Manual For Media Trainers

Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach i
Manual for Media Trainers

A Learner-Centred Approach
AUTHORS
Drew O. McDaniel
& Duncan H. Brown
AND
ILLUSTRATIONS BY
Chin Mun Woh
Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development (AIBD)

ii Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach
Copyright 2001 © AIBD and UNESCO
All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form
or by any electronic or mechanical means including information storage and
retrieval systems without permission in writing from the publisher.
Publication of this book was made possible

by funding from UNESCO
Published by
Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development (AIBD)
P.O. Box 1137, Pantai, 59700 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e-mail: admin@aidb.org.my
and
UNESCO
Illustrations by Chin Mun Woh

Design & layout by Adrian Cheah, C-Square Sdn. Bhd., Penang, Malaysia.
Pre-press services by _____________________
Printed by _____________________
Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach _____________________

ISBN 983-408-36-02
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach iii
Contents
FOREWORD BY DREW O. MCDANIEL vi
PREFACE BY JAVAD MOTTAGHI viii
PREAMBLE BY WIJAYANANDA JAYAWEERA x
SECTION ONE
What is training? 1
What trainers do 2
Training compared to education 5
Training is different from education 5
Adults learn differently from children 6
Three principles that guide our approach to training 7
A learner centered approach 8
Adult training is different 8
Planning training is a circular rather than a linear process 11
SECTION TWO
Needs assessment 14
Conducting a job analysis 18
Purpose of the job analysis 20
Carrying out a training needs analysis 21
TNA Question 1—What is the performance discrepancy? 24
TNA Question 2—Is the performance discrepancy important? 25
TNA Question 3—Is it a skill deficiency? 27
TNA Question 4—Could the job be performed satisfactorily
in the past? 27
TNA Question 5—Is the skill used often? 28
TNA Question 6—Is there a simpler solution? 29
TNA Question 7—Do staff have the capacity to meet
job requirements? 30
Additional considerations in training needs analysis. 31
iv Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach
SECTION THREE
Theories of training 37
Domains of learning 37
Cognitive learning 39
Learning and memory 40
Psychomotor skills 43
Attitudes 45
SECTION FOUR
Training objectives 51
Five questions to answer 55
Selecting performance levels 57
Writing objectives 58
Learning domains and learning
objectives 68
SECTION FIVE
Motivating Adult Learners 73
Motivation theories 74
Using motivational techniques in training 76
Encouraging motivation through a learner centered structure 79
Prior experiences 79
Prior expectations 80
Creating a safe and supportive learning enviornment 81
Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach v
SECTION SIX
Training techniques 86
Preparing your session 86
The first step 86
Sequencing 89
Needs to know 90
Structure of sessions 92
Learner centered sessions 92
Discussion leading 95
Using questions 97
Demonstrations 99
Training aids 100
In conclusion 102
SECTION SEVEN
Evaluation 107
Formative evaluation 108
Collecting feedback during a training program 110
Summative evaluation 110
Creating items for questionnaires 111
Avoiding problems with questionnaires 113
Evaluating learning outcomes 119
SECTION EIGHT
Supporting Newly-Trained Staff 125
SECTION NINE
Additional Resources 131
Print resources 131
World Wide Web resources 132
ABOUT THE AUTHORS 133

vi Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach
Foreword
T
his manual is intended for persons whose media organization has
asked them to plan and present training programs. Our main concern
is with programs where employees are taken out of their normal
assignments to attend activities aimed at helping them learn new skills or
develop their existing skills. We recognize that a great deal of training in the
media takes the form of on-the-job training. No doubt you are familiar with
the situation in which someone skilled in a job shows a novice how to do the
work. This manual is less concerned with this form of training, although it is
discussed briefly in section six.
The creation of this manual was prompted by our observation that many
who are asked to become trainers of trainers often have little knowledge of
how best to approach the task. We hope that the material included in this
manual will help you. The manual begins by asking the question “What is
training?” To answer this, we review how training differs from education
and why adult instruction cannot adopt the kind of approach that is often
used with children. The second section describes how to conduct a training
needs assessment, to help you decide whether training is an appropriate
solution to a perceived problem. It is important to recognize that not all
problems organizations encounter in the workplace can be solved through
training programs, however well-designed they may be. A short review of
various theories about training follows in the next section. These theories
can help you to identify the kind of training task you are about to embark
on and to determine strategies suited to the outcomes you want. The fourth
section emphasizes the importance of defining the objectives you hope to
achieve. Success in training is more likely if you adopt a learner-centered
approach, and to this end various ways to motivate adult learners are offered
in section five. The sixth section suggests specific techniques you can use to
structure and present your training programs. The need for evaluation is then
explained, and some of the forms it can take are described in section seven.
Finally, in section eight, we end by suggesting a few ways to encourage your
newly-trained trainees to incorporate what they have learned into their
everyday work.
Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach vii
We hope you will find this material useful and that you will return to it
to help you as new training tasks are assigned and different challenges emerge.
However, it is a relatively brief treatment of a huge topic. Therefore, we
have included a list of additional resources you might wish to consult at the
end of this manual as section nine.
Good luck with your training!
Drew McDaniel
viii Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach
Preface
S
ince the establishment of the Asia–Pacific Institute for Broadcasting
Development (AIBD), various efforts to strengthen the skills of
broadcast trainers have been made over the years, both at the Institute
and in its member countries in the Asia & Pacific region. The efforts have
been much to be commended for, notably the highly acclaimed Training
Methodology courses implemented by the AIBD in the 1980’s.
Training Methodology was a special development course for Trainers/

Instructors dealing with the planning, conduct and management of
programmes for the development of core competencies of organizational staff,
which dealt with the concepts and philosophies of Androgogy and their
application, instructional Techniques and Instructional Systems Design.
In an era of unprecedented technological development in the broadcast

industry, the dearth of well trained broadcast trainers became a pressing
problem for the members of AIBD. Arising out of this need for Trained
Trainers the institute was mandated to implement Training of Trainers courses
as one of the core development programmes of the Institute.
This Manual on Training of Trainers integrates the components of the

Training Methodology for adult learning. It shows AIBD’s continuing efforts
to assist the actual needs of the Institute’s members. This Handbook can serve
as a guide for professional trainers and for those who wish to use systematic
and standardized methods in imparting knowledge and skills to others.
UNESCO’s continuous support for the Training of Trainers scheme

enabled AIBD to revive its concept on Training of Trainers, which ultimately
resulted in this publication. We envisage that those who have the occasion to
make use of this manual are trainers in a face-to-face learning situation.
The joint publication of UNESCO & AIBD is a noteworthy and timely

publication supporting the on-going efforts in developing the Human
Resources and trained broadcast trainers of its members in the Asia-Pacific
region.
Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach ix
We are deeply indebted to Professor Drew McDaniel, Professor of

Telecommunications and Director of Communication and Development
Studies, along with Professor Duncan H Brown (University of Illinois) of
the Ohio University who authored this Manual. Professor Drew McDaniel
is one of the pioneers in designing and implementing the Training
Methodology Courses for AIBD since mid 1980’s, along with the late Mr.
Hugh De Silva. We acknowledge the continuous support extended by
UNESCO through Mr. Wijayananda Jayaweera, UNESCO Representative
to India and Regional Communication Adviser for Asia for his support to
AIBD that resulted in the publication of the Manual. To our own colleagues
at the AIBD, Mr Wilfried Solbach, for his contributions and last but not the
least Mrs. Manil Cooray who deserves credit for her commitment in handling
this core activity on Training of Trainers and the publication of the Manual.
Javad Mottaghi
Director
AIBD
x Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach
Preamble
T aining of Trainers is one of the most important tasks in building

local capacity of developing countries. UNESCO, in line with its
Major Programme to develop a “Communication and Information
Society for All” therefore, has been in the forefront to support the development
of a core group of local media trainers in the region. In this direction AIBD
with UNESCO’s continued support, indeed, made a remarkable contribution
by producing a significant number of broadcasting trainers with the help of
a very effective androgical approach developed by Prof. Drew McDaniel of
Ohio University. Many trainers who benefited from this approach not only
have contributed to human resource development in their countries but also
gained respect and recognition by applying androgical approach in their own
individual careers.
This manual authored by Prof. MacDaniel contains the core of AIBD’s
well tested training approach. It demonstrates that genesis and development
of training methodology is in part a history of contest to establish an
andragogical method for adult learning against the traditional teacher centered
pedagogical approach.
Those who are already familiar with training methodology will find this
manual a refreshing source of material available to them with conceptual
approaches and the human element of delivery they bring with them. Aspiring
trainers and many others who use this manual are likely to encounter
challenging new approaches to conceptual structures of adult learning and
practice and to the evaluation of their own perceptions. For them, it may
just revolutionize their work or at least will aid them in the process of
professional self-evaluation and development of their own professional careers.
UNESCO welcomes the AIBD’s decision to publish this manual and to
share the professional wisdom and experience it contains with a wider
audience. As a comprehensive guide, this training manual will no doubt will
be a valuable contribution to international cooperation in local capacity
building efforts, particularly in the area of human resource development.
Wijayananda Jayaweera
Regional Communication Adviser for Asia
UNESCO Office
8, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057, India
Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach xi
SECTION ONE
What is training?
xii Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach
What is training? 1
SECTION ONE
What is training?
A
training program can serve a range of diverse purposes, an
organizations initiate training programs for many different reasons.
In broadcastin one of the strongest motives is the need to respond
to challenges presented by new technologies. As our technology changes at
an increasingly rapid pace, it requires new skills. The resulting changes in
job descriptions frequently blur boundaries between previously distinct jobs,
producing greater demands for a multi-skilled staff. In any event, many
persons will need to be trained in the new skills required by technology
changes, and some of that retraining will be conducted within their
organizations.
Improving efficiency and performance to ensure that the organization is

capable of responding to the challenges of its competitors will sometimes
require a very different kind of training program. But in striving for enhanced
efficiency and levels of performance, training should also be seen as a part of
individual professional development. An organization can increase the
likelihood that it will keep valued employees if it demonstrates that it is willing
to invest in their professional development, by helping them gain new skills
and expertise through organizational support for their training.
The symptoms of a lack of proper training are many. The most self-evident
are haphazard work, delays and malfunctions because of errors or mistakes,
performance and quality standards not met, excessive wear of equipment,
and failures to follow established rules and procedures. Other more subtle
signs include a lack of interest in work, untidy work, lack of a sense of
responsibility, absenteeism, and poor communication. Effective training
imparts not only a way of doing but also a way of thinking. A well trained
person when faced with a problem should be able to respond quickly and
wisely. Appropriate training should lead to a better and happier person on
the job, an individual who is able to function as part of the organization’s
team.
2 Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach
Where an organization has dispersed operations, perhaps with production

units located in several different locations, a central training program can
even help to promote a sense of “esprit de corps” throughout the organization.
Employees who attend training programs will have met people working for
other units and made contacts that can be maintained as part of an enriched
working environment. Common working practices among employees also
ensures that they can work together more efficiently and effectively. Moreover,
when demands at one location require personnel to move temporarily to
another job site, the time it takes to assimilate them into operations at the
new location will be significantly reduced if they have had previous training.
In all cases a training program needs to match the broader goals of the
organization. The costs of providing training need to be compared to the
benefits it brings. Unless the outcomes of the training move the organization
forward in ways that match its larger organizational plan the costs will
outweigh the benefits. Therefore, training programs need to be developed as
an integral part of a broader organizational strategy.
What trainers do
It may not be obvious what trainers are expected to do in connection

with their daily work. Of course they are involved with instruction in the
training room, but it is important to recognize that they must assume a
number of additional entirely different roles. Although the main concern
might be conducting training activities, there is actually much more work to
be done “behind the scenes.” Most of this occurs prior to entering the training
room or after trainees have gone back to their regular jobs. The following
pages will describe many of these tasks, but some aspects of trainers’ duties
are beyond the scope of this basic reference guide. For example, we will not
get into detailed description of the techniques of using various types of training
aids, nor will we get into a full discussion of instructional design. These
complex topics require additional, more advanced preparation than we can
offer here.
Generally, we can identify five separate categories of responsibility. These

tend to occur in a sequence and tend to be repeated again and again in the
What is training? 3
way training is usually carried out in broadcast organizations. Trainers must

