the research
approach, as a multi-method design acknowledges that no single method of data collection is
completely free of bias and limitations (Dart 2000).

Table 3: Methods used to gather data, and why chosen?

Why?
Method 1
Desktop study of existing data To gain in-depth, qualitative information.
gathered through two focus
To provide insight for question development for the second method (e-mail
groups with past participants
survey).
(December 2000)
Data available at no cost.
Method 2
E-mail survey to past course
participants (June 2002)

To potentially gather data from a large enough sample size to quantitatively

gauge the weighting of different factors.
To gather qualitative data of sufficient depth to answer the research
questions.
Relatively inexpensive to administer.
E-mail facilities and participant addresses easily accessible.
Much less time and expense collating data if returned electronically.
Researcher has the skills to implement.
Researcher has existing relationship with sample group, and is relying on
this for a higher return rate than normal for e-mail surveys.
The impersonal nature of e-mail (not face to face or responding to voice)
aims to off-set the potential bias involved with an existing personal
relationship between the researcher and the participants.

24

Will this method mix provide valid and reliable results?

For this topic area (transfer of training) a very important aspect of the research approach is that
perceptions matter. Much of the literature review on environment and context clearly
demonstrates that perception alone is enough to influence transfer of training. So for this
research, perceptions almost are the facts!
To a large extent, the choice of e-mail survey as the main research tool was dictated by limited
available resources. It was also considered though, that with the right planning and context (see
minimising risk section below), the tool would deliver the results.
A third method was originally intended for this research, to test participant perceptions with
managers. This was not included for a number of reasons:

Given the topic, participant perceptions were considered to be a strong and valid indication of
the factors affecting transfer of training for this client group.

The researcher was concerned that a manager check of any kind, could be considered a test
or betrayal of trust by participants.

Participants have previously indicated that (for this client group), many managers have no
idea of the course content and potential application. The question arises: Will managers
know what issues affect transfer of training for participants? Are they a valid check?

And in the end, time ran out, so a method incorporating these last two issues was not
developed.

For all the reasons mentioned above though, the researcher is happy that the two-method
approach will deliver the research outcomes with reasonable validity and reliability. The key to
this will be the rigour incorporated in the methods (discussed below).

Minimising high-risk areas

One high-risk area was data analysis, both qualitative and quantitative. As the qualitative data
analysis was completely by researcher interpretation, the potential for researcher influence on
results was very high. As a result, an independent person was brought in to randomly assess the
e-mail survey analyses for repeatability/ validity. (The e-mail survey interpretation was
considered more critical than the focus group transcript analysis in terms of intended outcomes.)
The system for these checks is described in the Methods section, and results presented in
Appendix 7. In addition, an action learning set peer discussed the preliminary analysis themes for
two courses.
One of the key attributes to this research approach, is the combined use of qualitative and
quantitative data. Of concern though, was how to treat/ analyse the quantitative data in the
context of the qualitative data. This was a grey area in the researcher skills, and expert advice
from a biometrician was sought to maximise validity of analysis and conclusions.
Another high-risk area was the e-mail survey questions themselves. As the answers were to
deliver the final research data, it was important that the survey questions were the right ones.
Would the data gathered provide the information needed to answer the research questions? Could
the survey questions be misinterpreted? One way to minimise this risk was the use of focus
group transcript data for method 1. The group provided rich data in the general area of
application of learning to inform development of the survey questions. A check of the questions
was also carried out with four test runs of the survey (details presented later in Methods
section.)
25

An associated high-risk area is the context provided to participants for gathering data. For both
the original focus groups and the subsequent e-mail survey, participants were clearly informed of
the purpose and intended outcomes for data, the role of the researcher, confidentiality issues etc.
In this case, the fact that the research was initiated by the current coordinator for the purpose of
continuous improvement of training and support, and was not requested by funders or
management, was of major importance (particularly for the e-mail survey). Participants were
specifically given licence to provide negative data as well as positive, in the context of helping to
improve training support for others in future (see Appendix 1 for focus group running sheets and
Appendix 4 for e-mail survey covering letter).
The role of the researcher was also an important part of the contexing. The fact that the
researcher had a positive personal relationship with most potential respondents risked:

the sample being skewed towards those that liked the researcher more, who may have a
particular set of characteristics

the data being biased towards the positive, so as to not risk compromising a relationship

As mentioned already, the context for both the focus groups and the e-mail survey encouraged the
true perspective of the participant, whether it be positive, negative or neutral, as the most useful
response possible for the researcher. In addition, the opportunity for generous reward (three $100
dinner vouchers in a raffle) was offered for involvement in both the focus groups and e-mail
survey, to broaden the incentive. Also, the focus group data was gathered by an independent
moderator, and the e-mail survey respondents were offered the choice of anonymous return (none
took up the offer; all were returned with names attached). It should be added that the researcher
was depending on existing relationships to elicit a high return rate for e-mail survey (a tool with
traditionally low return rates).
The other confidentiality issue is individual confidentiality of data from others apart from the
researcher, eg managers. For the focus groups, all transcripts were documented with individuals
names changed. For the e-mail surveys, names were removed from the data as soon as the
researcher had collated the data. Potential participants were aware of this through the context
provided (see Appendix 1 for focus group running sheets and Appendix 4 for e-mail survey
covering letter).

Methods & Analysis

Method 1: Desktop study of existing data (focus groups)
Sample
All past participants of the Adult learning courses (the most often run course) were invited to
participate in a focus group. A selection of dates and locations were offered, with a raffled prize
(weekend for two at Cottesloe Beach Chalets) for extra incentive to participate. The sample was
self-selected on that basis. This is non-random sampling, and not representative of the full
population, but consistent with the research need for depth of understanding. Two focus groups
were run in two weeks, with 6 and 5 participants respectively.

26

27

Background information focus groups

Original purpose
The focus groups were originally planned as phase one of a two-phase evaluation process. The
purpose of the evaluation was to explore and assess the impact of the NHT landcare project
training courses in terms of participant implementation in the workplace. The intended outcomes
were continuous improvement of training courses and processes, and creation of a summary for
reporting to current funders (not by their request). The specific purpose of the focus groups was
to gather in-depth data through discussion, and therefore to inform the next phase of the
evaluation process, the design of an e-mail survey.
Steps (November/December 2000)
1. Focus group questions developed by NHT training coordinator (see Appendix 1 for
moderator running sheet and questions).
2. Unbiased moderator assigned task of moderating focus groups. It was necessary to use
someone other than the NHT training coordinator as the moderator, as the NHT training
coordinator had designed and delivered most of the courses to be discussed. Where the
moderator is known to have a vested interest in the answers, and where participants have an
existing positive relationship with the moderator, a face to face interview is almost certain to
result in biased data. (It is much harder to say something negative to someone you like in a
face to face situation, compared to an impersonal medium such as e-mail.) The unbiased
moderator was not experienced in running focus groups, but had a warm and encouraging
manner, and very good listening skills. She was also free of charge.
3. Purpose, questions and process discussed with moderator until moderator comfortable.
4. Invitations to participate sent out by moderator, and all responses handled by the moderator.
This was done to keep personal details from the NHT training coordinator.
5. Focus group 1 run, and discussion audio-taped with permission of participants.
6. Process (not content or answers) reviewed by moderator and NHT training coordinator, and
changed as necessary.
7. Focus group 2 run, and discussion audio-taped with permission of participants.
8. Moderator organised for audiotapes to be transcribed, and checked transcriptions against
original tapes.
(See Appendix 2 for full focus group transcripts)
Description of desktop study method
The desktop study involved reading and analysing the data from the two focus group transcripts.
The analysis was an iterative building of ideas through reading the transcripts; looking for
common threads, looking for emerging themes, looking for the unexpected. With this method of
analysis, it is important that the researcher remains flexible and open.

28

Steps (all March/April 2002)

1. Read focus group 1 transcript
2. Note key themes
3. Read focus group 1 transcript again
4. Add to or change key themes as appropriate
5. Same for focus group 2, but key themes from focus group 1 were used as a starting point.
The data from focus group 2 was not made to fit the theme grouping from focus group 1; key
themes were added, removed or changed as appropriate.
6. Identify the elements from key themes that are relevant to the development of the e-mail
survey (see Results section)

Method 2: Structured e-mail survey

Population
The total population consists of past participants from each of the four courses (Adult learning,
Group skills and facilitation, Evaluation of programs and projects, Philosophy and practice of
extension), with the exception of 2 specific groups of participants.
The first group are those who completed the course within 6 months of the time of research, and
may not have had sufficient opportunity to apply learnings in the workplace.
The second excluded group are participants from the first course delivered for each subject area,
as their course design and processes are potentially not representative of subsequent courses (for
Adult learning the first three courses were excluded as not being representative).
The populations for the Adult learning, Group skills and facilitation, Philosophy and practice of
extension, and Evaluation courses were 92, 96, 31 and 34 past participants respectively (see Table
x below, and Appendix 3 for more information and context).

Sample
Of that population, the intent was to sample as great a number as possible, to potentially gather
data from enough past participants to quantitatively gauge the weighting of different factors.
Therefore, only members of the population who were no longer contactable were excluded. As
there was no evidence to suggest the participants who were no longer contactable shared any
particular characteristic (they were from different employers, different roles and left their jobs for
a range of reasons) it is assumed the remaining contactable participants are a random sample of
the population.
Returns
Sample bias
Sample bias is concerned about responses coming from a particular group of people within the
sample. As response to the e-mail survey was voluntary, the respondents self-selected

29

themselves. This is not random sampling (although the responses might have been random by
chance), and might have introduced bias to the group of respondents.
As a general rule of thumb, a 50% return rate from the sample is needed to minimise bias. Return
rates for the Adult learning and Philosophy and practice of extension surveys were 48%, and 54%
respectively, leading to a reasonable expectation of unbiased data. The return rates for the Group
skills and facilitation and Evaluation surveys however, were slightly lower (33% and 34%
respectively). On this basis we might expect some bias in these two groups of respondents.
Added detail about the respondents can be found in Appendix 3.
Interestingly, the survey results themselves indirectly highlighted a particular bias in respondents.
Across all courses the percentage of respondents who had completed and written up workplace
learning projects, was significantly higher than the percentage for all course participants in the
sample. The implication is that the group of respondents could be a more dedicated group of
learners compared with the sample (see learning project section in Results for full details).
Table 4: Population, sample and response information
AL

GS

PPE

Eval

All

Number in population

92

96

31

34

253

% of population in sample

74

75

77

85

75

Number in sample

68

72

24

29

193

Number returned

33

24

13

10

80

48%

33%

54%

34%

41%

% of sample returned

Double counting
Unthinkingly, the issue of potential double counting was introduced to the respondent data, as
participants in the sample who had taken part in more than one course were asked to respond for
each of those courses. The reasoning behind this action was that participation in different
courses was usually more than 12 months apart, and key factors such as job role and management
can differ significantly in that time (for this client group particularly). It was also thought
responses might vary with the different nature and content of different courses.
The potential and actual numbers of double counted survey responses are presented in Table 5
below, but the upshot was that out of 80 respondents, 12 contributed double returns and 2
contributed triple returns. The result is 16 sets of responses (20%) which may or may not overlap
with another set of responses. The implication is that each survey response is no longer
independent of each other in statistical terms, and bias towards the thinking of the double
counted group could be introduced to the sample. This is not ideal, and should have been avoided
in the research design phase.
To gauge the level of possible overlap, the two triple returns were checked for common
responses. For most questions that were not course content specific, the three responses for
different courses would have been included in the same group or theme in the summary (thus
triple counting). In many cases though, the application/ situations the answers referred to were
different. If they had been three different respondents, they would similarly have been included
in the same group or theme. The upshot is, that respondent bias of this nature is probable, leading
to less confidence in results representing the past participant population.