be capable of managing all five, although the precise demands in each of
these areas depend on the policies and operational practices of the organization
to which trainers are attached. For instance, some organizations have planning
departments that assume certain training roles, notably ones involving needs
assessment and management consultation. Needless to say, where planning
departments have been assigned these roles, it is important that there be close
coordination between the planning and training departments.
The starting point of training is usually a training needs assessment. In

this stage, the trainer is expected to be able to properly identify and determine
training requirements. This exercise usually must include current deficiencies
and the projection of future requirements. In this process the trainer must
also be able to lay out specific training and development objectives. These
objectives must be directed toward the requirements of the organization and
must be appropriate for the capabilities of staff members who will receive
training. Often in needs analysis the trainer must assist in judging staff
members’ readiness for training and in selecting trainees from among a pool
of persons nominated by their supervisors.
Second, the trainer is required to design courses and programs—including

evaluation schemes—according to the most appropriate modes and media
(i.e., methods and means). This is done by taking into account the specific
subject matter, participants, and trainers. Included in this category of
responsibility are tasks such as sequencing of instruction, preparation of all
required course materials such as handouts, OHP transparencies or
PowerPoint® presentations, and planning of course activities. In designing
practical exercises, the trainer must make arrangements to obtain all resources
required including equipment, materials, and support staff.
Third, naturally, the trainer must be prepared to conduct training in

courses. This obligation typically includes presentation of instruction,
management of practical sessions, leading discussions, coordinating trainee
evaluation and feedback, and oversight of incidental matters such as
refreshments, parking, security, accommodations, and the like. Trainers need
to be proficient in the use of training aids and materials. Needless to say,
trainers must be skillful communicators,

able to present complicated ideas in an
understandable and easily understood
fashion.
Fourth, the end of the activity

produces responsibilities in training
evaluation and analysis. This means
collecting from the trainees their appraisal
of the training, both its adequacy and its
results. Also required is a systematic
assessment of the performance of trainees, in
order to refine and improve the results obtained in future offerings of the
training program.
Fifth, trainers should be expected to participate in consulting with

management on overall training requirements as well as particular
organizational deficiencies that training might be able to address. Today,
organizations’ view of training has evolved into a more complete view of
staff members. Instead of considering each person as an individual cog in the
overall mechanism of the organization, enterprises now recognize staff as the
most important of its assets. Any organization can acquire equipment and
facilities—given the right amount of funding—but its human resources are
priceless. For most broadcasting organizations, replacing staff members with
individuals having comparable experience and abilities would be extremely
difficult. Consequently, managers generally work hard to retain their staff
and to develop them in ways that make them more useful and productive,
while also attending to individual staff members’ personal needs. Clearly, to
satisfy this objective, trainers must be made a part of the management team.
When this is done, the trainer’s role is enlarged to what is commonly termed
a human resource manager.
The broad responsibilities that are assigned to trainers in the modern

organization mean that they must exhibit greater levels of skill and
professionalism than previously. As before, trainers must have communication
and instructional abilities and a knack for explaining. But today trainers must
What is training? 5
also play significant roles as managers, providing problem-solving, counseling,

and leadership functions to their organizations. On top of this, trainers must
keep abreast of the state of the art in training and human resource
development—a field that is constantly evolving and changing. The human
qualities of leadership expected of trainers also has grown; today trainers are
expected to exemplify the highest standards of professionalism. Collectively
these demands represent a very tall order for persons who take up training
responsibilities, but this is offset by the knowledge that the influence of trainers
on their organizations has never been greater. Whether it is recognized or
not, most organizations’ futures depends on their human resources (or
training) departments and on the effectiveness and productivity of trainers
who work in them.
Training compared to education
This manual is based on two fundamental beliefs about training that have
shaped our approach and the suggestions we make.
Training is different from education

Clearly there are overlaps, and the boundary between the two can sometimes
be blurred but Milano & Ullius (1998, p.4) summarized the distinction very
well when they wrote that: “Education focuses on learning about; training
focuses on learning how.”
Education has broader goals than training and the material covered is
intended to be used in many different contexts. This distinction is clear if we
contrast broadcast education with broadcast training. In addition to including
courses to learn skills in such areas as production or management a university’s
undergraduate curriculum in broadcasting will also include courses in topics
such as the history of broadcasting, its social purpose, the legal and regulatory
frameworks that shape its performance, and the ways its output has been
critiqued. The graduates of that program will move on to many different
occupations and they will use what they have learned in a variety of ways.
While training may, of necessity, occasionally touch on these more

inclusive areas of knowledge they will be less central to the activity.
Fundamentally, training helps someone do something better and the skills it

develops are usually specific to a particular task. Therefore, the objectives in
training are more specific than those in education. In training it is usually
easier to state the goals in a clear and ultimately measurable form because
the expected outcome is more easily defined. In education the objectives are
less specific and thus determining whether or not those goals have been
achieved becomes much more challenging.
Because of the difference in aims between training and education, the

strategies and techniques each uses in instruction is different. A common
problem for trainers is to “unlearn” teaching methods they have acquired
without thinking during their schooling years. Breaking habits of instruction
that teachers use can be the first step toward becoming a highly effective
trainer.
Adults learn differently from children

This is the second fundamental belief about training that has shaped our
approach to this manual. At its core is the recognition that to be successful
adult training must show that it values the experiences adult learners bring
to the training situation and build on those experiences. Ideally, a visitor
happening upon a training session should find it difficult to identify
immediately who is the trainer and who are the trainees. The session should
be more of a dialog among all involved.
Clearly, there will be times during almost any training program when the
role of trainer and trainee is well defined. For example, it is sometimes very
appropriate for the trainer to be at the front of the room facing in one direction
with the trainees sitting facing him or her in the familiar lecture format. The
problems arise if this is the only format. In our teaching we all tend to teach
using the techniques that we encountered as students. If those experiences
were limited to sitting neatly in rows and trying to remember as much as
possible of what the teacher said we may try to adopt the same approach in
our training. Many would question how successful this approach is even with
children, but it will certainly be less successful with adult learners.
What is training? 7
While we would never suggest that even the youngest child brings no
prior experiences to the classroom it is obvious that adults will bring more.
Training programs need to build on those experiences and incorporate them
into both the initial design and the final presentation. To do otherwise is to
miss a wonderful opportunity. In planning your training programs avoid only
asking yourself what they need to know. Also consider what they already
know and find ways to incorporate that into the sessions. Even the
conventional lecture format can be converted into much more of a dialog.
By doing this you will also demonstrate to the trainees that you respect them
and value the experiences they bring to each training session. Since, as adults,
we are all largely a product of our prior experiences your recognition of their
worth is one of the ways to increase motivation among adult learners. This
idea will be developed more fully in section six of this manual along with
other suggestions to increase motivation.
Three principles that guide our approach to training
From these two fundamental beliefs:

(1) that training is different from education, and
(2) that adults learn differently from children, three principles emerge that
have guided the approach to training we have adopted in this manual.
(1) We need a learner centered approach because:

(a) The trainees are adults,
(b) Recognizing that they are adults improves learner motivation, and
(c) It enhances the potential of achieving long-term gains from training.
(2) It is crucial to recognize the distinction between adult training and our
prior learning experiences in school as children and adolescents.
(3) Planning training is a circular rather than a linear process. It includes the
potential for an unlimited number of revisions based on feedback from
prior presentations.
A learner centered approach

The shift to a learner centered approach involves several changes from the
more traditional teacher centered model with which many of us are more
familiar from our school days. First, the role of the trainer changes from
being the source of all knowledge for the trainees. Instead, the trainer is seen
more as a facilitator or guide to the learning process. As their guide you create
opportunities for learning to occur. Although the term “empowerment” has
been so overused recently as to render it almost meaningless, you are to a
very real extent empowering the learner. Birchall and Smith (1999, p. 357)
make the following observations about the assumptions behind the learner
centered approach.
Generally, adult learners are now assumed to learn most effectively when:
• Use is made of ‘authentic’ learning tasks seen as meaningful by the
learner.
• Use is made of discovery learning methods where the learner constructs
his or her own understanding, rather than instruction by the teacher .
..
• There is an emphasis on learning how to solve problems rather than
learning facts.
• There is support for collaborative learning and problem solving.
Evident in these four assumptions is the idea that the role of the learner
also changes. Instead of passively absorbing material the learners now play a
much more active role, taking responsibility for their own learning.
Adult training is different

The distinction between learning in children and adults is so important
that experts have assigned them different names. Pedagogy is the word used
to describe learning by (and instruction of) children. “Ped” is taken from the
Greek word for child and “gogy” is taken from the Greek word for learning,
hence pedagogy means the art and science of teaching children. Unfortunately,
many people use the term pedagogy more generically, denoting any kind of
instruction. It is more accurate to use the word to mean instruction only of
youngsters. Adult learning has a different name, andragogy—“andra” from
the Greek word referring to man.
What is training? 9
Pedagogy is biased toward education rather than training and is associated

mainly with the development of knowledge on topics where no previous
learning exists. When a baby is born, its brain is a “blank slate” and all of the
child’s learning is new. Gradually, the youngster grows into adulthood and
the process of learning changes from one of new learning to learning that is
incorporated into an increasingly complex bank of knowledge. Pedagogy has
as its goal the shaping and formation of a well-adapted human being. Adults,
of course, are already fully developed human beings and therefore their
learning needs are more about adaptation and restructuring of knowledge.
Andragogy takes into account the learning needs of adults in a number of

different ways. The most important concern is that by the time people reach
adulthood, they have accumulated a wealth of experience and knowledge.
Andragogy stresses the importance of building on the foundation of previous
learning gained through life experience. Another issue is that adults neither
need nor will they readily accept learning imposed on them by other persons;
but adult learners will act maturely and responsibly as partners with their
instructors in the learning process, if the need and benefits of learning are
clearly spelled out. Andragogy therefore emphasizes the participation of
learners in setting instructional objectives and defining their own learning
needs. Other aspects that distinguish adult learning from pedagogy include
the greater need among adults for applied learning and for immediately useable
knowledge.
Pedagogy’s perspective is centered on the teacher, because the child learner

is a highly dependent being and is expected merely to follow the dictates of
the instructor. Andragogy, on the other hand must be centered on learners
because they are expected to participate in the definition of their own
individual needs and objectives. Pedagogy attempts to mould children to
make them into socially adapted adults and therefore learning must follow a
somewhat rigid, hierarchically structured pre-determined syllabus. This is
contrast to andragogy that aims to match learning to the individual
requirements of each person and so must remain flexible and adaptable
according to their needs.
Comparing children and adults, Hart (1991, p. 15) includes the following
in a list contrasting the differences between children and adults as learners.
During our time in school as children and adolescents we rely on others to
decide what we will learn. Children “rely on others to decide what is important
to be learned.” Adults “decide for themselves what is important.” Children
“accept the information being presented at face value” while adults “need to
validate the information based on their beliefs and experiences.” Children
“expect that what they are learning will be useful in their long-term future.”
Adults “expect that what they are learning is immediately useful.” Finally, at
least in our abbreviated list, children “have little ability to serve as a
knowledgeable resource to the teacher or fellow classmates.” By sharp contrast,
in the adult training situation the trainees “have significant ability to serve as
a knowledgeable resource to the facilitator and group members.”
Again, evident in the final quotation from Hart’s list is the idea of a change
of roles for both the trainer and the trainees. The “teacher” becomes a
“facilitator” and the child with his or her “fellow classmates” becomes a
member of a group. Training programs designed for adults must take all of
these differences into account if they are to be successful. A training program
that simply tells the participants that this is what they must learn and fails to
involve them actively in the learning process is failing to acknowledge that
adults learn differently. Achieving this kind of involvement does not require
complex structures. Something as simple as building into the design of the
training program several points where decisions can be taken either
individually or collectively about where the emphases should be placed in
covering the material, and perhaps inviting suggestions for additions, would
be a good starting point.
This idea of a training program as something that is not fixed in stone,

but rather capable of changing and improving brings us to the last of the
three principles that guided us in the approach we have taken to adult training
in this manual. It refers to the need for, and importance of evaluation and
feedback.
What is training? 11
Planning training is a circular rather than a linear process

One textbook on the design of training programs suggests that there are five
stages (Milano & Ullius, 1998, pp. 17-20). Summarizing their ideas, the
sequence is:
(a) Set the “goals and objectives” based on an earlier needs assessment
(b) Identify the “key topics” that need to be covered
(c) Select the “training flow”—that is, the optimum sequence to present
the topics that you think will be most successful.
(d) Design the “training materials” to be used
(e) Create a strategy for evaluation and design the “evaluation tools.”
It is evaluation, the final part of the sequence, that concerns us here. Those
who design training programs know that their task is never over. Each
presentation of the program provides an opportunity to collect feedback from
the participants that can be used to improve future presentations. But
evaluation of the program need not be limited to those who have participated
in it. For example, you might also want to investigate whether what they
learned really matched the requirements of the units from which they came?
What had happened to the trainees six months, or a year, after they returned?
The topic of evaluation will be covered in section seven of this handbook.

The remaining four stages, and several other topics will also be covered. But
in the next section we begin with an explanation of why the planning process
should begin with a careful assessment of what training is needed.
References
Birchall, D. & Smith, M. (1999). Technology supported learning. In A. Landale (Ed.),

Gower Handbook of Training and Development. (3rd ed., pp. 354-362). Aldershot, England:
Gower Publishing..
Hart, L.B. (1991). Training Methods that Work: A Handbook for Trainers. Menlo Park, CA:
Crisp Publications.
Needs assessment 13
SECTION TWO
Needs
assessment
Needs assessment 15
SECTION TWO
Needs assessment
N
ormally, training is offered by an organization when it senses
deficiencies in its staff’s capability. Persons who plan training
programs should pay close attention to the formation of perceptions
about staff members’ inadequacies and to the specific factors that prompt
managers to recommend training. Not all personnel shortcomings can be
corrected by training. When is training a suitable remedy for problems that
occur in an organization? This is the question the following section will try
to answer.
We can say with some assurance that training should not be treated as a
one-size-fits-all remedy for organizational difficulties. If it is, training is likely
to be wasteful, and its outcomes may be disappointing. This occurs because
training quite simply is not the appropriate solution for every problem. As a
starting point, the trainer needs to ask “What exactly was it that prompted
the proposal for training in the first place?” The answer to this question will
provide information vital to obtaining positive results. It is this logic—that
effective training is built upon clearly defined needs, and that carefully
developed training objectives must be crafted around those needs—that guides
the assessment procedures discussed in this section. The process of building
a plan for training centers on what is called the training needs assessment
(TNA), a rigorous approach to analyzing an organization’s requirements and
resources to determine whether training is an appropriate course of action
and, if so, what sorts of training are needed. Training that is not adequately
justified on the basis of need will not produce desired benefits and this will
eventually reflect poorly on everyone involved: trainers, those who get training,
training departments, and organizational management.
As suggested in the preceding paragraph, any training project should begin

by asking the question—For what purpose is training begun? Training should
be viewed as an investment. The investment in an organization’s human
resource will produce gains both for individuals involved and for the enterprise
itself. In the end, training should raise the quality, level of output, and
productive capacity of the organization. The trained person is more competent

and productive thus improving the organization’s overall capacity. Let’s look
at some of the common reasons training is considered. There are a range of
possible “triggers” that raise the possibility of training, but the following
discussion will touch on three: something new is about to be started;
individuals are not performing well; or staff may simply need to be “updated.”
In broadcasting, change is a feature of daily life. New technologies enter

the workplace continuously, causing changes in the way that work is done.
New techniques arise frequently too; techniques for program production
change, revisions in laws require new procedures, and so on. As a result, staff
members need regular updating just to stay current with these changes. Some
organizations rotate staff through different divisions, and years may elapse
between two assignments within the same section of the organization. In
such cases, training may be a useful way of easing the transition between
assignments. Such updating is typically accomplished by training on-site, in
other words by on-the-job training. Often this kind of training is not even
recognized as training, or is treated so informally it lacks any kind of planning
or structure. This may not seem to be training at first glance, but really it is.
Unfortunately, it may not be obvious when staff need updating, so the

decision to carry out training may be difficult. The TNA process, to be
described shortly, can help clarify the options available to improve staff
performance. Another sort of training may be suggested when the changes
Needs assessment 17
being introduced are so great as to require something much more formal and
comprehensive. For instance, the introduction of digital technologies in
broadcasting has meant a total re-tooling of skills among technical staff, nearly
all of whom were trained mainly or exclusively in analog technologies. The
differences between the two fields of electronics are so great that no simple
and quick transition is possible; a full-scale retraining of affected staff members
is usually required. This kind of training is seldom difficult to recognize.
More of a problem will be found in those cases where staff are thought to
be underperfoming. If staff are not working up to the expected level, if errors
or problems are encountered, or if personnel are not providing the quality of
performance desired, then training may be an option. Then again, there may
be other issues besides a lack of knowledge or skill. Determining exactly what
is wrong can be more difficult than it might seem, and the trainer needs to
work closely with organizational managers to make good decisions in cases
of underperformance.
Often training seems to be called for because of organizational changes.

For example, the organizational structure might be modfied to make it more
efficient or more productive. For a number of years, broadcasting
organizations around the world have undergone staff reductions to “flatten”
their structures (meaning that levels of hierarchy are reduced) to promote
efficiency. To accomplish such a move requires a significant reassignment of
personnel which leads to multi-skilling requirements (assignment of multiple,
not closely related tasks, to individual members of the organization). Any
large change in an enterprise will inevitably mean a reallocation of
responsibilities, and this tends to imply a likely need for training.
Sometimes training is proposed because basic indicators of overall

performance suggest a problem exists. In broadcasting, this may take the form
of poor ratings or inadequate advertising revenues. Criticism from outside
the organization can motivate an investigation of training options. This is
especially true if the stature of the critic makes the criticism credible and
persuasive. Complaints from government officials or from business or political
leaders can make an organization reevaluate its performance, and this may
lead to the decision that a training needs analysis ought to be done.
There are many sources of information that can help in investigating

whether training is needed. As a first step it is usually a good idea to examine
records concerning the work itself—details of work output, observation of
work production, work samples, performance appraisals, and so on. Not all
these might be available to training planners, but all that can be obtained
should be consulted. Even when no problems have been identified, such
reviews can be rewarding. Indeed, routine observation is a good habit. Over
time it allows one to observe trends that might not be evident otherwise.
The benefit of simply “keeping an eye on performance” is that one soon
gains an “overall” picture of the organization and its performance history.
In some organizations formal data gathering techniques are possible. The

training department might conduct surveys of staff or use one of a large
number of organizational tools to study needs. Some examples of approaches
that have been applied to training needs analysis include SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis, force field studies, and Delphi
research, among many others.
Conducting a job analysis
One component of training needs assessment is job analysis. At the micro

level, one can evaluate the specific sets of capabilities needed by people filling
various roles in organizations. This step is often neglected, perhaps on the
assumption that people working within an organization understand it perfectly
well and have little need to study it to understand the roles people fill. This
assumption has been shown again and again to be faulty. Much wasteful
training occurs because no one has thought about what actual needs might
exist. Before training can begin, the trainer must know detailed components
of jobs the learning is meant to address. After all, the performance criteria
for training courses have to be built around the performance criteria in the
workplace.
A job analysis typically is done with a visit to the workplace. Even if the
training planner is familiar with the setting, it is better to be present when
trying to break job descriptions down into their component parts. While on
the scene, interviews with those who do the jobs, and their supervisors and
Needs assessment 19
managers can help bring to the surface issues that training will need to face.
These interviews will allow different parties to describe their thoughts on job
requirements—don’t be surprised if a wide spectrum of opinions are
uncovered in this stage. It helps if the training planner develops a rough guide
for the interview in advance. At the very least, the interview guide should
contain a list of preliminary learning goals to be checked with everyone
interviewed. Before beginning this phase of the course preparation, the trainer
should reflect on the possible concerns that he or she might have about the
job: What aspects of the work are not understood? What hidden factors might
lie below the surface? What unsuspected problems might be present? And so
on . . .
It is helpful to tabulate each job analyzed under the headings of job, duties,
tasks, sub tasks, and task elements. The job is the piece of work to be done;
the employment; or the post. The duties are major components of the job,
that is, what is required to “get the job done.” Tasks are the detailed elements
for each of the duties; in other words, the specific actions necessary to complete
each duty. Sub tasks are even more narrowly defined actions that together
make up an individual task. Finally, task elements are the smallest units of
analysis, the individual discrete steps within each sub task.
Most of the analysis of performance occurs at the level of tasks. In order

to make judgments about capabilities, the collection of tasks that make up
duties should be studied as a group as well as individually. A task is a group
of related physical activities. Tasks usually have a definite beginning and end,
and may involve some kind of equipment or other work tools or interaction
with other people. A task should result in some kind of meaningful result,
though the result may not always be tangible (a “correct” decision is a
meaningful result). A task may be of any size or complexity as long as it is a
separate action directed toward completion of the duty of which it is a part.
Merely by conducting an audit of the specific requirements of jobs, a

trainer learns a great deal about what training will be required. Not only do
the exact demands of the job become obvious, the interrelated aspects of the
skills are made clear—that is, how one task relates to others in a reasonably
orderly and well-defined way. Beyond this, the training planner is given a
sense of the work environment, personalities of people on the job, and many
other intangibles that can subtly affect the success of training. Building a
training activity to incorporate such impressions can lend a texture and realism
that would otherwise be lacking. And realism is vital—trainees must feel that
the training activity understands their reality and is addressed to their actual
working conditions in order to accept the training as valid and worthwhile.
Purpose of the job analysis
A job analysis is useful not only to document the work specifications of

potential trainees. The job analysis also should help in carrying out an
assessment of skills, requirements (time, resources, etc.) for training,
information components needed, a logical structure of training to be utilized
in instructional design, and performance standards to be achieved in training.
In addition, job analyses provide other important planning information: the
priorities of different components of training, budget, time allocations for
specific segments of training and for an entire activity, facilities, and modes
and media to be used in training.
The skills and knowledge required on the job need to be known and
carefully specified as part of the planning process in training. These lead to a
set of judgments that will be outlined fully in the section on instructional
design later. For now, it should be sufficient to note that knowing what is
done in the workplace should lead to a clear conception of what skills need
to be cultivated by training and what knowledge must be imparted in the
course of the exercise. Sometimes the TNA produces a need for further
research: What are other organizations doing to achieve the same result? What
are the precise needs for training that have to be met in order for other
divisions of the organization to work effectively with the units receiving
training? What do managers want and expect to happen as a result of the
planned training? Questions such as these have to be answered at an early
stage of planning to avoid errors and wasted time later.
Time decisions are critical in the planning process. Training has real costs
associated with its activities. These take the form not only of formal budgets,
but also of lost productivity due to the unavailability of staff during training,
Needs assessment 21
incidental costs in wear and tear on equipment, and the like. Consequently,
the more efficient the training the lower the costs and, in the long run, the
greater the training department’s influence on the organization because of
its ability to mount more activities. Choices need to be made about the overall
length of training. This depends on the kind of training required and on the
scope of training being developed—the more ambitious the goals, the longer
time will be required. But the issue is not merely the total amount of time
required for training, but the time required by the individual components
that make up the overall plan. Deciding on the length of time to train for
each task, sub task, and task element will ultimately lead to an overall estimate
of the length of time required.
The logical sequencing of training is sometimes not self-evident and must

be determined through a training needs analysis. Again, this topic will be
taken up in comprehensive way in the section devoted to planning sessions.
The key idea here is that training that follows a chronological sequencing
based on steps performed on the job may not be correct. If a task is performed
in an A, B, C, and D sequence, it does not necessarily follow that learning A
before B, and B before C, provides the best learning approach. It may be
that knowing C well may facilitate learning A and B; knowing more about
subsequent steps can help a learner understand what needs to be done. Imagine
what it would be like to bake a cake without ever having seen one. It would
be a puzzle to envision what the finished product should be like—soft or
crunchy, sweet or sour, pale or dark, etc. In other words, it helps to know
what a cake looks, tastes, and smells like before starting to make one. Similarly,
the sequencing of steps in training can have a tremendous influence on the
results obtained.
Carrying out a training needs analysis
Training needs analysis is a systematic procedure for planning human resource

develop-ment programs. This technique takes into account a wide selection
of factors found in the workplace that affect organizational outcomes. It is
used to evaluate the difference between what is desirable in an organization’s
performance and what it is actually accomplishing. Of course, an organization
is nothing more than a collection of individuals, so when we speak of an
organization’s performance what we really mean is the collective performance