30

Table 5: Potential and actual number of double counted surveys

Sent survey for 2 courses

Sent survey for 3 courses

Sent survey for 4 courses

Potential in sample

26

Actual in number in
respondents

12 x double return

2 x triple return

1 x single return

2 x single return

3 x single return

1 x no return

12 x no return

1 x no return

Description of method
Steps
1. E-mail survey questions and contexting covering letter developed (February/ March 2002).
Focus group information helped to define survey questions around the research questions.
Discussion with peers in action learning set provided useful feedback.
2. E-mail survey questions and contexting covering letter tested (May 2002). Testing took place
four times with four different past participants (not in sample) for three different courses. It
was tested with two participants concurrently at first, then changes made and tested again,
then more changes made and tested a fourth time, then final changes.
3. E-mail survey questions and contexting covering letter sent to full sample group (June 2002).
The immediate post-course evaluation from the course relevant to each individual (outlining
what was learnt and what would be put into practice) was also attached, as a reminder of
course content. Individual and double requests were sent in course groups for logistical ease.
Triple and quadruple requests were sent individually and with a personalised message).
Participants were asked to return within two weeks (about 65% of final 80 respondents did
return in that time period). A brief (personalised) thank you e-mail was sent to every
respondent within 24 hours of the survey return. (See Appendix 5 for e-mail survey and
Appendix 4 for covering letter).
4. A reminder e-mail was sent out after two weeks (only to those who had not responded) and
the remaining 35% of final returns came in. All but two of the returns came by e-mail, and
those two were sent by post instead (both had written their names on the survey sheet so it
wasnt a confidentiality issue).

Analysis
Steps

1. Individual survey returns were compiled by course into groups of approximately 10, for ease
of checking (see Appendix 6). Individual responses were placed in the same position for each
question in the compilation, so the same individual can be followed through the data.

2. For each set of course data, the themes for each qualitative question were grouped and
summarised, without losing the intent of the original comments (see Appendix 6). This was

31

done by first discussing key themes with an action learning set peer, to arrive at a common
understanding of what comments and themes meant (completed for all Adult learning and
Philosophy and practice comments, after which the researcher felt comfortable in an
approach). Quantitative more easily compiled for each course.

3. After the process was complete for all courses, an independent person checked the
researchers qualitative analysis (for rigour). Check questions were: How closely does the
summary represent the intent of the raw data? Please explain your reasons for selecting this
rating? Have any themes been omitted from summary? If so, which? Have any extra themes
or detail been added to summary? If so, which? and Any other comments? Only qualitativetype questions were included in the sample to check. Two questions for each course were
randomly drawn out of a hat, and the analysed data for those questions tested against the
check questions above. On a scale of 1 to 9, where 9=perfectly represented, the eight check
scores ranged from 8.0 to 9.0, with an average of 8.7. On the basis of this, it is reasonable to
assume the analysis approach by the researcher was sound (see Appendix 7 for other details).

4. The researcher then carried out a similar grouping and summarising process for the four
course summaries, arriving finally at the compiled information for all 80 respondents
presented in the Results section.

5. Compiled information was then statistically analysed for differences, but only where it was
thought necessary to shed additional light on the data.

Statistical analysis
For statistical analysis, a number of practices were implemented, on the advice of a biometrician.

Firstly, Pearsons Chi-squared test was a useful tool to compare percentages, particularly
between courses. Where this test was applied, a 2 value, and a p value are given. A p
value of less than or equal to 0.05 means the difference being tested is significant at a 95%
confidence interval. Where numbers were small, Fishers Extract Test was used rather than
Chi-squared, and for these cases only a p value is given.

There often seemed to be similarities between Adult learning and Group skills, and between
Evaluation and Philosophy and practice. In cases where there were no (obvious or significant)
differences between course groups, and it was thought relevant to test against another course
or pairing, the similar groups were combined for subsequent analysis. This was most often
the case for Evaluation and Philosophy and practice, which was useful as they were also the
courses with the lowest number of returns.

Percentages were used throughout to represent the weight of particular themes or comments
for the qualitative information. Due to the issue of many more responses than respondents,
the percentage was given as a percentage of the total number of responses, rather than
respondents. For the originally quantitative data though, such as numbers helping and
hindering, the percentage is always given as a percentage of the total number of respondents
(80). It is important to be aware of this when considering the results.

The across all courses figures were never used for statistical analysis, unless no significant
differences were found between the courses.

32

Results: Focus group transcripts

Focus group key themes and full transcripts excluded from this version

Results: Summary of e-mail survey responses (all courses)

The following results are compiled across all four courses (80 respondents). The raw data by
course, and the raw data summarised and grouped by themes (by course) are presented in
Appendix 6 The only raw data excluded from this Results information are survey questions 1, 2
and 3, which were not related to the research question. (As the e-mail survey was being done for
this study anyway, the opportunity was taken to add several questions about what and how
training had been applied by past participants, as a longer-term impact evaluation for course
coordinator).
Results are presented by survey question. Some discussion is also presented here, but only for
items of interest which may be excluded from the more holistic Discussion section later.
Almost without exception, interpretation of the questions was very much in-line with the intent of
the questions.

Learning Project
Survey question: How far did you progress with the implementation of your workplace
learning project?

Table 6: Stage to which survey respondents progressed in their learning projects, for each of the 4
courses and for all 4 courses combined
Adult Learning Group Skills Phil. & Practice
(n=33)

(n=24)

(n=13)

Evaluation
(n=10)

Across all 4
courses
(n=80)

% that reached planning stage at

end of residential course

15

12

10

11

% that partially implemented

17

% that fully implemented but

not written up

27

63

10

32

% that fully implemented and

completed written report

49

92

80

48

n = number of survey respondents

Stages were predetermined; respondents chose from the 4 options

33

These results provide information about the survey respondents, compared to the survey sample.
80% of all respondents had fully implemented their workplace learning project, and nearly 50%
had also documented learning project results in a written report.
From an overall perspective, this indicates the survey respondents could be a biased group within
the sample. Implications could be they are more dedicated learners inherently, more dedicated
learners because they applied, or learnt more on the course initially. As a result they may have
needed less support in application, or see more benefit in post-course learning support systems as
a result. It is important to be aware of the possibilities when looking at the data.
There was a difference between courses. The highest percentage of learning projects completed
and written up was for Philosophy and practice, and there was no significant difference between
that and the percentage for Evaluation (2 =0.75, p=0.385). For both Group skills and Adult
learning though, the percentage of learning projects completed and written up was significantly
lower than for Philosophy and practice (2 =25.28, p<0.001and 2 =7.52, p=0.006).

Survey question: If you didnt arrive at option 4 above, what reasons were there?
(Option 4 is fully implemented project and written report.)
Results for all four courses are considered together, as there seemed no benefit in separating
them. There were lower numbers and diversity of reasons for Philosophy and practice and
Evaluation, but that is expected, since only 3 people in total for those courses did not progress to
option 4.
For the 34 respondents who did not progress to writing their learning projects up, their reasons
are summarised and grouped as follows:

50% did not have time/ had other priorities

26% said lack of opportunity (event withdrawn or postponed; not part of job role; need
disappeared).

12% provided no reason

6% said they did not have full ownership, and therefore no commitment

The remaining groupings each made up less than 5% of the responses

too hard

planning and implementation were enough; the write up would add no benefit

Survey question: Please describe if/ how the learning project added value to your course
learning? (to whatever stage you reached)
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as the comments were
similar across all four courses. 5 made no comment, and there were 89 responses from the 75
remaining respondents (some respondents gave answers that grouped into more than 1 category,
and these have been treated as independent of each other).
The comments on if/ how the learning project added value are summarised and grouped below, as
a percentage of the total number of responses (89):

34

Comments on value

26% - provided opportunity for practical, relevant application, with tangible outcomes

26% - provided opportunity for consolidation and reinforcement of course content

20% - process provided the incentive needed for application

10% - process useful for gaining feedback

8% - writing the report, or reading written material, helped refection and synthesis

The remaining groupings each made up less than 5% of responses

resulted in a needed task being completed

completion provided a sense of achievement

helped clarify thoughts from another subject areas

Comments on lack of value

The remaining groupings each made up less than 5% of responses

gained little value because they didnt progress past planning stage

didnt choose an appropriate/ relevant learning project, so value was limited

didnt grasp the concept until it was too late

Survey question: What could be done to improve the learning project process? (at any stage)
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as there seemed no benefit
in separating them. There were fewer suggestions for Philosophy and practice and Evaluation,
but that is expected with the lower sample size and number of respondents.
18 respondents made no comment or were not sure and 1 misinterpreted the question. There were
66 responses from the 61 remaining respondents (some respondents gave answers that grouped
into more than 1 category, and these have been treated as independent of each other).
The comments on if/how the learning project added value are summarised and grouped below, as
a percentage of the total number of responses (66):

24% said no improvements to the learning project process were necessary. Several of these
made specific comments on what elements of the process to keep:

The current support level of presenters and peers was excellent.

Support in the form of the first and second residential was excellent, and Jenny and Colin were
always a phone call away.

Keep emphasising small projects

Needed all time allocated to make sense of it

Specific suggestions for improvement are summarised and grouped into before, during or after
the course as follows :

35

Before the course (29%)

During course (23%)

After course (24%)

20% thought expectations for the

learning project needed to be made
clearer up front, before the course.
Suggestions included:

12% suggested more guidance and/ 6% would like a mentor for

or time for planning learning
discussion and support of ideas and
projects during the course. More
implementation in the workplace.
examples of applied learning
5% thought structured peer review
projects was specifically mentioned.
and discussion would be useful.
Providing more information about
learning project and expectations of 6% wanted more time/opportunity Suggestions included and extra
course coordinator to participants for discussion and feedback, mainly review session, local support days
before the course, to allow more
at the time of learning project plan by course presenter, and a 2-3 day
time to think about the process, and presentations (by presenters and
residential session to write learning
possible topics and applications.
peers).
project up.

Discussing/ negotiating alternative

The remaining groupings each made 5% suggested a reward for
learning project topics with
completing learning project,
management before the course, to up less than 5% of responses:
ensure the application is something - Stronger marketing of the learning including partial course refund,
formal accreditation, and a jumper.
management needs. Where
project process to group (showing
benefits are clear, time/ priority is
more tangible benefits).
5% of suggestions were logistical
more likely to be allocated for
completion after the course.
- Learners need to be responsible for (follow up reminders, shorter
deadlines, process for changing
their own learning (did not suggest
6% said participants should be
topics).
ways of achieving this)

made to do the learning project

(for their own benefit), but did not
suggest how. 1other participant said
you couldnt force people to
complete the learning project, as it
takes a lot of self-motivation.
The remaining grouping made up
less than 5% of responses:

The remaining groupings each made

up less than 5% of responses:

Participants should make a personal

commitment to review information
later (did not suggest how.)

Do Evaluation course.

Attend the course in pairs or teams,

for support in applying learning
project after the course.

Motivation to attend
Please briefly list your initial reasons or motivation for attending the course
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as the reasons were similar
across all four courses. 2 respondents gave no reason, and there were 112 responses from the
remaining 78 respondents (some respondents gave answers which grouped into more than one
category, and these have been treated as independent of each other).
The motivating factors for course attendance are summarised and grouped as follows, as a
percentage of the total number of responses (112):

64% wanted to gain new skills and knowledge, mainly to help do their job better (this was
from a high 92% of respondents)

19% were recommended to go by past participants, testimonials, or past good experience with
presenter/ courses (from 27% of respondents)

36

7% were looking for the accreditation opportunity (all had other reasons as well)

The remaining groupings each made up less than 5% of responses:

Told to attend/ strongly suggested should attend

Attended for learning and self improvement (all had other reasons as well)

Whole team went, so went with them

To enhance rapport in office environment

To gain acceptance as an extension/ development officer

Next logical step after group skills course

Time out from job

There were fewer responses in the testimonials grouping for Philosophy and practice and
Evaluation, compared to Adult learning and Group skills (14% and 0% compared to 38% and
48% of the testimonials respectively, where n=21). This is consistent with a lower total number
of those courses run in the time relevant to respondents (3 courses each for Evaluation and
Philosophy and practice, compared with 10 each for Group Skills and Adult Learning.)