of the individuals who make up that organization. Once we have defined the
difference between what is desired and what is actually occurring, we then
have the basis for developing a training program that can narrow the gap
between the two. All training is aimed at this fundamental objective.
Within organizations, there must be expectations about what each person

in the enterprise should do and about how much or how well the job should
be done. Sometimes, these expectations exist only in the minds of staff
members, but many organizations spell them out in detail. Commonly called
job descriptions, these formal statements explain precisely what specific
responsibilities are assigned to individual positions, and they provide criteria
through which one may judge performance. Even if formal documents do
not exist, there undoubtedly will be performance expectations held by staff
throughout the organization. The problem is that if formal documents do
not exist, then confusions about expectations are bound to occur—whether
the person doing the job has the same understanding as their supervisor or as
their colleagues will be very much in doubt. This is why any training needs
analysis must begin with a review of job descriptions; these documents offer
the detailed information needed to determine whether or not training is
advisable. If job descriptions do not exist, training planners should
encourage the organization to develop policies to
draft and publish them.
Needs assessment 23
Performance goals
should be incorpo-
rated in every position
description. Performance
goals give staff members
clearly-defined targets for them
to work toward. Achieving these
performance levels ensures the
organization’s success, because meeting
performance goals in each position will
ultimately lead to the collective attainment of
organization-wide goals. To be useful, such
performance goals need to be stated in the simplest and clearest terms.
Everyone concerned should have no doubt about what is actually meant by
the language of performance goals. If misunderstandings do occur, problems
are bound to follow. These goals must be realistic and attainable without the
use of extraordinary measures. There is a tendency for goals to be over-written,
meaning that people tend to develop inflated expectations for jobs (at least,
if they are not required to meet them personally). In a way, this is not entirely
a bad thing. The establishment of high standards should surely be encouraged,
but if the required level is unlikely to be achieved by nearly all persons assigned
to the job, then the job description will be a recipe for failure.
In effect, performance standards define the characteristics of people who

should fill jobs. If position descriptions call for specialized capabilities, these
must be recognized at the time people are recruited or are given their
assignments . If care is taken as people are placed in their positions, the need
for training can be lessened, and disruptions in the work of the organization
will be minimized. Again, transparency is a must; everyone affected must be
clear about expectations laid out in position descriptions.
The differences identified between expected and actual results in an organi-

zational setting are called performance discrepancies. Performance standards
must be met if organizational goals are to be achieved, hence eliminating—
or at least reducing—performance discrepancies will be decisive in
determining whether an organization meets its overall objectives. Performance
discrepancies occur when “what is being done now” is not “what should be
done.” Getting staff to perform in expected ways at expected levels might be
accomplished in varied ways, some obvious and others not, and only one of
the options available is training. As training is an expensive time and labor
intensive activity, managers generally prefer to exercise other options before
accepting training as a remedy for performance discrepancies. It is not
uncommon to hear the opinion “we have a training problem” or “our staff
need training,” when what is meant is that in some manner performance
standards are not being met. However, what is not clear in these statements
is an evaluation of whether training is the logical remedy.
To determine whether training is an appropriate measure to correct

performance discrepancies, seven questions must be answered by the training
needs analysis. These questions should be incorporated into the survey that
the training planner conducts as a preliminary step in organizing a training
activity. Each one of these seven questions yields an answer that will guide
the organizer to a fitting plan of action.
TNA Question 1—What is the performance discrepancy?
There are lots of reasons why performance discrepancies occur and the chief
aim of a TNA is to uncover the origin of the deficiency. After gaining this
information, the trainer’s fundamental question must be whether or not
training can correct this problem and, if so, whether training is the most
efficient and effective means of solving the discrepancy.
Let’s illustrate this issue with a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that a

member of a television news department who is responsible for field-produced
video packages is making poorly organized and sloppily edited pieces for the
Needs assessment 25
early evening telecast. An examination of the video packages reveals a lack of

good editorial judgment and a poor sense of production values. One’s first
reaction to the problem might be that somehow the staff member in question
is not performing to accepted standards because he lacks the skills or lacks
the knowledge of proper production techniques. Such a performance
discrepancy can be narrowed or eliminated by training. But can you think of
other possibilities? Suppose that on investigation you discovered the staff
member was arriving late at his desk. And further suppose that his late arrival
was forcing him to work hastily in order to produce each day’s packages in
time for airing. It is quite possible that in the rush needed to meet deadlines
he was forced to make quick choices and accept less than ideal editing work.
If this were the situation, could training aimed at developing improved
production knowledge and skills provide a correction? Obviously not. If
people already know how to do what you want them to do, further instruction
in that knowledge will not get the results you desire. If the producer already
knew how to do the job further training might marginally improve his abilities,
but it is not at all likely to remedy his work habits, which is the real problem
in this hypothetical case.
Training can be formulated to attack problems of poor work habits. Of

course this is not an easy undertaking, but it is possible. In order to be
successful in training, however, the planner must know what is actually the
real problem. And this is why a study in the workplace is necessary to
determine what is going on there. A training needs analysis conducted by
the planner will determine what is causing the performance discrepancy. The
investigation should deal with issues such as “what, specifically, is the evidence
that a performance discrepancy exists” and “why is there dissatisfaction with
performance.” The answer to the first question leads to a further question:
TNA Question 2—Is the performance discrepancy

important?
It might appear that a performance discrepancy that rises to the attention of

a training planner has already qualified as important enough to merit
consideration. If supervisors are unhappy with performance, one might think,
it is a problem that should be dealt with. But there can be cases where
discrepancies are matters that may be upsetting to supervisors, but not really
factors in meeting organizational goals.
Take for instance the case of a worker who dresses

carelessly and wears long hair. This might be a source
of irritation to a supervisor who may be offended by
the appearance of the staff member, but if the level
and quality of work is not affected and
it has no general effect on the
productivity of the organization,
does it really matter? Of course,
there might be a few circum-
stances in which long hair really
is a problem, say for example
where the long hair might pose
a physical danger. If a
worker were to work
around mechanical equip-
ment where hair might get caught and cause injury, then there would be a
serious issue. Or it might be an issue in situations where the long hair might
somehow degrade the quality of the final product, as for example in food
production where head coverings are usually required to keep stray hairs from
ending up in the edibles.
One way of answering this question in a TNA is to consider the

consequences of leaving the situation as it is. If no training is attempted and
things go on as they are, what negative consequences will result? If the negative
results do not affect the workers output or the organization in any important
way, it might be better to leave the existing situation to be solved by means
other than training. In this connection, it is important to recognize that
training departments cannot substitute for appropriate supervisory actions.
If the supervisor in the situation just described is unhappy with the grooming
of his staff, the supervisor is the best person to deal with the issue properly.
Asking the training department to correct behaviors of staff can simply be a
way of “passing the buck” or of ducking the responsibility to address a problem
directly.
Needs assessment 27
TNA Question 3—Is it a skill deficiency?
By this point, you have decided that the problem is a real performance
discrepancy, and that it is important. It needs attention. What comes next is
an evaluation that determines the cause of the discrepancy. This questions
asks whether the shortcoming stems from an inability of the staff to perform
as desired because he or she lacks the skill to do it. What needs to be
determined in this phase of analysis is whether the problem is a lack of skill
or whether some other fault exists. If the person in question is able to do the
job, but isn’t doing it, the remedy lies elsewhere, not in training. If not, it
should be up to the supervisor to determine how to change conditions so
that performance capabilities can be realized.
At this point it is appropriate to ask whether the person considered to

have a problem could perform if he or she really had to. Could this person
do the job if his life depended on it? Whenever you hear the expression “he
ought to be doing it,” it is likely you are not dealing with a real skill deficiency.
The idea that a worker “ought but is not” implies that, in the judgment of
the person speaking, the worker prefers not to perform as desired. The key
word is “ought.” If there were a genuine skill deficiency, the expression is
more likely to be something like “he can’t do it.”
TNA Question 4—Could the job be performed

satisfactorily in the past?
If the performance discrepancy is real and important, the training planner

should inquire whether the proper standard was ever within the capabilities
of the staff member under consideration. Usually the answer is clear, but if
you don’t know for sure, it is important to ask. The reason is that there is a
very great difference between a skill that once existed and one that never
existed. If the skill once existed something has happened to cause its loss.
Here the training planner needs to first ask why skills have been lost. If the
reason is through neglect, lack of practice, disinterest, or simply forgetting,
the job of regaining the performance standard is generally much less
challenging. A remediation training exercise might be all that is required.
However, one might question motivation and commitment in such a case,
and perform an additional investigation into why the staff did not desire to
maintain and enhance his or her capabilities.
TNA Question 5—Is the skill used often?
If the skill needed is not regularly exercised, it may decline simply due to
lack of use. This situation can be corrected either by a skill maintenance
program or a performance maintenance program—or both. It is common
for pianists to practice daily in order to maintain and develop their skills.
The same may be required of anyone whose job demands performance skills,
particularly if they do not utilize those skills frequently. Musicians might
perform in public only occasionally, and if they practiced just when preparing
for a concert, their skills would quickly decline. Another example of an
irregularly performed skill requiring regular practice is marksmanship among
police officers. Some police officers complete their careers without once firing
a shot from their handgun in the line of duty; most police are rarely required
to use weapons. For this reason, police departments generally require member
of their force to complete routine target practice. If officers did not practice
regularly, they would not have the ability to use their weapons accurately on
the rare occasions when they needed to open fire—and this could be a very
dangerous situation. These two examples represent cases where peak
performance is required infrequently.
Suppose the skill in question is one the person could perform properly at
an earlier time and it is a regularly used skill. What could it mean if the skill
is not now satisfactory? One often hears the adage that “practice makes
perfect.” If this is true, then how can performance actually decline over time?
Well, it seems that old saying is only partially correct; under certain conditions,
it is quite possible for performance to deteriorate with the passage of time.
One factor that may cause performance to worsen is working in the absence
of feedback. If staff perform work without receiving guidance, random changes
occur, bad habits creep in, misunderstandings about standards arise, and so
on.
The fact that skills change as time passes shows how important it is that
feedback be built into the practice routine. If the staff member who is not
Needs assessment 29
performing up to par were to get regular, understandable, and appropriate

feedback, the problem might well disappear. Anytime performance on the
job is not what is desired and the expected performance is within the person’s
capabilities even though performed regularly, one should check to determine
whether timely information about the quality of performance is being given
the person.
TNA Question 6—Is there a simpler solution?
There is an old adage that says “if you are a hammer, then everything looks
like a nail.” In other words, if you have a particular set of skills and abilities,
it is a natural inclination to use those tools anytime a problem arises. And
while training may seem to be a suitable answer for performance problems,
it may not always be the best solution. Training is an expensive business,
both from the standpoint of financial budgets and from human costs
associated with activities. Also, training is a labor-intensive activity; it ties up
a lot of human resource for long periods of time. No effort should be spared
to ensure that training is initiated only for those situations where a good
outcome is likely. In many situations, other kinds of measures make more
sense and will save the organization’s resources. As already hinted above,
training is only one of the ways to improve performance, and its use should
be limited to those cases where there is a realistic chance of positive results
being obtained.
If there is a genuine skill deficiency, there are at least two alternatives.