Job Role
Survey question: To what extent has your job role provided opportunities to apply course
learning?
Table 7: Extent to which job role provided opportunities to apply, for each of the 4 courses and for
all courses combined
Adult
Learning

Group Skills
(n=24)

(n=33)

Phil. &
Practice

Evaluation
(n=10)

(n=13)

Across all 4
courses
(n=80)

% who had no opportunities

% who had 1-5 opportunities

15

33

46

20

26

% who had 6-10 opportunities

27

13

31

20

23

% who had 11 or more opportunities

58

54

23

60

51

n = number of survey respondents

Opportunity categories were predetermined; respondents chose from the 4 options

To context the results, it became clear from the explanations that accompanied individual ratings
that what constitutes opportunity, was not interpreted in exactly the same way by all survey
participants. An example of this would be a respondent counting the development of an
extension strategy over several months (with many associated processes, tools and techniques) as
a single opportunity, and another respondent counting planning and running 2 short meetings and

37

2 session evaluations as 4 opportunities. These inconsistencies dont matter too much for this
research however, as all scales of application are valid opportunities. In addition, the ratings are
(if anything) skewed towards fewer opportunities to apply. As the data is strongly presenting in
the other direction (see next paragraph), it is not something to be overly concerned about.
Across all courses, 74% of all respondents found clear opportunity (6-10 or 11 or more) within
their job role, to apply course learning. From an overall perspective, this is a strong indication
that opportunity to apply is not a major limiting factor to application of training in the workplace
for this client group. It also suggests course content is widely applicable to a range of people and
jobs, and matches participants needs. (It could also support possible respondent bias towards the
more dedicated learner, who might be more likely to find opportunities to apply?)
There were no differences found between the courses. The number of respondents in the two
higher categories for opportunity (6-10 and 11 or more) and the number in lower two
categories (none and 1-5) were checked for significance. No significant differences were
found between Adult learning and Group skills, between Evaluation and Philosophy and practice,
or between those two pairs of courses (2 =1.05, p=0.051, 2 =1.48, p=0.224, and 2 =1.48, p=0.224
respectively).

Survey question: Please explain briefly how your job role has, or has not, provided
opportunities for application? (An opportunity could be anything from a small/ brief
application to a major project)
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as the reasons were similar
across all four courses. There were 80 responses from 80 respondents. Opportunities are
summarised and grouped as follows, as a percentage of the total number of responses:

80% documented how their role offered opportunities to apply course theory.

3% included in this group said it was easy to find or make opportunities to apply.

Reasons for having fewer opportunities to apply course learning were given as follows:

6% said their current job did not offer many opportunities

The remaining groupings each made up less than 5% of responses:

left job/ changed roles/ extended leave

in a more passive than active group support role

involved mainly with written extension work

role largely research rather than extension

external influences/ timing (eg locust plague, rain) prevented planned event occurring

there was not as much direct potential application as for other courses (related specifically to
Philosophy & Practice)

the project management system limited evaluation only to Logframes (related specifically to
Evaluation)

Survey question: How much time lapsed between the course and your first work application
of Adult Learning course learning? (Can include learning project application)

38

Table 8: Time lapsed between the course and first work application, for each of the 4 courses and for
all courses combined
Adult Learning
(n=33)

Group Skills
(n=24)

Phil & Prac.

(n=13)

Evaluation
(n=10)

Across all 4
courses (n=80)

% up to 1 month

76

80

69

70

75 (22*)

% 1 to 3 months

12

23

20

14 (5*)

% 3 to 6 months

10

% 6 to 12 months

Not specified

n = number of survey respondents

Time groupings were not pre-determined; they evolved from responses
* Number in brackets is the number of applications known to be related to the learning project (there may be others, but
not specified in survey response)

75% of all respondents applied course learning within 1 month of the course. An additional 14%
applied between one and three months. This trend was consistent for each of the four courses
(see Table 8). On the surface, this suggests skill decay over time is not a major limiting factor to
application of training in the workplace for this client group.
27% of all respondents noted their first application was their learning project (22% in the first
month, and 5% in one to three months). As this information was not specifically requested, the
real figure may well be higher.

Confidence
Survey question - To what extent has your level of confidence affected your application of
Adult Learning course learning at work? (This could be confidence in knowledge and skills,
confidence in target audience, anything)
Table 9: Level of confidence to apply course theory, for each of the 4 courses and for all courses
combined
Adult Learning

Group Skills

Phil. & Prac

Evaluation

Across all 4
courses (n=80)

(n=33)

(n=24)

(n=13)

(n=10)

% who had no confidence

% who some confidence

25

15

10

15

% who moderate confidence

42

54

54

50

49

% who were very confident

49

21

31

40

36

n = number of survey respondents

Confidence categories were predetermined; respondents chose from the 4 options

39

Again to context results, it was clear that perception of a particular level of confidence was not
the same for all survey participants. An example of this is a respondent rating themselves with
some confidence to apply, listing similar actual applications to a respondent who rated
themselves as very confident to apply. These inconsistencies dont matter too much for this
research though, as the question seeks to find how confident individuals feel to apply, rather than
look for equality in application for each level of confidence. (An assumption being that the more
confident to apply an individual feels, the more likely they will be to apply.)
85% of all respondents were moderately or very confident to apply course learning (see Table
9). From an overall perspective, this is a strong indication that confidence to apply is not a major
limiting factor to application of training in the workplace for this client group.
A small difference between courses was observed (not tested for significance), where for Group
skills, the percentage of respondents in the moderately confident category seemed higher than
that in the very confident category, as compared with Adult Learning, Philosophy and practice,
and Evaluation. This indicates the Group skills respondents were still confident to apply, but
perhaps not as confident as respondents from the other three courses?
The level of experience of individuals was considered a possible explanation, and tested. It was
found that the number of Group skills and Adult leaning respondents with less than one year
experience on the job were both significantly higher than for Philosophy and practice and
Evaluation. (Philosophy and practice and Evaluation were combined, and tested against Adult
learning, Group skills and Adult learning and Group Skills together. All were significantly
different, with p values of 0.007, <0.001 and <0.001 respectively). This is interesting, but does
not explain the possible difference in confidence for group skills respondents found above.
A two-way analysis table was set up to look at interactions between confidence level and
experience on the job for each course, but just the visual comparison was sufficient to know there
were no trends.
Table 10: (Approximate) years of experience in job before attending course, for each of the 4 courses
Adult Learning

Group Skills

Phil. & Practice

Evaluation

(n=33)

(n=24)

(n=13)

(n=10)

% with <1 year experience in job

24

42

% with 1-3 years experience in job

24

21

23

10

% with more than 3 years in job

52

29

77

90

n = number of survey respondents

Experience groupings were not pre-determined; they evolved from looking at list respondents
The results were generated from authors personal knowledge, and are an approximation only

Survey question: Please explain in what ways your level of confidence has affected
application
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as the reasons across
courses were similar. 3 respondents gave no explanation, and there were 82 responses from the
40

remaining 77 respondents (some respondents gave answers which grouped into more than one
category, and these have been treated as independent of each other).
Comments on how confidence affected application are summarised and grouped below, as a
percentage of the total number of responses (82). They are separated into having confidence and
lack of confidence, and similar themes presented alongside each other.
Comments on having confidence (84%)

Comments on lack of confidence (16%)

32% thought understanding theory gives

confidence to apply in itself, and also leads to
more thorough preparation, another factor to
increase confidence to apply. 2% included in
this group applied where relevance was clear,
and they were comfortable, another 2% made
comments directly related to reviewing course
material, and 1% though up-to-date course
material and examples increased confidence.

The following groupings each made up less than 5% of

responses:

Still were not confident to use some of the more left of

the middle or touchy/ feely aspects.

Confidence to apply reduced by a lack of formal process

to apply, and there being too much to remember.

Unsure of own ability to do some of techniques (means

sticking to few well known ones, but slowly getting more
confident as see others use techniques)

41

17% said practice leads to greater confidence. 1% included in this group specified the key factor as the
learning project application, 1% as positive
feedback from audience, 1% as trying small tools or
parts of tools first, 1% as practice during the course,
and another 1% the learning journey.

Lack of confidence meant little practice.

6% said some people are naturally more confident than others, regardless of topic and level of
experience (1% included in this group said
confidence had increased much with time and
comfort in the job).

Not a confident person to start with, and getting

started and planning was the most difficult part.

The following groupings each made up less than

5% of responses:

Older/ longer-term employees not supportive of new

processes.

Would like to work with a mentor, or someone who

could oversee draft plans (rated their confidence to
apply as moderate).

Confidence affected by those who were critics of

work (but didnt say how confidence was affected).

Did the course with little extension experience, so

feel to be operating from a more theoretical than
practical background.

Confidence increased with recognition of skills and

knowledge by peers.

Having a certain level of job experience before the

course, leads to greater confidence to apply after the
course.

Understanding your audience led to more confidence to apply.

Understanding your (technical) topic leads to more

confidence generally, making it easier to apply new
processes to that topic.

Some concerns about audience reaction.

Lack of confidence in ability to deliver (rather than
what was learnt at the course) hindered application
of theory.

Other

Other

Seeing others (on course) had same problems and

fears, and were using the tools, helped increase own
confidence to apply.

Confident to apply because convinced evaluation is

the right thing to do (Evaluation course).

Willing to try new methods to help clients learn

Course increased confidence just through the

realisation that they were doing a great job already.

Formal extension training highlighted the

importance of their current role.

Feel comfortable with increased extension

knowledge, but the more philosophical nature of
the course means direct applications are harder to
pinpoint (Philosophy & Practice course only).

Lack of confidence is not an excuse not to apply;

people doing their job should be able to apply
whether confident or not.

42

Use it for planning events for projects; not every

day.

Were confident and so applied.

Had no problems applying (but also recognised still

had a lot to learn).

Key person for logframes and Bennetts (Evaluation

course only.

Survey question: What could be done to increase the confidence of others in similar
situations in future?
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as there seemed no benefit
in separating them. There were fewer suggestions for Philosophy and practice and Evaluation,
but that is expected with the lower sample size and number of respondents.
11 respondents made no comment or were not sure, and 4 misinterpreted the question. There
were 84 responses from the remaining 65 respondents (some respondents gave answers which
grouped into more than one category, and these have been treated as independent of each other).
(The question misinterpretation became evident with suggestions that were not limited to those
who had participated in the course. 3 of the 4 said attending the course/ understanding adult
learning theory would help increase confidence, and the other said they were not sure to whom
the question referred.)
Comments on how confidence affected application are summarised and grouped below, as a
percentage of the total number of responses (84).

4% said no measures were necessary to improve confidence.

8% thought confidence was a personality trait, you either have it or you dont.

Specific suggestions for increasing confidence levels are summarised and grouped into before,
during or after the course as follows:

Before the course (12%)

During course (12%)

After course (64%)

8% said having a basic level of

5% would like more opportunity to 33% thought supportive structures
experience before attending course practice during course sessions to in the workplace post-course would
helps confidence to apply after the build skills and confidence (all
help confidence. Structures
course. You are more able to
Group Skills comments).
included:
identify where new techniques will
The following groupings each made - Safe environment in which to
be relevant, and also have more
up less than 5% of responses:
practice, and gain peer feedback,
confidence in technical area. One
support and encouragement.
respondent thought 18 months was - Encouraging participants to engage
- Mentor system
in the learning project would
good (Group Skills course).
provide
greatest
benefit/
Another thought an extension for
- Having people to discuss ideas, and
confidence.
beginners course could fill the gap
help/ encourage with learning
before that (Philosophy and practice - Real examples of application to
43

help with confidence to apply

(example learning project booklet
available for all later courses).

course).
The following groupings each made
up less than 5% of responses:

Conversely, another respondent

recommended the training as useful
before 6 months in the position
(Group Skills course).

Support would be available later in

workplace if peers or team attended
the course together (linked with
supportive structures after course).

A series of short training courses

with people on same level as self
would be most valuable. Gain
information as it becomes relevant,
and group progresses together.

More flexibility in some of the

theory would help with confidence
(eg its OK not to complete the
action learning cycle every time).

projects and other applications.

Follow up short courses for review

(to discuss learning project) or
other training.

Support from course peers (links

with the suggestion of doing the
course with peers/ team).

Keep developing useful planning

frameworks that have immediate 25% thought the key to increasing
application (Philosophy & Practice confidence was to apply course
immediately, as experience leads to
course).

Encourage understanding, not just current learning project process

using the tool.
already provides this incentive.
Incorporate practice in presenting Another suggested starting on a
results to other groups (suggested small scale and building up.
help with scenarios and public
The following groupings each made
speaking) (Evaluation course.)

confidence. Several mentioned the

up less than 5% of responses:

Revision of course theory/ key

learnings were helpful in increasing
confidence to apply.

Confidence in your technical topic

leads to confidence in other areas
(such as process).