First the person or persons could be trained in order to raise their skill levels—
this is where the training plan comes in and that is what this whole manual is
about. But, secondly, one should not ignore the possibility of changing what
is expected of staff. This can be accomplished in several ways. One would be
to reassign the person to responsibilities for which he or she already has the
required level of ability. Another would be to revise requirements in the
present position. This might mean restructuring aspects of the job so that
the skill deficiency becomes unimportant, or it might mean shifting the way
the job is being done to accommodate the skill levels available. Be warned:
there is likely to be resistance to job requirement changes, especially if they
seem to be lowering performance standards. Changes must maintain overall
quality standards of the organization, and the modification of performance

requirements must be arranged to ensure this. Furthermore, there is a tendency
for staff to resist almost any kind of change in their work rules, so a good
deal of persuasion may be needed to win them over.
TNA Question 7—Do staff have the capacity to meet job

requirements?
Finally, one must ask whether the person or persons have the capacity needed
to meet requirements of the job. The reasons people simply cannot do a job
are varied. It is not always based on their physical or intellectual limitation,
it can also arise from the mental or emotional or attitudinal state. If a staff
member is over-qualified, their motivation may be lacking; if the job in
question is disliked, it may not be done properly; or if there is an overall lack
of morale, commitment to the job will be low. If you have determined that
there is a real performance discrepancy, that it is important, that it is a
performance goal never met previously, that there is plenty of opportunity
for practice, that training has not eliminated the deficiency, and that the job
requirements cannot be altered—then shifting personnel may be the only
way of meeting desired levels of performance. When confronted with this
situation, there really are only two choices: change the job or change the
person. The latter choice is often a difficult one to make because, in a way, it
means admitting defeat. Furthermore, it can have negative consequences
because it tends to convey a sense of failure to the person whose abilities do
not measure up. When the need to adjust assignments in this manner becomes
necessary, the human dimensions of this situation should be treated sensitively.
Of course, it may be possible to redefine performance standards to reflect

the actual capabilities of the people in those positions. Oddly, this solution
seldom occurs to managers, perhaps because they become locked into a
particular approach to defining responsibilities, and they often resist a remedy
like this. However, the benefits of redefining jobs can be a powerful persuasive
tool. It may be up to the training planner to initiate a discussion about how
job standards can be modified, so as to make the best use of personnel available
and to minimize the costs of reassigning or retraining staff.
Needs assessment 31
People whose performance is being studied should be given the

opportunity to participate as a partner in the training needs analysis. This is
a key consideration in making the training a learner centered activity. Making
staff members equal co-workers in the data gathering phase has several benefits.
First, people are bound to cooperate more fully if their opinions and beliefs
are taken seriously. Secondly, people who do the jobs are in the best position
to know what problems exist in the work situation. Finally, an equal
partnership ensures that the training planner will work closely with staff
through the information gathering phase and this makes it more likely that
the data will be reliable and valid. The close partnership will likely make the
results of the analysis much more acceptable to everyone involved. If people
believe they have had an opportunity to participate fully in the study, they
will be more inclined to accept the conclusions reached.
In some situations there may be tools available outside the organization

for judging performance. For example, in the United States broadcast technical
personnel may obtain certification through the Society of Broadcast Engineers
(SBE). The SBE offers a series of tests to assess individual’s knowledge of
broadcast electronics and laws. These are used by broadcast organizations to
determine staff qualification and by individuals to earn important widely-
accepted certification. Other kinds of tests—some simple, some complex—
can be found for other assessing abilities in areas of broadcasting. Sometimes
these are administered by external bodies such as the SBE and others can be
administered in-house by the organization itself. You may wish to consult
resources mentioned in section nine, if you would like further information
about such tools.
Additional considerations in training needs analysis
The end product of a training needs analysis is a set of recommendations

for action, if any true performance discrepancies have been identified. In
conducting training needs analysis, care must exercised to ensure that
recommendations are matched both to the genuine requirements of the
organization and to long-range personal potentials of individuals. There is a
danger of focusing on short-term needs of the specific jobs being filled by
staff. If the training decisions are based solely on the immediate situation, it
is not likely to prepare staff for future promotion or opportunities to expand

their range of skills. When this happens, both staff and the organizations
lose. Individuals face restrictions in their ability to grow over time, and this
may encourage them to look for opportunities elsewhere. Turnover in staff
generally is undesirable because it adds to costs and almost certainly means a
reduction in the overall capacity of the enterprise.
This suggestion is not intended to ignore the needs of the immediate job;
responsibilities need to be met with the highest efficiency attainable. Rather,
the aim is to keep in view both the career path of each individual while also
stressing current requirements. Through attention to the career development
of staff members the organization can more fully realize benefits of investments
it makes in individuals. People become more valuable to the organization as
more is invested in them, especially as training gives them more knowledge
and capabilities.
In the mix of issues present in the workplace one of the most confounding
is that of personalities. It is often—perhaps even most often—the case that
the greatest limitations on individual performance lies within each person.
Their way of thinking, their way of reacting to pressures, problems, or
encouragement has a dramatic impact on their effectiveness on the job.
Everyone knows of persons who have great talent, but seem to be unable to
capitalize on their innate abilities. Training must attempt to address issues of
this sort. But of all the domains of training, attitudes or affect are the most
difficult to influence. Personalities and attitudes that have been established
through years of workplace experience cannot be changed much by the short
duration training that organizations are able to offer. Therefore, the training
planner must coordinate with management the decisions about whether
training is likely to correct performance discrepancies that stem from
personalities and deep-rooted attitudes, or where other non-training measure
are appropriate.
Lastly, there are abuses of training that have to be recognized at the needs
analysis stage. It happens that training is sometimes used as a reward for
staff. This seldom is a good practice, because it is unlikely that training offered
as a kind of bonus is really a good use of resources. The basic question
Needs assessment 33
remains—are there true performance discrepancies, and if so, is training the

proper course of action. Of course, based on the point made in the preceding
paragraph, if a person is doing well and has a bright future in the organization,
then an investment in that individual’s long range potential is easily justified.
On the other hand there are cases where just the reverse situations occur—
people are sent for training as a punishment. Once again, the logic of this
practice is questionable. If the person really needed further instruction, as
determined by a training needs analysis, then certainly training would be
appropriate. But if training is seen as a punishment, individuals will not be
enthusiastic participants and the difficulties in achieving positive results are
multiplied. In the end, the aim that TNA is meant to fulfill is to ensure that
training is effective for everyone concerned by adopting measures that make
training available to the right people at the right time. This in turn makes
training more cost effective and efficient. It also gives training departments
the best opportunity to play an important role in the overall success of the
organization.
Theories of training !#
SECTION THREE
Theories
of training
!$ Training of Trainers
Theories of training !%
SECTION THREE
Theories of training
T
his section of the manual will provide a detailed explanation of the
mental processes behind training and learning. Although explanations
are presented as theories, they have profound practical implications
in training. It is because of this “real world” importance that every trainer
should understand and be able to apply concepts presented in the following
pages. This is essential so that trainers can be conscious of the factors at work
in their learners’ mental processes, and in order to realize the greatest transfer
of knowledge and skill.
Domains of learning
In the 19th century, instruction tended to be a simple transactional process.

Instructors presented material in a manner they considered understandable,
and learners were expected to learn. At the time, trainers had nothing more
complicated than this in mind. Those who did not learn well enough were
considered somehow personally negligent, and methods were used to reinforce
learning that would make failure quite uncomfortable. In Europe and North
America slow learners were even punished. At the very least, those who had
trouble learning were stigmatized or ostracized. You may be familiar with
Charles Dickens’ novels containing themes about the negative consequences
of this simplistic and harsh method of instruction. Inherent in the perspective
of that era was the assumption that learning is primarily the responsibility of
the learner, and the instructor’s role is merely as a conduit to material.
In the 20th century, a new movement arose that offered an alternative

conception. This movement attempted to adapt scientific models and to apply
them to the learning process. Adherents of this new philosophy espoused the
belief that learning could be carried out with the same discipline and precision
used in science, and that this would result in more consistent results. Such
an approach to learning was mirrored in application of so-called scientific
methods to a wide range of fields. For example, there was a scientific
management school that argued for strict application of the principles of
!& Training of Trainers
physics and mathematics in organizations. These movements had many

unfortunate outcomes, but they also led to some positive results. For one
thing, in the field of education they focused attention on the nature of the
relationship between the instructor and the learner. It soon became clear that
learning was a much more complex task than had originally been thought.
Additionally, the role of the instructor was recognized as important to the
success of a learning exercise. One could not blame the learner alone when
learning failed to occur. Instructors had an obligation to become skillful in
transferring instruction and to make the learning as easy as possible for the
learner.
As the decades passed, and with the further application of science, most
particularly the study of physiology and psychology, knowledge about the
process of learning grew more complete. What emerged as research into
learning continued, was that there were actually multiple dimensions of
learning, not just one. It also was realized that learning in each dimension
was distinct, requiring different sets of skills and abilities. This meant that a
person might be brilliant at learning in one of those dimensions and not in
others. It also meant that instructors could not rely on only one method of
presenting material; they had to tailor their method of instruction to the
nature of the particular intended dimension of learning.
These dimensions are usually called domains, a term that refers to broad
categories defining distinct types of learning. Conventionally, three domain
have been identified by researchers—cognitive, affective, and psychomotor
skills. There are also subdivisions within these domains recognized by
researchers and other experts, but generally most instructional theorists accept
the three as adequate descriptions of learning categories. Indeed, it is worth
emphasizing that most persons who study learning and learning behavior
believe that there is not just one mental aptitude, but many. Experts discovered
long ago that an individual who has strong verbal abilities may or may not
have good mathematics abilities. Likewise, the person who is recognized as a
good writer may not seem to be very skillful when speaking aloud. Their
oral aptitude may not match their writing aptitude because the two capacities
require different skills and mental abilities. The exact number of different
mental abilities is not known, though some experts believe there are many,
Theories of training !'
not just a few. This is an area of ongoing research, and there is still much to
be discovered on the subject of learning types.
Cognitive learning
The first of the domains mentioned, and possibly the most familiar, is
cognitive learning. Cognitive learning requires individuals to “internalize”
facts and information. Leaning this information might take the form of simple
memorization—how to spell a name or the capital cities of Asian nations. It
might also mean gaining an understanding of concepts in which ideas are
connected in some way, for example spatially or by some type of ordered
relationship. Psychologists have studied cognitive abilities for about a century,
but many questions still remain. Technically speaking, cognition is considered
to be any kind of ability in which mental abstractions (words, propositions,
images and the like) of information can be processed and used. Intelligent
learners are better able to process the abstraction and to do so quickly.
Interestingly, it has become well accepted among researchers that the way
human brains carry out cognitive tasks varies greatly from one culture to
another. Even in similar cultures, for instance ones in Western Europe, tests
meant to measure cognitive learning abilities in one society are known to be
unable to measure the trait accurately in others. People who show high levels
of cognitive learning may succeed in the academic setting but may not show
higher levels of ability in daily work situations or in coping with common
life challenges.
Training in the cognitive domain stresses improvements in the quality of

thinking activities by moving learners toward achievement of goals. The
trainer’s role is one of adjusting the learning situation to enhance the pace of
learning and to arrange the sequence of learning points to suit the material
being presented. Simplification and organization are keys to enhancement
of learning in cognitive training. Many trainers also focus their attention on
building strong motivation into the learning exercise—typically through
tactics such as gaming and competition, structured recognition and reward
systems, and the like. Other trainers emphasize the importance of making
the learning engaging, especially through the use of puzzles and other
intellectual challenges to the learner. In the end, the learner controls most of
the factors that influence the success of training. Learners must be encouraged
" Training of Trainers
to set their own objectives and to strive for these goals. In a positive learning
environment, these goals are influenced by the successes of others in the
training group and by the leadership of the trainer.
One of the most common types of abstractions included within the

domain of cognition is the ability to learn or “memorize” meanings and
associations of words. This can include what words mean, lists of words, and
so on. It includes any other kind of learning that involves acquiring facts and
knowledge. Facts not only mean numbers and words, the kinds of things we
normally think of memorizing, but the way that something looks—its color
and appearance. It can include sounds, and other types of impressions that
our senses give us. Cognition might involve such things as the steps in
troubleshooting a piece of equipment, the proper way to light a set, the
procedures for filing budgets in our organization, and so on. Beyond mere
memorization, cognitive learning also involves problem-solving, decision-
making, and explanation. These are obviously complex processes, but we can
generally define a series of steps required in each. Take, for example, problem
solving. First, must come an awakening of interest in the problem, then a
review of the issues, an analysis of the problem, tentative formulation of
explanations or solutions, weighing of these options, and finally selection of
the best option. This is then followed by some kind of evaluation as the
option is exercised—in other words asking, does the solution work as expected?
Learning and memory

As a side aspect of cognitive learning, it must be recognized that the way
human brains process information apparently has three modes: short-term
memory (also called working memory), long-term memory, and sensory
memory. Short-term learning is the memorization of information to be
retained for relatively short periods of time. The time may be just seconds,
or at most minutes, before learning is lost if it is retained only in short-term
memory. This may seem to be a problem for trainers, but it actually can be
an advantage. Suppose your memory was cluttered with long-unused names,
facts, and other trivia. It is really better to remember some things only long
enough to use them, then they should be discarded. For instance, suppose
you wanted to make a telephone call to schedule an appointment. You would
look up the number and quickly memorize the number, then dial it. Ten
Theories of training "
minutes later, you would not be able recall the number. Dropping items
from memory that serve no further purpose avoids the mental jumble that
might otherwise accumulate.
Long-term memory is used to retain important and useful information

for long periods, perhaps for years, decades, or a lifetime. Even in long-term
memory, our brains are constantly culling through the items stored to find
ones that can be discarded. For example, can you recall your family’s telephone
number used when you were a child? When you were a youngster that
telephone number was important, and you made use of it often enough to
retain it in long-term memory. But today you may not use the number any
longer or it may have changed. Retaining in memory an obsolete telephone
number has no purpose, so perhaps you have moved it out of long-term
memory. And even if so, you probably would have no difficulty recalling the
appearance of your childhood house (its color, size, the arrangement of rooms,
etc) because these facts stored in long-term memory are still relevant to your
life due to their personal significance.
We do need to keep some information indefinitely, of course. It appears

that information to be stored in long-term memory must first be processed
through short-term memory. Our brains have the capacity to shift learning
from short-term learning into long-term storage when needed. Clearly, the
task of trainers is to ensure that learning is not just temporarily stored in
short-term memory, but moved onward into long-term memory. Training is
of little merit if all we can do is enhance knowledge of information for short
periods of time. Unlike long-term memory, short-term memory has a limited
capacity. Try to memorize a list of random words. The difficulty of this
learning task rises as the number of words is increased until finally the capacity
of short-term memory is reached and you cannot memorize the entire list.
Research has shown that about seven (give or take two) bits of information
are about all that can be held in short-term memory. In training, the need to
pass information through this limited memory storage poses a problem. Short-
term memory acts as a bottleneck and forces us to rely on special tactics to
ensure transfer to long-term memory. One approach is to “chunk” information
or to combine together bits of information so that they can be stored as one.
An example of this is to use a mental cue such as “SMARTE” (see section six
" Training of Trainers
for an explanation of this) to internalize a list of learning points. Another

tactic is called rehearsal. This is where the item in short-term memory is
restated again and again to hold it there until it can be transferred to long-
term memory. But remember that even if we succeed in moving cognitive
learning from short-term to long-term memory, there is no guarantee it will
remain there. Because our minds are constantly looking for ways of discarding
information no longer needed, we may forget learning unless it is regularly
used.
The main goal of cognitive training is to provide our learners the

knowledge necessary to carry out their functions in the workplace. There are
several problems we have to overcome in order to be successful in this type
of training. First is the problem just mentioned—making certain that the
learning is moved from short-term to long-term memory. There are several
ways to combat that problem; each involves making the knowledge more
memorable. One way is to link the learning to knowledge that learners already
have internalized. If your learning extends knowledge already in long-term
memory, it is more likely to be retained in long-term memory too. Another
solution is to link the learning to something that is unusual or odd. The use
of peculiar audio visual aids, or presentations that contain surprises or other
unusual features seem to help people retain knowledge longer. In the end,
there is no substitute for repetition of the learning. Repeating material helps
freshen the learning in short-term memory, eventually leading to its transfer
to long-term memory. This works best if the trainer varies the way repetition
occurs. If the training reviews material already presented offering slightly
different explanations, different examples, different ways of understanding
the topic, it not only makes the material more interesting, it speeds the
conversion to long-term memory. Fortunately, our long-term memory appears
to have an unlimited capacity, so we need not worry about overloading our
learning processes. Also, the commonly-held belief that learning capabilities
decline with age has not been verified by research. Many experts think that
learning in healthy adults can continue to an indefinite age, though research
is still underway on this.
The third category of memory, sensory memory, is used when information

is registered by our senses: touch, hearing, smell, vision, and taste. This
Theories of training "!
memory is very short-term, often lasting less than one second. To see how
this type of memory works, close your eyes. Wait for a few seconds, then
blink your eyes open for just a moment. Note that the image from your eyes
remained for a fraction of a second after your eyes closed again—sensory
memory provided that brief glimpse of the image after the visual stimuli
disappeared. This kind of memory is important from a physiological point
of view but does not seem to have a significant role in training.
Psychomotor skills
There are some tasks that require a different sort of “memorization.” Take,
for instance, the skill of riding a bicycle. One can easily know and understand
what is required to keep a bicycle upright, yet be unable to ride a bicycle.
Training learners to pedal and steer the bicycle so that they remain upright
is an experience shared by practically every parent. Consider what is expected
in this learning task. This skill demands more than cognitive knowledge, it
also requires an ability to use muscles in a very particular way, a way that is
not necessarily “natural.” The learning that is necessary to accomplish tasks
such as bicycle riding, playing football, or driving an automobile employ
special physical abilities. These are called psychomotor skills, although
sometimes they are also known as sensorimotor, perceptual-motor, or simply
motor skills. Abilities such as these are associated with the sensory and motor
segments of the brain’s cortex. Other examples of psychomotor skills are
keyboard touch typing, playing a musical instrument, and swimming. In the
realm of broadcasting, tasks such as loading film cameras, news reading, and
operating an audio mixer, all require the development of psychomotor skills.
It should come as no surprise that because development of psychomotor

skills is so different from cognitive learning, the training required must be
different as well. Learning a skill such as playing a piano cannot be
accomplished in a lecture hall; it has to be achieved while seated at a keyboard,
playing and playing, again and again. Knowing how to play a piano is only
the start of becoming a pianist; it must also involve honing one’s physical
abilities so that pressing the keys (and the pedals) produces music of pleasing
quality. Motor skills training aims to refine a person’s ability to produce
coordinated muscular movements that are governed by signals he or she picks
up from the environment. That is to say, the learner acquires the ability to
"" Training of Trainers
sense needed movements and to match his or her muscular response so as to

produce those movements. Pianists listen intently to their music in order to
determine how they should move their hands and fingers to produce the
desired sounds. In building psychomotor skills, training focuses on
demonstration and repetition of the specific physical actions necessary to
perform tasks. This means that learners must acquire the ability to observe
their own physical movements and to analyze and interpret them properly
so as to correct and enhance their performance.
There are several characteristics of psychomotor skills learning that

distinguish this type of training from others. First, the trainer ordinarily
operates in a one-on-one mode with the learner. The trainer must work
directly with only a single individual. It is not generally possible to work
with an entire group at once. It may be possible to have a group of trainees
working on their skills individually within the same room, and the trainer
may be able to move from person to person, working with each one in turn.
But the basic need in psychomotor training is to provide observation and
feedback on an individual basis. Secondly, the kind of feedback given each
learner is in the form of “coaching,” to direct the trainee toward improved
physical mastery of skills. Conventionally, this follows the model in which
the performance is observed, the trainer looks for discrepancies, then advises
on how to correct these deficiencies, and the trainees repeats the performance.
This leads to another round of observation and correction, and so on. Progress
in learning is often uneven, with learners’ abilities frequently reaching a plateau
or even declining before showing improvement. Direct sensory feedback plays
a big role in this type of learning too. This occurs when the learner can observe
his own behavior and then determine for himself what corrections are needed
to reach the expected level of performance. For example, good pianists learn
to improve their performance by listening to their own playing.
An interesting aspect of psychomotor skills is that once internalized, they

remain a “learned” skill thereafter regardless of the passage of time. Such
skills can be retained for years without regular use. Imagine what might
happen if you tried to ride a bicycle after years of not using one. Your attempts
would be awkward at first and you would seem a bit unsteady, but you should
be able to keep the bicycle upright without too much difficulty. And if you
Theories of training "#
rode the bicycle each day for a week or two, your skills would have returned
to nearly the same level as when your abilities were at their peak. Hence you
did not “forget” the skill entirely and with just a little practice you would be
able to restore most of your abilities in a short time. Recapturing that level
of performance required only a small fraction of the effort that was needed
to achieve it the first time.
In some ways, the demands of learning psychomotor skills impose fewer

burdens on the trainer than other types of training. The performance is usually
easy to observe and therefore judgments about it are easy to make. There
need be little guessing about what the trainee is thinking, or about
procedures—if the performance matches the standard required, that is usually
sufficient. The main factors that seem to influence psychomotor skills learning
are motivation and the presence of accurate feedback about performance. Of
course, as in all types of learning a significant determinant of learning capacity
is purely genetic. Not all of us can become great pianists; some people are
simply born with more talent for a specific skill than others. But an individual
lacking abilities in one physical performance does not mean all other
psychomotor skills are deficient as well. A person who plays the piano poorly
might have great skills as a swimmer.
Attitudes
The training of attitudes is the third and final domain of learning. We define
attitudes as the tendency to think and behave in persistent patterns according
to one’s predisposition toward events, objects, persons, organizations, and so
on. Attitudes are closely related to the concepts of opinion, sentiment, and
beliefs. Most experts argue that the concept of attitudes is broader than mere
opinion or beliefs. Attitudes refer to a consistent way of thinking about a
general group of things, whereas opinion and beliefs are limited to a specific
situation or thing. The concept of sentiment is even more expansive and less
well defined than attitudes. Another word often used to describe this category
of learning is affect, though this is usually taken to mean something somewhat
different. Affect refers to any mood, feeling, or emotion that influences
behavior. It is a technical term borrowed from the field of psychology. In
practice, the term refers to the states of mind that cause a person to behave
in certain predictable ways. Moods, feelings, or emotions might not seem to
"$ Training of Trainers
be the kinds of things that a trainer ought to be concerned with, but these
can be extremely important aspects of the way people carry out their work
and in the way people react to events in the workplace. For this reason, it is a
facet of human behavior that deserves attention in training programs.
Attitudes influence behavior in many important ways. If we have negative

attitudes toward our work organization, we will surely perform less effectively
than if our attitudes are positive. Creating a positive atmosphere in the
workplace is an important aspect of attitude training. More specifically,
attitudes play a role in aspects of work such as punctuality, safety
consciousness, performance accuracy, and motivation. All of these can be
influenced by training aimed at attitude development or attitude modification.
Consider the issue of safety consciousness. This is undeniably important in
every job setting; we all want our staff members to be able to work without
worry of safety threats and to work in a way that ensures safe conditions.
Few people would disagree with the proposition that safety is highly desirable
in the workplace, yet some persons knowingly behave in ways that compromise
safety. Attitude training about safety can raise consciousness of the importance
of safety issues and promote positive attitudes that lead to safer behaviors on
the job.
Among the three modes of learning, training of attitudes is usually thought

to present the greatest challenge. The chief problem faced in attitude training
is that a person’s attitudes are internal states. A trainer cannot directly observe
the attitudes of learners. At best, they can be seen indirectly through behaviors
that suggest individuals’ internal states of mind. Although this is also the
way cognitive learning is assessed, the means for making attitudes observable
are not so easy to construct as ones for cognition. Usually, evidence about
attitudes is built through questionnaires, though it is possible to infer attitudes
from other kinds of behavior or from physiological measures such as heart
rate or Galvanic Skin Response (commonly known as lie detectors). Broadly
speaking, human beings tend to be shy about exposing their attitudes to others.
This is especially true if a person’s attitudes are considered unpopular or likely
to arouse suspicion. In such situations, individuals tend to hide their attitudes
or to send misleading signals about their true feelings. All this may be done
unconsciously. Attitudes are elusive and not easily understood, either by the
Theories of training "%
person holding them or others who observe them. Most people are not fully
aware of their own attitudes, and they seldom reflect on their states of mind.
Even if we do weigh our attitudes on a particular topic, we may not accurately
judge them.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of training in this domain is that firmly
established attitudes are not easily changed. Training over a period of a few
weeks cannot possibly alter attitudes that have been formed over a lifetime.
As a matter of fact, the definition of an attitude is an enduring pattern of
thinking about a subject. So, if an attitude truly is enduring, it must be
resistant to rapid or casual changes. For this reason, there is a big difference
in the strategies employed for attitude formation and for attitude revision.
Establishing a new attitude on a subject where no previous attitude was held
may only involve building a clear and compelling justification for the new
attitude. Bringing about a change in already held attitudes requires trainers
to first offer convincing arguments against attitudes held and then arguments
in favor of the new attitude.
This sounds simple, but
it is actually quite
difficult. The entire
exercise is based upon an appeal
to logic, but as we well know,
people do not always behave
rationally. If people were truly
rational, they would not drive
automobiles recklessly, smoke
cigarettes, or engage in other
types of risky behavior.
Psychologists also have noted a factor called “instrumentality” in shaping