Management
Survey question: Has management helped or hindered your application of course learning
at work? (Management could include immediate project managers, or more high level general
management or management committee)
Table 11: Management support, for each of the 4 courses and for all courses combined
Adult Learning

Group Skills

Phil. & Practice

Evaluation

Across all 4
courses (n=80)

(n=33)

(n=24)

(n=13)

(n=10)

% Helped

30

42

77

70

46

% Hindered

15

21

10

14

% No effect

55

37

23

20

40

n = number of survey respondents

Support categories were predetermined; respondents chose from the 3 options

To context the results, it was clear from the accompanying explanations (see next question below)
that perception of what was helping and what was hindering, was not the same for all survey

44

participants. An example of this is the comment management did nothing, being listed as a
helping factor, a hindering factor, and an explanation of why management had no effect, by three
different respondents. For this question then, it is clearly important to consider results about
respondents perceptions of management, separately to results about what management actually
did to help, hinder or have no effect.
46% of all respondents perceived management as helping them apply course learning in the
workplace, for a range of reasons. 14% perceived management as hindering, and 40% thought
management had no effect on their application of learning.
There was a difference between courses. Respondents for the Philosophy and practice and
Evaluation courses thought management helped significantly more than did respondents for Adult
Learning and Group Skills. (Philosophy and practice and Evaluation combined tested against
Adult Learning and Group Skills combined, were significantly different; 2 =11.34, p<0.001.
There were no significant differences between the courses in each combined set). There were
also no significant differences between courses in how management was thought to hinder.

Survey question: How has management helped or hindered application, and what level
management was this?
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as the factors across all
were similar. 17 respondents made no comment (all for no effect), and there were 73 responses
from the remaining 63 respondents (some respondents gave answers which grouped into more
than one category, and these have been treated as independent of each other).
Comments on how management affected application are summarised and grouped below, as a
percentage of the total number of responses (73). They are also separated into helped, hindered
and no effect, and similar themes presented alongside each other.

Helped (56%)
29% thought management helped by
supporting, encouraging or discussing
implementation in workplace. A
number also mentioned helpful
feedback.

Hindered (22%)

No effect (22%)

5% thought management hindered The following grouping made up

because they did not understand the less than 5% of responses:
principles and theory behind the
- They dont understand the
application, and as a result do not
critical thinking frameworks etc
see the relevance or benefit.
(Philosophy and practice course).

(1 of these responses was picked up

Several individuals thought this
from a later question).
support was forthcoming because
management understood course
principles and theory. A different few
thought it was because they believed
in the value of application of theory.

10% of comments were about passive

management support:

15% of comments were about

passive management support:

Management helped by allowing

individuals to plan and implement
without interference.

Management are passively

supportive, but not actively
involved.

Management generally supportive of

participant trying out new things;

Management is not relevant to

application; its something you

45

whatever participant thought

appropriate.

do yourself.

Management helped by believing in

the value of application in the
workplace.

7% considered management helped by The following grouping made up

providing time and funds to attend
less than 5% of responses:
course.

Attempts at study further in

extension were met with resistance
from management (picked up from
a later question).

The following grouping made up less 11% said management hindered

The following grouping made up
than 5% of responses:
application by changing project
less than 5% of responses:
roles and priorities, resulting in less
- Flexibility from project managers in time, fewer opportunities, and fewer - More to do with lack of
how you met agreed objectives helped
opportunity to apply, than direct
resources for participants to apply
application (picked up from a later
hindrance by management.
course learning.
question).
(1 of these responses was picked up in a
later question, 1 from an extra
comment in the help column).

Other

There was a particularly interesting

comment included, that
management expected participants
to be fully skilled and confident at
the end of a course. Another
interesting comment was that
organisations want to appear
consultative, but also want to get
things done quickly.

Other

Other

The following groupings each made up

The following groupings each
The following groupings each made
less than 5% of responses:
made up less than 5% of
up less than 5% of responses:
responses:

Offered new job/ task opportunities as Line manager often asked others with
a result of learning project/ new skills more experience, instead of recognising and knowledge.
participants skills.

Helped, but no information about how.-

Immediate boss made sure I was

doing job, which involved application
of evaluation learnings.

Applied group skills to management,

who are now fully supportive of role.

Management committee was a help by

being such a dysfunctional group as to
provide heightened awareness of
where theory could be applied! (not

Hindered, but no information about

how.
Said not an issue.

Immediate project managers had

little effect initially, but now, 2
years later, management requires
evaluation to be done.

Management committee did not

recognise skills, so skills have
not been applied (but have used
much of the personal skills
learned with the committee).

People could be stuck in their

ways; not accepting change
easily.

46

active support)

Survey question: What could be done to improve management support? (at any stage)
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as there seemed no benefit
in separating them. 22 respondents made no comment, and 1 said they couldnt answer as they
didnt work with groups. There were 61 responses from the remaining 57 (some respondents
gave answers which grouped into more than one category, and these have been treated as
independent of each other).
Comments on how management support could be improved are summarised and grouped below,
as a percentage of the total number of responses (61).

3% thought no improvements were necessary

41% thought greater understanding of the theory, principles and application of these concepts
is needed by management. In most cases participants thought management should attend the
course, or similar training themselves. Other suggestions were:

Mini version of the course

Summary papers of basic concepts and underlying theories (written especially for managers)

Present completed learning project to work colleagues (including manager) to help raise
understanding and awareness.

21% suggested communicating/ showing the benefits/ improved outcomes that result from
application to management would improve support. Specific suggestions were:

An outcome report back sheet to managers

Links to project outputs (through a formal project management system such as PAPDR)

Discussing potential project outcomes with manager before the course

Better use of the learning project booklets

Sharing successful case studies

Gaining community support for ideas

Improving communication across projects.

6% thought management recognition of positive course/ participant achievements and

outcomes would improve support. Suggestions were links to PAPDR system, promoting
course outcomes, and giving credit to managers who have supported their staff.

The following groupings each made up less than 5% of responses:

-

Provide more opportunities for application. Suggestions were choosing learning project jointly,
as well as more strategic planning at high levels to focus on opportunities.

Remind managers of the positive effect their support and encouragement can have on officer
confidence.

Management to actually take an interest in what I do; be open to new ideas.

Management to allow more thinking/ extension discipline time.

47

Said keep the position of community development officer at the swan catchment centre to help
coordinators further develop skills and put them into practice.

Thought greater integration between community-based positions and agency/ local government in
the rangelands might help (and also thought it might not.).

Increased agency support to management through funding and more long-term, continuous
employment of extension officers.

Better relationship with researchers.

Have evaluation written into projects from the start.

Sack them.

Comments on the limitations of current whole agency approach to evaluation (specific to

Evaluation course)

Comment that management was already improving through better support eg meat program

Colleagues
Survey question: Have colleagues (other than management) helped or hindered your
application of course learning at work?
Table 12: Colleague support, for each of the 4 courses and for all courses combined
Adult Learning

Group Skills

Phil. & Practice

Evaluation

Across all 4
courses (n=80)

(n=33)

(n=24)

(n=13)

(n=10)

% Helped

58

50

62

70

58

% Hindered

10

% No effect

42

50

38

20

41

n = number of survey respondents

Support categories were predetermined; respondents chose from the 3 options

To context the results, the range of accompanying explanations (see next question below)
indicated several inconsistencies between respondents perceptions of helpful colleague support.
Out of 11 responses matched to the no effect rating, 4 seemed more like helping comments and
2 more like hindering comments. So as for management, it is important to consider results about
respondents perceptions separately from results about what colleagues actually did to help,
hinder or have no effect.
58% of all respondents perceived colleagues as helping them apply course learning in the
workplace, for a range of reasons. 1% perceived colleagues as hindering, and 41% thought they
had no effect on their application of learning. There were no differences in the perception of
colleague helpfulness or hindrance, across the four courses.
It may be of some interest to compare perceptions of colleague support with management
support. There were no differences in helping. For hindering however, colleagues combined

48

across all courses were shown to be significantly less hindering to application than management
combined (2 =5.96, p=0.015).

Survey question: How have colleagues helped or hindered application, and what
relationship have they to you?
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as the factors across all
were similar. 21 respondents made no comment (all for no effect), and there were 66 responses
from the 59 respondents (some respondents gave answers which grouped into more than one
category, and these have been treated as independent of each other). 5 of the responses were
picked up from other questions; included only where they added a new theme for that specific
individual.
Comments on how colleagues affected application are summarised and grouped below, as a
percentage of the total number of responses (66). They are separated into helped, hindered and
no effect.

Helped (79%)

Hindered (4%)

No effect (17%)

62% said colleagues helped, mainly The following groupings each made The following groupings each made
through encouragement, discussion up less than 5% of responses:
up less than 5% of responses:
of ideas and providing feedback in
- A community person had been
- Worked alone/ not in a team.
planning. Some colleagues also
vindictive and nasty. (In a later
helped deliver, and provide feedback
- Said its something you do for
question, this same person said
on implementation.
yourself.
some people in the workplace were

29% included in this group referred

to colleagues who had knowledge/
skills/ experience in the course
area, as they understood and saw
value in application. This included others in extension, or in own
office/ team (Narrogin Dept of
Agriculture office extension
support was mentioned several
times).
An additional 14% included in the
group specified colleagues who
attended the course at the same
time; for sharing problems and
experiences, and motivation (1 of
these was picked up from a later
question).

entrenched in their attitudes and

have a pecking orderand are not
interested and see no need to get
involved.)
Colleagues see evaluation as
another way to determine which
projects should be funded
(Evaluation course).

Team has little knowledge of

extension techniques and processes;
just accepts what is done.

Northern agricultural region

organises an extension gathering,
but the role and future of group not
clear.

.with a helping element?

Some colleagues hindered

application by failing to record data accurately; they didnt see it as
important as own work (evaluation
course).

Most colleagues (community

landcare coordinators) had not yet
done the course. (Also said in a
later question though, that they had
a close network of colleagues to
discuss issues with.)

Most of team had done the course,

and understand what I am talking
about.

6% Colleagues helped by taking part

data collection or process
(1 of these was picked up from a later
question).

The following groupings each made

up less than 5% of responses:

Colleagues were helpful most of

the time. (Also said in later
question that talking to other people
for ideas and feedback helped).

49

Colleagues helped by showing how

course theory could be used and
applied at work, either before or
after course.

Colleagues had been supportive,

but did not specify how.

Colleagues helped by being

committed to (technical) project
outcomes.

Colleagues offered some good

opportunities to put learning into
practice.

Said hadnt asked colleagues for

help, but is sure they would if
asked. (Also said in a later
question that help and
encouragement from a particular
peer was a helping factor.)

.with a hindering element?

Some (Dept Agriculture) people get

nervous when a colleague is part of
the audience.

Some peers are less than willing to

try new techniques, but this is a
reflection of reality.

Survey question: What could be done to enhance or develop colleague support?

Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as there seemed no benefit
in separating them. 20 respondents made no comment, and 1 said they couldnt think of
anything. There were 62 responses from the 59 respondents (some respondents gave answers
which grouped into more than one category, and these have been treated as independent of each
other).
Comments on how to enhance colleague support are summarised and grouped below, as a
percentage of the total number of responses (62):

6% said no changes were needed.

50% wanted opportunities/ processes/ structures to facilitate colleague and peer support.
Networking suggestions included: forming local support networks, regular networking,
finding out who in local area has done the course, contacting course peers more actively, and
socialising. Discussion, reflection and feedback suggestions included setting up local
discussion groups, extension discipline networks (such as NEON at Narrogin), structured
learning groups and action learning sets. Formal peer review and assessment to see how went
with application, end of season peer review of each other and a mentor who has done the
course. Allocating time for extension as a discipline, planning to use tools more frequently as
a section, learning to critique constructively, and being proactive about involving colleagues
and asking them for help.

34% thought colleagues needed same understanding of theory and principles to increase the
network of knowledge, to speak the same language, to help planning and implementation.
Most suggested colleagues attend the course themselves; 7 of these 21 thought teams or
project areas should attend together for greatest benefit. 1 thought the course should be
compulsory after a years experience. Other suggestions were summary papers of underlying
concepts and principles, being more proactive in helping colleagues understand, and
developing (an evaluation) culture in the workplace.

8% said communication of benefits and improved outcomes to colleagues.

The following grouping made up less than 5% of responses

Need to get a job in a team environment

50

Target audience
Survey question: Have your target audiences (or their possible reactions) hindered or
helped your application of course learning at work? (Target audiences are the end users of
this course application at work. This could be farmers, industry or community groups, or could
also be your team mates when planning together.)

Table 13: Target audience support, for each of the 4 courses

Adult Learning

Group Skills

Phil. & Practice

Evaluation

Across all 4
courses (n=80)

(n=33)

(n=24)

(n=13)

(n=10)

% Helped

52

54

69

60

56

% Hindered

24

25

10

19

% No effect

24

21

31

30

25

n = number of survey respondents

Support categories were predetermined; respondents chose from the 3 options

56% of all respondents perceived target audience as helping them apply course learning in the
workplace, for a range of reasons. 19% perceived target audience as hindering, and 25% thought
they had no effect on their application of learning.
It seemed like there might be a difference between courses. The extent target audience hindered
application for Adult learning and Group skills (combined) looked like it was higher than for
Philosophy and practice and Evaluation (combined). Upon statistical analysis though, there was
no significant difference (just) (p=0.055).

In what ways have target audiences (or their possible reactions) hindered or helped
application?
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as the factors across all
were similar. 12 respondents made no comment (all for no effect), and there were 76 responses
from the remaining 68 respondents (some respondents gave answers which grouped into more
than one category, and these have been treated as independent of each other).
Comments on how target audience affected application are summarised and grouped below, as a
percentage of the total number of responses (76). They are separated into helped, hindered and
no effect, and similar themes are presented alongside each other.

Helped (60%)
43% thought target audience
helped application by their

Hindered (29%)

No effect (11%)

9% said actual negative feedback from The following groupings each made
target audience hindered application. up less than 5% of responses:

51

response to an event or activity. The following groupings each made up Some specified just positive, and less than 5% of responses:
others specified both positive and
- Concern about possible negative
negative responses as useful for
feedback from target audience
future applications.
hindered application.

Difficult getting feedback from

farmers.

16% said target audience helped by being willing to be involved in

a new activity, process or
technique. A number thought this
related to showing the target
audience the benefits/ outcomes
of being involved. One said new
groups were generally more
enthusiastic about trying different techniques.

Depends on subject but most are

willing to go along with it.

The following groupings each

made up less than 5% of
responses:

Said some participants or groups had negative experiences in the past,

affecting their enthusiasm for group
tools and processes.
Some participants in some situations
are not open to some of strategies
learned at course.
Said feelings of suspicion and
negativity have influenced other
people who were originally open
minded.

Farmers are involved in so many

evaluations, it becomes a bit tricky to
keep hammering them.

Hindrance only comes from not

understanding audience.

Good relationship with farmers

makes things much easier.

Other

Some concern about pastoralists

being a traditional group, but more
limiting was lack of opportunities.

Time available with audience is

limited, so reports need to be too
the point.

All that is needed to do is pick the

right process, and the achieve
outcome the group wants.

Other

Other

Target audience had hindered

(indirectly) by not being available to
be involved, eg when it rained.

Did not tell their target audience

what they were doing.

Work with school students, and as such

have to make minor adjustments to the
theory and principles to suit
application.

Most evaluation work so far has

been with planning rather than
implementation.

Feel group wants technical help, not

group building techniques.

Said no landholders are really

interested in strategic planning...

Funding restrictions and lack of

communication have limited
implementation of strategy.

Some colleagues hindered application

by failing to record evaluation data
accurately (didnt see it as important as
own work).

Group was very diverse and

interesting to work with.

52

What could be done to enhance a positive attitude or reaction from your target audience?
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as there seemed no benefit
in separating them. 27 respondents made no comment, and 4 couldnt think of anything. There
were 52 responses from the remaining 49 respondents (some respondents gave answers which
grouped into more than one category, and these have been treated as independent of each other).
Suggestions for ways to enhance a positive attitude from target audiences are summarised and
grouped below, as a percentage of the total number of responses (52):

33% thought it important to know your audience and their expectations or needs, and to plan
thoroughly to meet these expectations or needs. Suggestions included:

Recognising prior learning and experience of group,

Reading body language

Pre-activity needs survey

Asking audience questions

Evaluation

Listening to feedback

Planning to cater for all learning styles

Making the activity at the right time and place.

29% said it would be useful to explain what you want to do, and why, to your target audience,
and provide clear benefits and outcomes of process. Part of this was aimed at the target
audience taking some of the responsibility for process.

19% were comments about how the process should be implemented by the facilitator/
coordinator/ extension officer:

Present information in small chunks introduce change slowly and quietly

Use changes in approach/ texture

Use Group Skills methods learned at course

Know your stuff technically

Have skilled assistance

Success stories, examples and case studies that work for real audiences

Make the processes not obvious to audience

Keep up to date with techniques

Ensure communication lines are open

Good extension

10% said provide something to make them want to come back; make activities and sessions
fun/ interesting/ rewarding.

53

The following groupings each made up less than 5% of responses:

Target audience attends the course (Adult Learning).

Maintain some stability within Dept. of Agriculture

Be more strategic about evaluation (thus limiting how many times you ask same audience to
participate) (Evaluation course).

Greater communication of Dept of Ag direction in extension (Philosophy & Practice course)

Keep spreading the extension word

54

Recognition and reward

Survey question: In what ways has your
Survey question: How would you like to see
participation in (or application from) the course course participation/ application recognised or
been recognised or rewarded? This could be
rewarded? Please list as many as you like.
formal accreditation, informal recognition by peers
or management, new work or learning
opportunities etc
11 respondents made no comment, and there were 92
responses from the remaining 69 respondents.
Comments are grouped and summarised below, as a
percentage of the number of responses (92).

19 respondents made no comment, 1 made a joking

comment and 1 said cant think of anything else.
There were 94 responses from the remaining 59
respondents.
Comments are grouped and summarised below, as a
percentage of the number of responses (94).

17% indicated they were not rewarded (23% of

respondents).

3% said current system/ opportunities was fine as is.

1% said it wasnt necessary.
1% doesnt worry me.

26% received formally structured accreditation through

REC/ University of Queensland. (NB This accreditation
was not available to most Group skills participants, and
only to about half the Adult Learning participants).
1% said the reward was doing something which is
equivalent to tertiary accredited subjects (helps
extension to be seen less airy fairy to outsiders).

23% wanted formally structured accreditation/

qualification of some kind. Included were REC/
University of Queensland, TAFE, and something
national. Competency levels to work towards were
mentioned by a few. Benefits could be seen for CV and
new job opportunities, and to move into new work areas.

2% received a certificate of completion from the NHT

Training Coordinator (listing name, course dates, and
hours spent on particular topics for each participant).
Benefits to CV.

21% said they would like a certificate of completion.

3% said need recognition for having done the course,
even if havent completed learning project.

14% said their reward/ recognition was better planned

activities and events, and/ or the positive response by
audience for doing a good job (2% in this group were
not sure whether this counted as recognition or reward
though.)

13% said that reward/ recognition through improving

skills, better planned activities, a positive response by
audience, and better outcomes from activity, is
sufficient. The reward is doing your job better/ being
able to use new knowledge and skills.

6% said their efforts had been recognised by

management, although 1% in this group said this was
not sufficiently valued.

15% said they would like recognition/ understanding by

management. Suggestions included:

1% specifically said nothing from management.

Having course/ achievements recorded documented

through the internal management system (eg My
HR or PAPDR), in order to gain management
recognition.

A system to inform managers of participant

achievements, so they can congratulate participant.

Effective feedback mechanisms from instructors.

Reward for writing up learning project.

13% said their reward was positive feedback or

5% said they would like peer recognition.
recognition from peers; or being asked by colleagues for
3% said they would like recognition generally for work
advice

55

done. Suggestions were:

Being published in Agbrief

Being recognised at staff meetings at district level.

1% said recognition/ use of your evaluation and skills by

others.
9% said new job or task opportunities arose from doing 1% said new work or learning opportunities.
the course. Examples were:

Being asked to facilitate and provide input at

meetings.

Job reclassification

Job evolved into something different involving

more extension

Now key evaluation contact for program

Asked to coordinate agency evaluations at state and

regional level

Evaluation training helped gain a new job

evaluating an nrm program).

5% said their reward was to do with professional

development opportunities:
-

Going to conferences/ writing conference paper

with learning project

Support for study and field trips interstate

Increased recognition as an extensionist, and helped

to present the next course

1% wanted support for further study and field trips

interstate.

Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous

Just allowing me to explore different areas of work

has been somewhat if a reward

learning project report included in the Example

learning projects booklet.

Recognised, but did not specify how.

Said increase in confidence and being able to

understand people much better.

Would like to see Excellence Awards in the area of

extension (perhaps annually).

Would like an Adult Learning jumper!

Course material and feedback.

Wanted to keep in contact with group participants,

or receive a newsletter on other course information.

Wanted acceptance of facilitation as professional

skill, and have pay increase with skill increase.

Fun social event at end course.

1% wanted ongoing support for training courses.

1% said for every community landcare coordinator to
have the funds to attend the Group Skills course.
1% said more training

56

The highest percentage of responses for reward or recognition received (for participation in or
application from training) was formal accreditation (26% of responses). This grouping was also
the highest percentage in the desired reward or recognition category (23% of responses).
The formal accreditation example is useful to bring out a flaw in the question. Investigation of
the individual sources for these two groups of data, proved that the group who received formal
accreditation were not the same as those who wanted formal accreditation. This raises several
questions: Why did those who had accreditation already not put it down as something they would
like? Was it because they already it, or because they dont value it? Is the number of respondents
who desire that reward or recognition actually much higher? It would be possible to trace the
individual sources for all comments to answer some of these questions, but in reality this is too
time consuming for the outcome.
Given this context, it is obviously not a good idea to put too much emphasis on the numbers.
There are though, still several items of interest to extract from the data:

There were more responses about receiving recognition from colleagues than for management
(13% compared to 6%), but more responses desiring recognition from management than from
colleagues (15% compared to 9%). Again, is it because they prefer to gain management
recognition than colleague, or is it because they already have colleague support, and are
assuming they will continue to have it?

17% of responses did not feel they had been rewarded or recognised for their participation or
application from training. This included participants who had received formal accreditation,
who received an informal certificate, who had used new skills and knowledge to help their
job. This highlights the great variability in individuals perception of reward or recognition.

9% of responses found that new work opportunities arose from their involvement in training,
but only 1% said they desired it as a reward. Is it something that comes to you, rather than
something to actively seek out? Could it be more actively sought?

That 14% of responses said the reward they received was doing a better job, and 13%
mentioned the same the reward they would like, says something about the training motivation
of these respondents.

The informal certificate numbers are quite perplexing; 2% said they received one and 21%
said they wanted one. Most Adult learning and Group skills participants should already have
received one, but few noted it as a reward.

Most Philosophy and practice and Evaluation didnt receive one, because most of them
received the formal accreditation instead, which out ranks the informal certificate. Its a
mystery!

Other factors
What other factors have hindered your application of course learning at work?
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as there seemed no benefit
in separating them. 24 respondents made no comment and 1 said there were heaps but cant
think at the moment. There were 57 responses from the remaining 55 respondents.
The other hindering factors are grouped below and presented below as a percentage of total
number of responses (57):
57

Already discussed factors

21% said there were no other hindering factors.

30% of comments could be related directly back to one of the previous questions. These
were checked against their previous section answers, and added if it was a new theme for that
individual.

New factors

42% said time was a hindering factor (this was 30% of respondents)

Other priorities

Too much workload

Too little time to reflect on course content before application

Too little time to think about new/ unfamiliar ideas that take longer to incorporate

Too busy to think about planning properly (particularly time needed for new techniques and
processes)

No time for planning and doing evaluation

Too little incentive/ motivation/ acknowledgment of time spent.

No time to finish things properly.

Conversely, a different participant said time is often considered an impediment, however I

learned at this course to prioritise the utilisation of models and frameworks effectively to save
time.

2% said resources were a hindering factor (not specified what or how).

2% said having set agendas and guest speakers limited level of influence on process.

2% said the learnings themselves can be difficult to identify in application.

2% said overcoming bias is also very difficult, particularly where funds are not available to
employ external consultants.

What other factors have helped your application of course learning at work?
Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as there seemed no benefit
in separating them. 29 respondents made no comment, and there were 53 responses from the
remaining 51 respondents.
The other helping factors are grouped below and presented below as a percentage of total number
of responses (53):
Already discussed factors

4% said there were no other hindering factors.

60% of comments could be related directly back to one of the previous questions. These
were checked against their previous section answers, and added if it was a new theme for that
individual.