our willingness to modify attitudes. Instrumentality refers to extent to which
a thing or subject is valued by individuals. Changing your opinion on a topic
of little importance to you will be easier than changing your opinion on a
matter that you consider of great significance. It would probably be easier to
convince you to change the brand of your toothpaste than it would be to
convince you to change your attitudes toward members of your family or to
"& Training of Trainers
change your views on political matters. The latter subjects are ones that are
at the very core of our identity as humans and therefore matter a great deal
to us. We are unlikely to modify our beliefs on those matters, but our brand
of toothpaste is something that counts for little either from a psychological
point of view or from a practical perspective.
SECTION FOUR
Training
objectives
SECTION FOUR
Training objectives
I
n the following pages a comprehensive system of designing training
programs will be described. Generally, the methods outlined here follow
the principles of a concept known as Training by Objectives (TBO).
This system is closely related to the procedures of Learning by Objectives
(LBO) and its related offshoots. In a distant way, it is also related to the
more well-known Management by Objectives (MBO) concept. What all these
have in common is the point of view that any activity must be guided by the
end result one is working toward. This seems such an obvious idea that it
hardly bears mentioning, but losing sight of a project’s goal is such a common
occurrence that these systems were developed to keep projects “on track.”
Additional terms for this model of training are Criterion Referenced Learning
(CRL) or Criterion Referenced Training (CRT). We prefer the former term
(CRL) because it directs attention to learning rather than training; it is the
learning of trainees that matters most after all, not the instructional activity
of trainers. The terminology stems from the idea training must be measured
(or referenced) against a specified result (or criterion).
The training by objectives model was built upon systems analysis thinking,
and was originally offered as a “scientific” way of organizing programs to
make the somewhat unpredictable nature of developing human resources more
methodical. Systems analysis attempts to apply principles of logic to complex,
overlapping, and interactive processes such as training. This is done as one
way of making them more sensible and reliable. Indeed, all types of objectives-
based processes emphasize predictability and consistency, and these are
considered their chief benefits. Systems analysis attempts to reduce the
difficulties in understanding complex systems by reducing major portions of
processes to simple “black boxes.” The purpose of simplifying them is to
make them easier to understand and to reduce confusion that might result if
one tried to comprehend at once the complicated inner working of the
processes. By shifting our attention from the complex interior aspects to
features visible from the outside, we can more fully grasp outlines of the
whole process.
Systems analysis shrinks entire processes into an examination of “inputs”

and “outputs.” Inputs to a process consist of all the resources necessary for
the process to operate. These include tangible assets such as raw materials,
but can also be intangible resources such as information or ideas. Outputs are
the finished products produced by processes. Once again, outputs can be
tangible or intangible results. The process is made up of all those activities
that work with the inputs to produce the outputs. In systems analysis, there
is usually an additional part of the entire “system.” It is a comparative phase
that describes the difference between the input and the output. This permits
adjustments in the process so that the outputs of the system can be evaluated
and adjustments made either in the inputs or in the processes. Through
evaluation the “improvements” produced by the process can be optimized.
Suppose we wished to describe an automobile factory in systems analysis terms.
The inputs would be made up of all the parts that go into the finished autos,
plastic, metal, rubber, fabric, and so on. Other inputs would include human
workers, financial resources, and physical plant (the buildings and equipment).
The outputs would be the finished automobiles. The purpose of a systems
analysis is to produce the best possible finished products (automobiles) using
the least resources (inputs). The comparison of inputs and outputs will allow
managers to adjust the processes so as to achieve the optimum operation.
Getting bogged down in details is a common problem in training. One

important advantage of a systems analysis perspective is that one is forced to
take the longer, wider view of the organization, focusing less on the specific
technicalities. The issue is not “how” or “why” things get done, rather “just
getting the job done properly.” When applied to training, a systems analysis
begins with an examination of the input to the training process. While there
are many inputs—trainers, facilities, training materials, and the like—the
key element is the training need analysis. The training needs define the work
to be achieved in the “process” of training. These are then laid out in training
objectives, in keeping with procedures described in section two. The process,
of course, is the prescribed training program, designed to answer the issues
raised by the training needs analysis. The outputs of the process are the trained
personnel. Evaluation of the abilities of trainees following their training
programs will reveal whether the objectives spelled out earlier have been met.
In order for this approach to work the results of the evaluation must be used
to adjust the training process and to revise the formulation of objectives.
Feeding back information about the successes and failures of training to the
needs analysis phase improves the effectiveness of training. Continual
adjustment in the processes of training keeps the training from becoming
static, allowing it to be refined to achieve optimum results.
Some experts refer to this model as a “cybernetic system” of training. It is

made up of four key phases: 1) training needs analysis, 2) the training program,
3) training program evaluation, and 4) feedback. The main advantage of this
model is that it produces reliable results. If there are changes in the inputs,
for example in the performance levels of trainees, the evaluation and feedback
stages permit rapid adjustment of training programs so that objectives can
continue to be met. Predictability gives managers clear expectations so they
can make plans with confidence that intended results will be obtained.
It may not be evident why objectives are necessary. After collecting

information in the training needs analysis, it might seem perfectly clear what
skills and knowledge are lacking. But, even when the needs seem clear, the
particulars must be studied. When the TNA exercise is finished, care has to
be exercised to ensure that training will actually correct deficiencies identified.
Writing training objectives in an orderly and rigorous manner provides a
discipline and enforces on the trainers the requirement to deeply analyze the
conditions found in the workplace. Much training is wasted due to a poor
match between needs and the kind of training actually delivered. This can
be largely avoided through a meticulous and reflective approach to the
construction of writing objectives. Training objectives are not only for the
use of the trainer, but for the trainees too. They need to fully understand the
aims of training in order for them to be committed to the work and to its
goals.
Good objectives produce a surprising range of positive results. Of course

objectives focus training, giving a sharply defined purpose to the activity.
The clarity of detailed objectives avoids misunderstandings and it also helps
reduce the likelihood of oversights or gaps in the training program. Beyond
this, objectives provide additional, often more subtle, benefits. Just a few can
be mentioned here. First, objectives provide consistent outcomes. This can
be an important consideration in large training organizations where a number
of different trainers might be responsible for different groups of learners in
the same training activity. By working with the same objectives, each trainer
can be confident that all groups will achieve the same, or at least similar,
results. To be sure, different people will have different approaches to training
on any given topic, but this hardly matters as long as the final results are
comparable. Because the aims of training are spelled out in objectives, it
becomes easier to select the best training strategies—what sequencing of topics
will work best or what media can support the training, for example. Even
training exercises and practical projects become easier to specify when the
objectives are properly laid out. If the objectives are properly constructed,
the timing of different parts of the curriculum will be easier to estimate. In
most training activities, scheduling assumes a significant portion of the
planner’s responsibilities. Courses have to begin and end at predetermined
dates, and seldom is there an opportunity for adjusting length or timing once
training is underway.
Objectives also provide a rational basis for the evaluation of training. In

effect, objectives set up the measures through which effectiveness of training
can be judged. If trainees meet the standards proposed in the objectives, then
it is reasonable for the activity to be viewed as a success. (Of course, this

assumes that the objectives are suitable for the training needs identified in
the TNA; it is quite possible to have a training failure that stems from a
faulty needs analysis.) Learning objectives make training evaluation more
“objective” (no pun intended), because the assessment of the program is tied
to what it set out to do in the beginning, not some arbitrarily chosen set of
criteria.
Five questions to answer
Construction of a set of training objectives must be based upon results of the

training needs analysis. A vital outcome of the TNA is a report that
characterizes performance discrepancies, as described in an earlier section.
These performance discrepancies represent the difference between expected
work outcomes and the work results that were actually obtained. George
Odiorne described two kinds of training objectives that flow from training
needs analyses. First are objectives that restore the status quo. In these cases,
something has caused deviation from accepted norms, a deviation sufficiently
serious to provoke action. Training thus is required to restore conditions to
the norm. The second type of objective includes ones that are meant to be
innovative or to produce a breakthrough to a new, higher level of excellence.
Both motives can be considered solutions for problems. Even though a
problem might not seem the proper way to view these needs, that is actually
what they are—the organization has a person or groups of persons whose
abilities do not measure up to its requirements. This is definitely a problem!
In developing training objectives to correct such “problems,” start by

sketching out the answers to five questions:
(1) What are the present levels of performance or specific conditions?
The answer to this question should clearly state what is actually going on
in the workplace. The more specific and the more simply stated the
problem, the easier it will be to transcribe the ideas into objectives. The
statement can be in plain language, perhaps no longer than one or two
sentences. Example: “A new digital editing system will be in place within

two months and staff need to be proficient in use of the new software
and hardware.”
(2) What are the desired levels of performance or specific conditions?
Again, in a minimum of words, state the results that need to be achieved

by training. The results desired must be realistic, given the resources and
time likely to be allocated for training. At this stage, reflect on whether
the desired levels are ones that training is likely to attain. Example: “Skills
on the digital editing system must be at least equivalent to current ones
and must be achieved well in advance of implementation so that the
transition will be smooth and seamless, with no interruption to
productions.”
(3) Nature and size of the group to be trained.
Who is to be trained will determine the sort of training objectives that

are necessary. The size of the training group might also be a factor in
how objectives are formulated. The nature of the group can include any
aspect that might influence the state of knowledge, maturity, inherent
abilities, or motivation. Example: “ Editors number about eleven, mostly
mid-career staff, including a mix of men and women with secondary school
education, but a few with university degrees.”
(4) What are the benefits that will be realized if training is successful?
State clearly what positive things will occur to the organization, if training
achieves its desired result. Keep in mind that training is primarily intended
to enhance the organization, not individuals, the public, the state or some
other equally deserving but irrelevant party. Being clear about the
consequences that are intended will help give objectives more impact.
Example: “Viewers will be unaware of the new editor when it is put in
place, except that the video quality will be noticeably better.”
(5) How will the changes in staff capability be measured?
It is important that changes expected to occur through training are

properly documented. A training department needs to be accountable
for its programs, and this means that training must be evaluated. Write a
few notes about possible ways of assessing the outcome of training.
Example: “Production department discrepancy report totals will remain
unchanged or decline following training. Evaluation of edited features
will show an increase in technical quality and no decrease in production
values.”
Selecting performance levels
Answers to the questions just asked will sharpen the objectives presented
in training programs. Even with the focused objectives, another issue remains
to be considered—at what level should the training be targeted? Matching
the objectives to the job needs necessitates a judgment about how much
improvement in performance is required. Usually this takes the form of some
type of cost vs. benefit analysis. Two kinds of errors can occur at this stage—
formulating objectives that call for performance that exceed job requirements,
or ones that call for performance that do not meet job requirements. To
solve these problems training planners need to continually refer back to the
TNA during the development of training objectives.
Will trainees who meet the objectives fully qualify for the jobs they are
expected to do? Supervisors usually expect trainees to step into positions ready
to go to work, possibly with a brief orientation on-the-job training session.
If trainees do not meet the requirements, who do you think will be blamed?
The fault undoubtedly will be assigned to the trainer or the training program.
To avoid an instance of this sort, it is important to first be certain that the
objectives really do address the needs identified in the needs analysis. Then
it is prudent to involve supervisors and other managers in verifying that the
objectives do indeed satisfy their requirements. Doing this avoids unpleasant
misunderstandings later on. This is not only a defense strategy, supervisors
can offer a valuable external check on the decisions being made in the planning
process. Having the opinion of another person not involved in training

frequently adds another valuable dimension to planning.
Will trainees actually be learning more than is required on their jobs? At

first glance this might seem to be a small problem; extra learning might
contribute in some vague way to the quality of the training, one might think.
But is important to recall that learning which cannot be used soon after
training is seldom retained.
Writing objectives
The answers you developed in the exercise just described should be kept close
at hand as you work your way through the objective drafting exercise. They
can provide a roadmap as you weigh different alternatives open to you as the
planner of this training exercise. In the explanation to follow keep in mind
that our main concern is with what the learner will be able to do, not what
the trainer is going to instruct or teach. This is the basic philosophy of learner
centered training, which you‘ve probably already discovered is an organizing
principle of this manual. Planning and training should revolve around the
trainees’ needs, not the trainer’s.
Examine your answer to the second question in the preceding section