58

New factors
13% related to self-motivation

Liking the subject, being interested in the subject.

Wanting to learn, and being personally motivated to apply learnings.

Willingness to find out who I am capable of being.

Being prepared personally to use new techniques and methods.

Seeing great worth in not reinventing the wheel, and utilising and building on others thinking.

13% related to relevance and applicability of content

Course showed me I can put extension into a lot of things I do that I wouldnt have considered
extension activities.

Adapting models to suit my situation.

Watching or participating in seminars where others are applying group skills to achieve their
aims.

Having a range of tools and methods to call on for any given situation.

Usefulness of the information and obvious applicability to job was the most important factor.

Principles were relevant and applicable outside work, and this helped application at work.

Connections to and building on other courses (eg Continuous Improvement and Innovation)
helped application.

6% related to course resources and support

Support easy to access.

Good course materials (comprehensive notes and booklets) to revisit as needed helped
application.

Availability of tapes and books after course helped application.

2% said their previous role as a farmer, and being perceptive of others, helped application.

2% said they were the only one around to do it (possibly meaning they were in a position
where it was hard not to apply?).

59

Any other comments?

Results for the four courses (80 respondents) are considered together, as there seemed no benefit
in separating them.
No comment is considered a response for this question, so there were 81 responses for the 80
respondents. The comments are grouped below, as a percentage of the total number of responses
(81):

32% made no other comments

37% were about the positive overall value of the course (documented in a separate evaluation
study).

3% wanted formal accreditation/ course of study (checked against the reward section, and
added to summary if a new theme for that individual)

3% suggested a certain level of experience on the job was necessary before attending the
training (2 suggestions were 3-6 months and 8-12 months experience before training).

1% said they regretted not writing up their learning project, (checked against the learning
project section, and added t summary if a new theme for that individual)

1% wanted another course run for a staff member.

1% comment was just doing this survey has prompted me to undertake more in-depth
evaluation.

2% commented they could not remember much of the course, as it was so long ago. One of
these also commented that they had done several other courses since then, and it was hard to
determine what knowledge and application came from where.

1% comment was about the survey rather than the course or application of learning (Please
dont e-mail me 4.13 MB files they take ages to come through and block everything up).

60

Discussion
The discussion is structured into the three broad areas of factors affecting training transfer:
Training design, Individual trainee characteristics, and Environment and context. Specific
research questions are discussed within these areas.

Training design
How did the learning project affect transfer of training?
There was an overwhelming positive response to the value of the learning project process (89%
of 89 responses from 75 respondents). The three major ways the process gave value were
through opportunity for relevant application with tangible outcomes (26%), opportunity for
consolidation and reinforcement of course content (26%), and the incentive to just get out there
and do it - sooner rather than later (20%). All comments made about lack of value were
specifically related to problems encountered with individual projects, not about lack of value for
the process itself. This presents a clear indication that the learning project is a valuable part of
training course deign, and should remain an integral part of the process to facilitate transfer of
training.
24% (of 66 responses from 61 respondents) said no improvements to the learning project process
were necessary, and indicated the existing level of support for the process by the training project
should be maintained. The main suggestion for improvement (20%) was to ensure expectations
for the learning project by the training project and by participant managers, are made clear to the
trainee before the course. Ideas included discussing learning project topics with management
before the course, to ensure the application is something management needs, and also for the
training project itself to provide detailed information about the process and expectations.
Several respondents thought the learning project was of such value, participants should be made
to do it (for their own good). Enforcement is clearly not the role of the training project. There
may well however, be a role of this kind for management/funders of individuals, in negotiating a
contract that benefits both trainee and manager before the course starts.
Suggestions for improvements to the learning project process during the course included more
planning time and guidance (12% of 66 responses from 61 respondents) and more time for
discussion and feedback by both peers and presenters (5%). Suggestions for improvement after
the course included mentoring (6%), structured peer review and discussion (5%) and reward of
some kind for completion (5%), all of which link closely to environment and context
interventions.
There was a difference between courses in the numbers of participants who completed the full
learning project process. For both Group skills and Adult learning the percentage of learning
projects completed and written up was significantly lower than for Philosophy and practice and
Evaluation. This is almost certainly to do with accreditation opportunities. For all Philosophy
and practice and Evaluation courses, there was a formal accreditation structure in place.
Completing and writing up your learning project for these courses was rewarded with tertiary
level subject accreditation. The same accreditation system applied to about 50% of the Adult
learning courses, and only about 5% of Group skills courses. As a result, there was less incentive
for participants to put in the extra effort to document their results.

61

This highlights the role of accreditation as an incentive for transfer of training, and is consistent
with the findings for how participants were rewarded for course participation/application. It also
raises the issue of a providing a holistic accreditation pathway across courses for professional
development opportunities.

Other course design issues

There was a supposition made earlier when developing the research questions. This was that
training outcomes for the NHT landcare training coordination project courses were on target.
Impact evaluation of the same training courses was carried out concurrently to this research by
the author, and the evaluations of all four courses reflect positive training and design outcomes
(Crisp, unpublished). A small element of supporting evidence from this study, is that relevance
and applicability of course content was a theme repeated by several people when answering the
question on other helping factors.
Minimum length of time/experience on the job before attending training was mentioned
numerous times. For confidence in particular, it was suggested experience helps by making it
easier to identify where new techniques might be relevant post-course, and by allowing more time
to develop knowledge and confidence a technical area. It was generally thought participants
would gain most benefit from the training with 6-18 months on the job, prior to training. A
couple of participants in contrast, thought no later than six months, as they were desperate for
immediate skills and knowledge. This becomes a course design issue if recommendations on
timing are sought by potential participants and their managers. Ultimately though, it will come
down to a management/participant choice between immediate job need and optimal training
return on investment.
There were numerous other small issues about course design mentioned in the results. Some of
those considered useful were: having real examples of application during course (learning project
booklets), being able to practice application during course, attending course with peers from the
same office or project, physical project resources (such as books and audiotapes), and presenter
support and advice as needed post-course.

Individual trainee characteristics

How did level of confidence transfer of training?
From an overall perspective, there was a strong indication that confidence to apply is not a major
limiting factor to application of training in the workplace for this client group. 85% of all (80)
respondents felt moderately or very confident to apply course learning.
A personal characteristic often mentioned in psychology journals is self-efficacy, or an
individuals belief that they can perform specific tasks and behaviours (Salas and Cannon-Bowers
2001). By that definition, it would be reasonable to assume that confidence and self-efficacy are
closely related concepts. It is well established that higher self-efficacy enhances learning
outcomes and performance (Cole and Latham 1997, Ford et al 1998, Mathieu et al 1993,
Martocchio 1994, Quinones 1995). It is also well established that self-efficacy in not purely
inherent, and can be developed.

62

In commenting on how confidence affected application, the majority of responses (32% out of 82
responses from 77 respondents) thought understanding the theory and more thorough planning
both instilled confidence. 17% said practice was the key, and 6% said confidence was an inherent
characteristic.
Correspondingly, understanding principles, and planning and practicing are three underpinning
elements of NHT training course design, and the emphasis in these areas may have well have
resulted in the moderate to highly confident group of respondents. In addition, planning and
practice are two of a number of strategies suggested by Bramley (1996) to increase self-efficacy;
the basis being they help master situations that feel threatening.
Another factor to stand out in the results, was the inconsistency between participants on how they
perceived their confidence to apply; an individual rating themselves with some confidence to
apply, listing similar actual applications to a respondent who rated themselves as very confident
to apply. This reinforced the concept of confidence as a self-perception.
Bramley (1996) suggests several post-training strategies to increase self-efficacy, including
reward for application, management involvement and understanding, feedback systems and
specific measures of progress. This is consistent with the surveyed responses on ways to increase
confidence, where the highest response of 33% (of 84 responses by 65 respondents) thought
supportive structures in the workplace post-course would help confidence.
Confidence is a characteristic that can be nurtured and developed in both training and work
environments. While from an overall perspective confidence does not seem to be a key factor
affecting transfer of training for this group, it is comforting to know that good training design and
post-course support mechanisms, implemented for other purposes, will also be helping to increase
individual confidence.

What motivated attendance at training?

Several studies have confirmed that trainees motivation to attend training and to learn, affects
their level of skill acquisition, retention, and willingness to transfer learning to the workplace
(Martocchio and Webster 1992, Mathieu et al 1992, Quinones 1995, Tannenbaum and Yukl 1992).
For this group, a very high 92% of (80) respondents were motivated to attend training by the
desire to gain new skills and knowledge, mainly to help do their job better. Many listed other
motivating forces as well (there were 112 responses from 80 participants), such as testimonials
from past participants and formal accreditation. For all but 4% of respondents, attendance was
voluntary and motivation clearly of a positive and pro-active nature. As such, it is reasonable to
conclude that training motivation is not a critical transfer of training factor for this group of
participants.
Also supporting this, from a slightly different perspective were 13% (of 53 responses by 51
respondents), who listed personal motivation factors as helping application of training. Examples
were willingness to find out who I am capable of being and wanting to learn and being
personally motivated to apply.
Colquitt et al (2000) found many factors influence motivation, including cognitive ability, selfefficacy, age, and anxiety of the individual, as well as a situational conditions such as
organisation, peers, and supervisors. This again highlights the links between many factors

63

affecting transfer of training. Also that environment and context interventions implemented for
other purposes, can have a dual impact of helping to increase motivation as well.
One final interesting comment about motivation made in one of the focus group discussions, was
that they thought motivation to apply decreased over time. This could be a linking factor to skill
decay over time, as discussed below.

Environment and context

How did opportunity to apply affect transfer of training?
Across all courses, 74% of all (80) respondents found clear opportunity (6-10 or 11 or more)
within their current job roles, to apply course learning. From an overall perspective, this is a
strong indication that opportunity to apply is not a major limiting factor to application of training
in the workplace for this client group. It also suggests course content is widely applicable to a
range of people and jobs, and matches participants needs.
Ford et al (1992) identifies three dimensions of opportunity to perform. The most direct measure
is breadth, or the number of different trained tasks used on the job. The second measure is
activity level, or the number of times each trained task is used on the job (the more times a task is
performed, the more likely that performance will improve). The third is task type, or the
difficulty of the trained tasks performed on the job.
The data gathered from this research is not of sufficient depth to find out which of these measures
have most potential influence on this client group. A possible association though, is the type of
transfer all these clients would be involved with. The type of transfer that come to mind is far
transfer (Bramley, 1996), where the job requires trainees to apply and generalise the learning in a
variety of situations. This is in contrast to near transfer, which is where the job task is
accurately specified and can be simulated in training (Bramley 1996). It is possible then, that for
far transfer tasks, the measure of opportunity to perform is more closely related to range of
application, than the number of times the same task has been performed.
For strategies to facilitate far transfer, Bramley (1996) cites: teaching general principles, teaching
for a variety of relevant situations, and application of learning to new situations both during the
training and afterward, with encouragement from trainers and others. All three strategies are
incorporated into training design for the NHT training courses, particularly through the learning
project process. This could be a contributing factor towards participants finding a range of
opportunities to apply in the workplace.
Ford et al (1992) also documents factors affecting opportunity to perform: organisational factors,
such as which department and function individuals are assigned to, work context factors, and
individual characteristics. Work context factors include elements such as supervisor attitudes,
workgroup support and the pace of work flow in the workgroup. It is reasonable to suggest that
organisational factors, work context and individual characteristics explain the differences between
individuals in opportunity to apply found in this client group.

64

Relating to opportunity, 30% of (80) respondents said that lack of time hindered further
application of training, listing other priorities, too much workload, and insufficient
acknowledgment of time spent among the reasons. A more positive work environment and
organisational context is something that could help this situation. Baldwin and Magjuka (1991),
citied in Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992), found trainees who entered training expecting some form
of follow up activity or assessment afterward, reported stronger intentions to transfer what they
learned back on the job. Discussion and agreement between management and trainee before
training, as discussed earlier, might well impact upon trainee work priorities post-training.
A final interesting comment on opportunity to apply, made in focus group discussion, was that for
some participants the work situation provided opportunities to pass new knowledge, skills and
understanding onto others. This increased the depth of learning for the trainee; also
demonstrating a healthy, positive learning environment (Tannenbaum 1997) for all involved.

Skill decay over time

Skill decay refers to the loss or decay of trained or acquired skills (and knowledge) after periods
of non-use (Arthur et al 1998). Bramley (1996) suggests new ideas not applied within three
months after the learning experience risk being lost. In this study, 75% of all (80) respondents
applied course learning within 1 month of the course. An additional 14% applied between one
and three months. On the surface, this suggests the issue of skill decay over time is not a major
limiting factor to application of training in the workplace for this client group. The quality and
depth of application is not known though (except where learning project report has been
completed), and may vary significantly between respondents.
A comprehensive analysis of the literature by Arthur et al (1998) cites seven main influencing
factors on skill decay: length of retention interval, degree of overlearning (practice), task
characteristics, methods for testing for original learning and retention, conditions of retrieval and
instructional strategies or training methods.
Short retention interval and overlearning (or practice) are both key elements of the learning
project process. 27% of all (80) respondents noted their first application was their learning
project (22% in the first month, and 5% in one to three months). As this information was not
specifically requested for the survey, the real figure may well be higher. This confirms the value
of the learning project as an incentive tool for application.
Task characteristics are also an interesting factor to consider for this client group. There is
evidence to suggest cognitive tasks (mental operations, problem solving, decision-making), are
retained to a lesser extent than physical tasks (muscular strength, exertion of forces, endurance,
coordination) (Arthur et al 1998, Bramley 1996). The same authors also suggest open looped
tasks (without beginning or end) are retained longer than closed looped tasks (procedural; with
definite beginning and end).
The client group for NHT training are almost without exception, required to perform tasks with
cognitive, open-looped characteristics. They also have very little direct supervision on the job,
and specific training application is rarely looked for or checked by management. This
strengthens the case for retaining (and improving) the learning project process.

65

How did management affect transfer of training?

Organisational climate refers to a range of characteristics of an organisation, such as policies,
reward systems and managerial behaviour, to which employees attach meaning on the basis of
their own values, beliefs, needs and other individual characteristics (Tracey et al 1995). The
organisational transfer climate is defined as situations and consequences that inhibit or help
trainees apply the skills gained in training to a job setting (Roullier and Goldstein, 1993). The
management transfer climates for participants in this research are explored below.
Just under half of all (80) respondents perceived management as helping them apply course
learning in the workplace. 14% perceived management as hindering, and 40% thought
management had no effect on their application of learning.
The major helping factor (29% of 73 responses by 63 respondents) was active encouragement and
discussion about planning and implementation issues. Several respondents thought this support
was forthcoming because management understood course principles and theory and/or believed in
the value of application of theory. In support of this last comment were 5% of responses
documenting lack of understanding as the reason management hindered or had no effect. Also
supporting was the highest response to the question What could be done to improve management
support?. In answer, 41% (of 61 responses by 57 respondents) indicated greater understanding
of course theory and principles by management would help.
Interestingly, an additional 10% (of 73 responses by 63 respondents) documented passive support,
such as management helped by allowing individuals to plan and implement without
interference, as helpful. If we add the 15% of similar comments noted under no effect, the total
level of passive-type interventions was 25%.
The largest hindering factor (11% of 73 responses by 63 respondents) was related to management
changing project roles and priorities, resulting in less time, fewer opportunities, and fewer
resources for participants to apply course learning as intended. This was consistent with data
gathered in the question What could be done to improve management support?, where 21% (of
61 responses by 57 respondents) thought communicating the benefits and improved outcomes
resulting from application to management would improve support. If management recognised the
benefits to them/ the project, they would be more likely to make time/prioritise for application of
course learning in the workplace.
There was a difference between courses. Respondents for the Philosophy and practice and
Evaluation courses thought management helped significantly more than did respondents for Adult
Learning and Group Skills. This difference in perceived management help between courses could
be (at least partially) attributed to differing course content. Philosophy and practice and
Evaluation both have strong elements of strategic level extension/ evaluation planning. Adult
learning and Group skills are focused mainly on processes, tools and techniques to help plan
short-term events and activities. As strategic level applications are more directly relevant to
program and project level responsibilities, it is possible management will be more actively
interested and involved in Philosophy and practice and Evaluation applications.
From an overall perspective, the range in perception of management support, and range in actual
management support is important information in itself. It indicates management expectations of
participants, and vice versa, vary greatly with the individuals involved (management and
participant). Post-training management support, even within one Agency (eg Dept of
Agriculture) seems to be more a matter of chance as to which manager you get, than a best
practice approach.

66

Two main conclusions based on these results are: that participants expectations of management
are fairly low, and that in general terms, management could do more to improve conditions for
training transfer. Some of the ways management could improve conditions are presented below.
In a study across five companies, Cohen (1990) found that trainees with more supportive
supervisors entered training with stronger beliefs that training would be useful. Supervisors can
show their support for the upcoming course by discussing the training with the employee,
establishing training goals, providing release time to prepare or apply, and generally encouraging
the employee. Cohen also found that trainees who set goals prior to training entered training with
higher levels of motivation to learn.
In a specific example, Brinkerhoff and Montessino (1995) explored the impact of two
management interventions, a pre-training expectations discussion and an after-training follow up
discussion. Results clearly showed increased transfer of training in the group who had these
interventions. In a more recent example, Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) demonstrated positive
transfer effects through team leader support.
As noted earlier, Baldwin and Magjuka (1991), (citied in Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992), found
trainees who entered training expecting some form of follow up activity or assessment afterward,
reported stronger intentions to transfer what they learned back on the job. Finally, Mathieu et al
(1990) found that trainees who reported a range of situational constraints, such as lack of time
and resources, entered training with lower motivation to learn, and were subsequently less likely
to have the incentive to apply.
It would be possible (and relatively easy) to incorporate the management support themes noted
above into the existing learning project process. Of particular value would be pre-training
discussion of the learning project topic between the trainee and manager, as mentioned earlier.
The topic needs to be something of benefit to them both, and needs to be agreed before the course
starts. If this occurs, management will be more likely to prioritise trainee time towards the
application, take an interest in the process and outcomes, and recognise achievement on
completion.

How did colleagues affect transfer of training?

According to Noe (1986) a supportive social context is one in which employees believe others
will provide them with the opportunities and reinforcement for practicing skills and using
knowledge acquired in training. The more positive the social interactions, the more likely it is
that trainees will apply trained behaviours and skills (Roullier and Goldstein 1993). The effects
of colleague interaction on training application are explored below.
58% of all (80) respondents perceived colleagues as helping them apply course learning in the
workplace. 1% perceived colleagues as hindering, and 41% thought they had no effect on their
application of learning.
The major way that colleagues helped (62% of 66 responses by 59 respondents) was through
post-course encouragement, discussion of ideas, and feedback for planning and implementation.
Specific reference was made to colleagues who had completed the course previously, who
attended the course at the same time, or who worked in the same office or project team. This
result was supported by the second highest response to the question What could be done to
improve colleague support?, where 34% (of 62 responses by 59 respondents) indicated
colleagues needed the same understanding of theory and principles as themselves. The main
suggestion was for colleagues to attend the course themselves, preferably with office or project

67

teams for greatest benefit. 50% indicated they wanted more opportunities, processes and
structures in place, to facilitate networking, discussion, reflection and feedback with colleagues.
Examples were discipline groups, local discussion groups, action learning sets, end of season peer
reviews.
There was an interesting difference to note between colleagues and management. For colleagues,
there was no difference in support between courses, while for management, respondents
perceived Adult learning and Group skills to be less supported than Philosophy and practice. The
earlier suggestion was management may be more actively interested and involved in the latter
two courses because the strategic level applications are more likely to be relevant to their own
program and project level responsibilities. The explanations highlight mechanisms that are about
two-way support and helping each other, rather than a one way benefit to the person looking for
support. Perhaps there is no difference in colleague support between courses because colleagues
are supporting the person in their outcome, rather than the outcome itself? Colleagues may also
be more prepared to support their peers because they know they can ask for support in return for
their own needs.
In the management section above, it was noted that much management support was of a passive
nature, while colleague support seems predominantly active. That colleague support is often
beneficial to both parties could help explain this difference.

How did target audience affect transfer of training?

The question about how target audiences and their possible reactions affected application of
training, was included in the e-mail survey as a result of focus group theme. It was thought that
trainee worry about how the audience might react could be a major limiting factor to application.
The results did not reflect this expectation. 56% of all (80) respondents perceived target audience
as helping them apply course learning in the workplace. 19% perceived target audience as
hindering, and 25% thought they had no effect on their application of learning. A possible
explanation is the relatively strong training motivation and self-efficacy influences discussed
earlier.
The major helping factor (62% of 76 responses by 68 respondents) was the target audience
reaction and feedback from an event. Both positive and negative feedback were mentioned as
useful. This result was reflected in the two highest hindering factors; actual negative feedback
(9%) and concern about negative feedback (3%). There were also several comments of a similar
theme under no effect.
The second highest helping factor (16% of 76 responses by 68 respondents) thought target
audience helped by being willing to be involved. A number of these participants thought this
related to showing the target audience the benefits/ outcomes from being involved. There were
similar (opposing) comments (5%) listed under hindering factors.
The suggestions made by the group for enhancing a positive reaction from the target audience
were insightful; strongly reflecting good adult learning principles (Knowles 1990, Malouf 1994).
A third (of 52 responses by 49 respondents) thought it important to know your audience and their
expectations or needs, and to plan thoroughly to meet these expectations or needs. Almost
another third considered it would be useful to explain what you want to do, and why, to your
target audience, and in particular communicate the benefits and outcomes. (This would have the
added advantage of encouraging the target audience to take some of the responsibility for

68

process.) The final third made a variety of comments relating to good presentation,
communication, and process design skills.

How was transfer of training rewarded or recognised?

Roullier and Goldstein (1993) discusses the consequences of training transfer, which refers to
the degree to which employees are rewarded for applying what has been learned in training.
Consequences include positive feedback, negative feedback, punishment and no feedback
(Roullier and Goldstein, 1993). Brief observations about the reward or recognition received and
desired by this research group are presented below.
The most obvious observation was the wide range in what individuals perceived to be reward or
recognition for them. Included were: formal accreditation, certificate of completion, better
planned activities and events (with associated positive response by audience for doing a good
job), recognition by management, positive feedback and recognition from peers, being asked by
colleagues for advice, new job or task opportunities, inter-state field trips, and conference papers.
The highest response for reward or recognition, both gained and desired, was formal accreditation
(26% of 92 responses by 69 respondents for reward gained, and 23% of 94 responses by 59
respondents for desired reward). As mentioned earlier, this raises the issue of a providing a
holistic accreditation pathway across courses for professional development opportunities. It also
confirms the role of accreditation as an incentive for completing the learning project process, with
all its associated benefits to training transfer.
The need for reward and recognition, and preferred type of reward and recognition, is clearly a
wide-ranging individual trainee characteristic. The results of this study provide a good checklist
of possibilities though, some of which can be incorporated through training design, and others
through organisational, management or peer support structures.

Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

Major recommendations

The learning project process is a valuable part of The learning project should remain an integral
training course deign. It facilitates transfer of
part of the training design process for all courses.
training in a number of ways:
The learning project should be improved in the
following ways:
Provides opportunity to apply and practice
Training project provides more detailed
Provides incentive to apply in the short term,
information about the process and
thus minimising the risk of skills decay
expectations to participants before the
course.
The potential accreditation opportunity offers
incentive to complete the process (and action
learning cycle), as formal accreditation is a
highly desired reward by the majority of this
client group.

Training project makes it a condition of

course entry that learning project topic and
post-course application is discussed and
agreed upon by trainee and their
management/funder before the course. The

69

Lack of time is a hindering factor to transfer of

training for this client group, mainly due to low
priority of the leaning project application in
relation to other tasks.

learning project topic must be something that

benefits both trainee and management.

Post-training management support for this client Management support should be strengthened.
group seems to be more a matter of chance
This can be done in a number of ways, as
(which manager you get) than a best practice follows:
approach.
The training project provides a list of
There is scope for management to improve
recommended post-course support structures
conditions for transfer of training.
and contacts to the trainee before the course.
Participants expectations of management are
varied, and generally fairly passive.

The training project recommends to trainee

and management that participants attend the
course in pairs/groups (office, local area,
team) for post-course support and
motivation.

Training project makes it a condition of

course entry that learning project topic/postcourse application is discussed and agreed
upon by trainee and their
management/funder before the course.
Management are then be more likely to
prioritise trainee time towards the
application, take an interest in the process
and outcomes, and recognise achievement on
completion.

The training project develops a list for

management of possible ways to reward and
recognise trainees for their transfer
achievements (other than formal
accreditation and certificates of completion).

Management expectations of participants are

varied, and generally fairly passive.

The need for reward and recognition, and

preferred type of reward and recognition, is a
wide-ranging individual trainee characteristic.

The training project needs to provide formal

accreditation for all courses. This accreditation
should be consistent between courses, and part of
a holistic higher education accreditation pathway.
Formal accreditation is the most widely desired
In the interim, certificates of completion should
reward for this client group.
be issued to all participants.
The training project develops a list for
management of possible ways to reward and
recognise trainees for their transfer achievements
(other than formal accreditation and certificates
of completion).
In general, this client group finds colleagues
supportive to transfer of training.

The training project develops a list for trainees

(and management) of structures and ways to
enhance colleague support. Possibilities are as

70

Colleague support is about two-way support and follows:

helping each other, rather than a one way benefit The training project recommends to trainee
to the person looking for support.
and management that participants attend the
course in pairs/groups (office, local area,
team) for post-course support and
motivation.

Local support structures such as discipline

groups, local discussion groups, and action
learning should be recommended.

The general task characteristics for this client

Elements of the existing course design that will
group (cognitive and open-looped) are by nature help to off-set lower retention are:
less retainable than for other job areas
Delivering an understanding of principles,
and not just practices.

Incorporating planning and practice elements

in a range of different contexts during the
course

Incorporating post-course planning and

practice elements (through the learning
project process).

71

Confidence to apply does not seem to be a major The learning project should remain an integral
limiting factor to transfer of training for this
part of the course design, as there will always be
client group.
a range of individuals attending with different
characteristics and different work environments.
Elements of the existing course design that help
to increase confidence are:

Delivering an understanding of principles,

and not just practices.

Incorporating planning and practice elements

in a range of different contexts during the
course

Incorporating post-course planning and

practice elements (through the learning
project process).

Supportive structures in the workplace postcourse are also necessary, as described for
management and colleagues above.
Training motivation does not seem to be a critical Training design interventions to increase
factor to transfer of training for this client group. confidence (above) should continue to be
incorporated into training design, as they also
help maintain training motivation.
Supportive structures in the workplace postcourse are also necessary, as described for
management and colleagues above.
Opportunity to apply does not seem to be a major Interventions which help increase opportunity to
limiting factor to transfer of training for this
apply should remain an integral part of course
client group.
design. These elements are the same as for
Course content is widely applicable to a range of confidence above.
people and jobs, and matches participants needs.
Supportive structures in the workplace postcourse are also necessary, as described for
management and colleagues above.

72

References
Adams J (1987) Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention and transfer
of human motor skills. Psychological Bulletin 101, 1, 41-74.
Atkinson R (1972) Ingredients for a theory of instruction. American Psychologist 27, 921-931.
Arthur W, Bennett W, Stanush P, McNelly T (1998) Factors that influence skill decay and
retention: a quantitative review and analysis. Human Performance 11(1), 57-101.
Baldwin T, Magjuka R, Loher B (1991) The perils of participation: effects of choice of training
on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology 44, 51-65.
Baldwin T, Ford JK (1988) Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research.
Personnel Psychology 41, 63-105.
Bramley P (1996) Evaluating Training Effectiveness (2nd edn). (McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company, England)
Brinkerhoff R, Montessino M (1995) Partnerships for training transfer: lessons from a corporate
study. Human Resource Development Quarterly Vol 6, 3, 263-274.
Burns RB (1997) Contrasting Perspectives. In Introduction to research methods (3 rd edn). pp 310. (Addison Wesley Longman, Melbourne)
Campbell J (1988) Training design for performance improvement. In Productivity in
organizations (Eds J Campbell, R Campbell and Associates) pp 177-216. (San Francisco: Jossey
Bass)
Cohen D (1990) What motivates trainees. Training Development Journal, pp91-93.
Cole N, Latham G (1997) Effects of training in procedural justice on perceptions of disciplinary
fairness by unionized employees and disciplinary subject matter experts. Journal of Applied
Psychology 82, 699-705
Dart J (2000) Ways of answering evaluation questions: methods of data collection, retrieval and
creation.. Unpublished document, developed for the Evaluation Support Team, Agriculture
Division, NRE Victoria.
Driskell J, Willis R, Copper C (1992) Effect of overlearning on retention. Journal of Applied
Psychology 77, 615-622
Duncan C, Underwood B (1951) Transfer in motor learning as a function of degree of first task
learning and inter-task similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology 46, 445-452
Dweck C, Leggett E (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychology Review 95, 256-73.
Ellis H (1965) The transfer of learning. (New York: Macmillan)
Facteau J, Dobbins G, Russell, J, Ladd R, Kudisch J (1995) The influence of general perceptions
of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of
Management Vol 21 No 1, 1-25.
Fisher S, Ford JK (1998) Differential effects of learner efforts and goal orientation on two
learning outcomes. Personal Psychology 51, 397-420.

73

Fleishman E, Mumford M (1989) Individual attributes and training performance. In Training

and development in organisations (Ed Goldstein) pp183-255. (San Fancisco: Jossey Bass)
Fleishman E (1953) Leadership climate, human relations training and supervisory behaviour.
Personnel Psychology 6, 205-222.
Ford JK, Smith E, Weissbein D, Gully S, Salas E (1998) Relationships of goal orientation,
metacognitive activity and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of
Applied Psychology 83, 218-233.
Ford JK, Weissbein D (1997) Transfer of training: an updated review and analysis. Performance
Improvement Quarterly 10(2), 22-41.
Ford JK, Quinones M, Sego D, Speer Sorra J (1992) Factors affecting the opportunity to perform
training tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology 45, 511-526.
Gagne R, Baker K, Foster H (1950) On the relation between similarity and transfer of training in
the learning of discriminative motor tasks. Psychological Review 57, 67-79.
Georgenson D (1982) The problem of transfer cells for partnership. Training and Development
Journal 36 (10), 75-78
Gist M, Mitchell T (1992) Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability. Academy of Management Review 17, 183-211.
Goettl B, Yadrick R, Connelly Gomez C, Regian W, Shebiliske W (1996) Alternating task
modules in isochronal distributed training of complex tasks. Human Factors 38, 330-346.
Goldstein I (1993) Training in organisations: needs assessment, development and evaluation (3 rd
edn). (Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole)
Goldstein IL (1986) Training in organisations: needs assessment, development and evaluation.
(Monterey CA: Brooks/ Cole)
Hicks W, Klimoski R (1987) Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes: a
field experiment. Academy of Management Journal 30, 542-552.
Howell W, Cooke N (1989) Training the human information processor: a review of cognitive
models. In Training and development in organisations (Ed Goldstein) pp121-182. (San
Fancisco: Jossey Bass)
Joyce W, Slocum J (1984) Collective climate: agreement as a basis for defining aggregate
climates in organisations. Academy of Management Journal 27, 721-742.
Knowles M (1990) The adult learner; a neglected species (4 th edn). (Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston)
Kolb D (1984) Experiential learning. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Ciffs NY)
Kozlowski S, Brown K, Weissbein D, Cannon-Bowers J, Salas E (2000) A multilevel approach to
training effectiveness: enhancing horizontal and vertical transfer. In Multilevel theory, research
and methods in organisation (Eds K Klein, S Kozlowski) (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Kravetz D (1988) The human resources revolution. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)

74

Malouf D (1994) How to teach adults in a fun and exciting way. (Business and Professional
Publishing: NSW)
Martocchio J (1994) Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy and learning in
training. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, 819-825
Martocchio J, Webster J (1992) Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on performance in
microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology 45, 553-578.
Mathieu J, Tannenbaum S, Salas E (1992) Influences of individual and situational characteristics
on measures of training effectiveness. Academic Management Journal 35, 828-847.
Mathieu J, Martineau J, Tannenbaum S (1993) Individual and situational influences on the
development of self-efficacy: implications for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology 46,
125-147.
Maurer T, Tarulli B (1994) Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome and
person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology 79, 3-14.
McGhee W, Thayer P (1961) Training in business and industry. (New York: Wiley)
McGill I, Beatty L (1995) Action leaning: a guide to professional, management and educational
development (2nd edn). (Kogan Page: London)
Merriam S (1998a) What is Qualitative Research? In Qualitative research and case study
applications in education pp 3-25. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)
Mumford A (1993) Putting learning styles to work: an integrated approach. In Journal of
European Industrial Training Vol 17, 10, 3-9.
Mumford M, Weeks J, Harding F, Fleishman E (1988) Relations between student characteristics,
course content, and training outcomes: an integrative modelling effort. Journal of Applied
Psychology 73, 443-456.
Naylor J, Briggs G (1963) The effect of task complexity and task organisation on the relative
efficiency of part or whole training methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology 65, 217-224.
Newstrom J (1984) A role-taker/ time differentiated integration of transfer strategies. Presented
at 1984 meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto Ontario.
Noe R, Wilks S (1993) Investigation of the factors affecting that affect employees participation
in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology 78, 291-302.
Noe R (1986) Trainees attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effectiveness.
Academy of Management Review 11, 736-749.
Phillips J, Gully S (1997) Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of
control in the self-efficacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 792-802.
Quinones M (1997) Contextual influences on training effectiveness. In Training for a rapidly
changing workplace: applications of psychological research. (Eds M Quinone, A Ehrenstein) pp
177-199. (American Psychological Association, Washington DC)

75

Quinones M (1995) Pretraining context effects: training assignment as feedback. Journal of

Applied Psychology 80, 226-238.
Quinones M, Ford JK, Sego D, Smith E (1995) The effects of individual and transfer environment
characteristics on the opportunity to perform trained tasks. Training Research Journal 1, 29-48
Randel J, Main R, Seymour G, Morris B (1992) Relation of study factors to performance in navy
technical schools. Mil. Psychology 4, 75-86.
Ree M, Carretta T, Teachout M (1995) Role of ability and prior job knowledge in complex
training performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 80, 721-730.
Ree M, Earles J (1991) Predicting training success: not much more than G. Personnel
Psychology 44, 321-332.
Roullier J, Goldstein I (1993) The relationship between organisational transfer climate and
positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly 4, 377-390.
Salas E, Cannon-Bowers J (2001) The science of training: a decade of progress. Annual Review
of Psychology 52, 471-499.
Schmidt R, Bjork R (1992) New conceptualizations of practice: common principles in three
paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychol. Science 3, 207-217.
Schneider B, Reichers A (1983) On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology 36, 19-39.
Shebiliske W, Regian J, Arthur W Jordan J (1992) A dyadic protocol for training complex skills.
Human Factors 34, 369-374.
Shebiliske W, Jordan J, Goettl B, Paulus L (1998) Observation versus hands-on practice of
complex skills in dyadic, triadic and tetradic training teams. Human Factors 40, 525-540.
Smith-Jentsch K, Salas E, Brannick M (2001) To transfer of not to transfer: investigating the
combined effects of trainee characteristics, team leader support and team climate. Journal of
Applied Psychology Vol 86, 2, 279-292.
Tannenbaum S (1997) Enhancing continuous learning: diagnostic findings from multiple
companies. Human Resource Management Vol 36, 4, 437-452
Tannenbaum S, Yukl G (1992) Training and development in work organisations. Annual review
Psychology 43, 399-441.
Tannenbaum S, Mattieu J, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers J (1991) Meeting trainees expectations: the
influence of training fulfilment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy and motivation.
Journal of Applied Psychology 43, 399-441.
Tracey J, Tannenbaum S, Kavanagh M (1995) Applying trained skills on the job: the importance
of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology 80, 239-252
Wagner J, Gooding R (1987) Shared influence and organisational behaviour: a meta-analysis of
situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Academy of
Management Journal 30, 524-541.

76

Wexley K, Latham G (1981) Developing and training human resources in organisations.

(Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman)
Wexley K, Thornton C (1972) Effect of verbal feedback of test results upon learning. Journal of
Educational Research 66, 199-121.
Yelon S, Ford JK (1999) Pursuing a multidimensional view of transfer. Performance
Improvement Quarterly Vol 12, 3, 58-78.

Appendices
Appendices excluded from this version

77