“What are the desired levels of performance or specific conditions?” These
serve as reference points you can use in preparing objectives. It explains what
you expect of your trainees once the training is completed. Only after you
have developed a set of objectives can the plan take up the procedures, content,
and methods related to those objectives. These methods are ones that cause
the trainee to deal with the appropriate subject matter in accordance with
the principles of adult learning, and the methods eventually lead to an
evaluation of the trainee’s performance against those specified objectives.
Think of these objectives as a destination. It is impossible to choose the best
route to the end of your journey until you know what the exact destination
is. If you don’t know what your destination is, then anyplace will do! So if
you hope to efficiently achieve training objectives, you must first be sure
that the objectives are stated clearly and unambiguously.
First, a definition: An objective is an intent communicated by a statement

describing a proposed change in a learner. The statement should describe
what the trained person will be like when the training is completed. It should
describe a pattern of behavior (that is, performance level) the trainee will
demonstrate. Without a suitable objective it is impossible to evaluate a course
or training program properly. There is no proper basis for selecting
participants, determining contents, choosing instructional methods, materials,
or facilities. In short, it is impossible to make any useful plan until the
objectives have been finalized. This, for example, is like the technician, who
will first find out what has to be done before selecting tools to do the job. If
you don’t do this, you will waste a lot of time, effort, money, and you may
not achieve anything worthwhile.
Another very important point about sharply defined objectives is that

they provide you with a standard against which one can measure the learner’s
performance. Objectives allow trainers to determine whether trainees are able
to perform in a desired manner. If evaluation is to be really useful, it must
measure performance against the objectives. This also allows trainees to
measure their own progress toward the desired level of performance. If trainees
know and understand objectives, they can assist the trainer in working toward
the objectives. Of course, as noted earlier, the objectives must be realistic. It
must be possible for the participants nominated to training to reach the desired
performance standard within the time allocated for training. Unrealistic
objectives can be counterproductive; trainees won’t put forth satisfactory effort

if they feel objectives cannot be met reasonably.
The learner centered approach requires that the training plan be built
upon the everyday working requirements of each person’s job. This means
that the training must reflect—or even better—simulate the actual job
situation. This aim can be accomplished by ensuring that the objectives fit
within working conditions the planner found in the training needs analysis.
Good training objectives should enable participants to imagine how they will
perform on the job once training is completed. They understand what is
expected, and they can see how the behavioral changes will be evident in the
workplace. Behavior is the proper term here; every training program is meant
to alter in some important way how people behave in their jobs.
Now, another definition: Learning is a change in observable behavior that

occurs as a result of experience. This definition has two key elements,
observation and experience. All learning of interest to trainers must result in
tangible behavior changes; people should be able to see those changes. At
first, one might think it possible that training could result in internal changes
among learners and thus might not be visible to others. But the reasoning
here is that unless those internal changes affect in some fashion the way people
act on the job, then they cannot be important. Internal changes may matter
to the person receiving training, but if we cannot observe the result, it cannot
have any significant impact on job performance. Granted, some changes
produced by training have to be observed indirectly. If, for instance, training
objectives call for changed attitudes, they will be observable through the new
behavior that occurs because of the changed attitudes.
A further definition: Behavior is (for purposes of training, at least) the

observable and measurable activity of a learner. As trainers we need to be
able to see (observe) the behavior that is to be altered by training. Otherwise
how could we tell if learning is taking place? And we must not only be able
to see the behavior, we must be able to gauge how well that behavior conforms
to our objectives. Moreover, as training proceeds we will want to be able to
judge whether progress is being made toward the objective and to determine
how quickly progress is being made. If we can see that progress is being made,
we would want to continue training. When progress stops, some adjustment

in training must be made to restart learning and to continue moving toward
the training objectives. If objectives are correctly formulated they should
contain information about how behavior can be measured. If our objective is
to be able to operate a digital audio tape recorder in a particular way, we
should be able to decide whether our training has met its objective. We would
make that judgment on the basis of our trainees’ performance, and we would
be able to judge the readiness of trainees according to the standards set up
for the training.
Can learning occur that is not observable? Yes, of course. But here is the
issue for training: We are interested in changing the way people do their
jobs; if training is to be of any value, it must alter job performance for this
better, and this certainly will be observable. It is quite possible for one to
learn something that never results in new or different behavior. Make no
mistake, this can be real learning; but in training terms, such learning is
considered wasted because it does not influence job effectiveness. Suppose a
trainee memorized a list of random words. Being able to recall the list would
represent genuine learning, but of what use would it be?
Another way of describing a training objective is as a statement that

precisely and completely defines behaviors the trainee will exhibit at the end
of training. The precision is required to make certain everyone included in
the training exercise—the trainer, the trainees, the sponsoring organization,
supervisors, managers, in short all parties who might have a stake in the
outcome of training—understands exactly what the training is expected to
produce. As already stated, the trainees need to have a clear picture of what
is expected in order for them to participate in meeting the objectives. If the
trainees do not know what trainers want, they can’t contribute as successfully
to meeting those goals. Objectives also must state the complete aims of the
training exercise. This point is a reminder to identify even those facets that
might be assumed or taken for granted. Every single intended behavior change
must be spelled out in objectives.
Training objectives must follow a definite, highly precise format to

conform to professional practices and to match the philosophy of the “training
by objectives” model mentioned earlier. According to this approach, each

objective must contain three distinct elements. Those three are: 1) terminal
behavior, 2) conditions, and 3) standards. As a rule, all three are contained
within the single sentence that makes up a training objective. A training
program should have a list of objectives laid out in this format, perhaps as
many as five to ten, as the training activity begins.
Terminal behaviors set out in objectives are descriptive terms that define
the capabilities intended to be achieved at the end of training. It is what the
trainee will be able to do when training is finished. The words used to describe
terminal behavior must be observable and measurable in order to be
appropriate for training purposes. This requirement is necessary so that the
behavior can be assessed appropriately—if one cannot see clearly and judge
the behavior, then one cannot be certain when or if the objective has been
met. By measure we do not mean that the behavior must literally be judged
by a numeric scale, but that it should be described in actions that can be
gauged or classified easily.
The conditions included within objectives are the circumstances under

which the terminal behavior must be evident. Generally, the conditions are
needed to spell out the exact situation surrounding the behavior, including
every single factor that might modify the behavior’s performance. For instance,
an objective for training a track sprinter might include as conditions “without
wind assistance,” or “wearing spiked track shoes,” or “on a grass track.” The
conditions within an objective provide a set of rules under which the terminal
behavior must be performed by the trainees. Finally, to restate and emphasize
the point remember that any aspect of the setting that might affect not only
the quality but the manner in which trainees demonstrate their learning should
be identified and described in the training objective. Suppose trainees are
expected to perform under time limitations, or suppose learners must act
out their terminal behavior under adverse physical conditions (inclement
weather, poor facilities, or distractions), these too should be specified as
conditions within objectives.
The standard refers to the performance level or quality expected to be

achieved at the end of training. This also is often called the “criterion,” or
the rule or test by which qualities of the performance can be judged. As

described earlier, this is what is meant by criterion referenced learning or
training. The standard provides a precision and clarity sufficient to make it
possible for the trainer to determine positively when the objective has been
met satisfactorily. Because the terminal behavior must be observable and
measurable, the standard defines the exact measured stage, caliber, stage,
number, height, length, or other quality of whatever behavior is the subject
of training. Once the standard has been met under terms laid out in the
conditions, the training objective is determined to be fulfilled and the training
work can move on.
A few examples might help illustrate how suitable objectives are devised.
Consider as an objective “to be able to ride a bicycle without assistance and
without placing a foot on the ground a distance of 300 meters on a macadam
or concrete roadway.” An experienced trainer should be able to pick out the
terminal behavior, conditions and standard with ease. The terminal behavior
in this objective is to “ride a bicycle.” The standard is “without placing a
foot on the ground” and “a distance of 300 meters.” And the conditions are
“macadam or concrete roadway” and “without assistance.” The term “without
assistance” might alternatively be interpreted as a standard, though it is
probably best described as a condition. To have a degree of doubt about
whether a term represents a standard or a condition is not uncommon, and
should not be a concern. In this example, the main point is that the bicycle
must be ridden without any assistance, by which we suppose is meant without
the aid of another person holding the rider steady. You probably learned to
ride a bicycle by having a person hold you upright while you pedaled.
Eventually, you developed your motor skills sufficiently to be able to ride
without the prop provided by another person and you could ride away
unaided. At this point you truly were riding a bicycle on your own.
Consider the objective “to understand the principles of writing objectives

so that objectives will be written clearly and precisely.” This objective is similar
to ones sometimes found in training programs, but it has defects that will
pose real difficulties for trainers. First, what is the terminal behavior? As
written, the terminal behavior called for in this example is “to understand
the principles of writing objectives.” The problem here is that understanding
is a behavior that is definitely not observable and it is probably not measurable.

Understanding is an internal state that cannot be seen directly, though it
could be argued that it might be observed indirectly through other behaviors.
Even if this were true, it would be much better to describe the behavior in
terms that can be observed. In this example, observable behaviors would be
those that would be affected by understanding of the principles of writing
objectives. Therefore, it would be preferable to devise an objective along the
lines of “to be able to write objectives containing terminal behaviors,
conditions, and standards . . .” We can safely assume that if the trainees have
the ability to write properly constructed objectives, they must possess
understanding of the “principles of writing objectives.” Or if they do not
understand, but they can write objectives properly, then what possible
difference can it make? There is a second problem with the objective in this
example. It has no conditions. This implies the behavior should be performed
at any time anywhere and under any conditions. This is probably not
reasonable, so the conditions really ought to be added. The terms “clearly
and precisely” are, of course, standards. Though in this example the trainer
has considerable latitude in interpreting the meaning of clearly and precisely,
in many situations terms like these may be the best that can be formulated.
The failure to use behaviors that can be directly observed is probably the
most common error in the construction of training objectives. Vague terms
compound the problem greatly, too. Take as an example the expression “to
improve the ability to edit news copy “incorporated as part of a training
objective. This expression can—and undoubtedly will be—interpreted
differently by various persons involved in training. How much improvement
is enough? What is improvement? How can improvement be measured? All
these questions are encouraged by the lack of specificity in the statement. It
is possible to correct this shortcoming by adding clauses that pin down exactly
what the training is expected to do. For example, the objective could be
rewritten as “to improve the ability to edit radio news copy so that stories’
meanings are clear to the average listener.” This does seem to be a better
objective, be we are still left with question. What is meant by clear? What is
clear enough? And who is an average listener? The addition of the radio
specification is helpful—knowing the medium for which the news copy will
be written aids the trainer in knowing what kind of editing will be required
because editing practices are different in radio as compared with, say,

newspapers.
Here is another objective for illustration and study: “to know how to
compute current flow correctly in a circuit based upon Ohm’s law.” This
objective is like the objective presented in the previous example. The terminal
behavior is clear, but again it lacks qualities that permit it to be observed and
measured. How can one observe what another person knows? It is impossible
to detect what another person knows by direct observation; knowing is an
internal state that may not have any external indicators. Most people do not
give visible clues about their inner thoughts, unless something causes them
to exhibit behaviors that betray their thinking. Here is a simple way of
determining whether the terminal behavior is suitable. Note that in all cases
the word that describes the terminal behavior is a verb—knowing,
understanding, and riding, as in the examples here. Verbs can be active or
not, but since we want to observe the behavior, we require that the verb be
active. In drafting training objectives, always make certain that the word used
to describe the terminal behavior is a verb and that it is active; choose words
such as writing, riding, or selecting rather than understanding, thinking, or
knowing. Continuing with the analysis of this training objective, can you
pick out the standard? It is “correctly” of course. Words like correctly,
properly, appropriately, are frequently employed as standards. Their use may
or may not be a good choice. In this case, there can be little doubt about
what it the correct answer; electronic students would all agree on the correct
solution to Ohm’s law problems. But if the subject is less clearly defined, for
example set lighting or graphic design, there can be a wide difference of
opinion on what is “correct” or “suitable.” Generally, it is best to avoid words
of this kind, but at times the training planner may have no other choice.
Finally, what are the conditions? There is only one, calculations must be
based on Ohm’s law.
Finally, consider the objective, “to provide the trainee with a general
appreciation of the needs for safety in the workplace.” No doubt, this is a
laudable goal. Safety is always a concern where potential for injury and
accidents are high, as is sometimes the case in broadcasting. Television studios
can be dangerous places with high voltage exposure, heavy lighting instruments
suspended over personnel on the floor, and the need to work in heavy shadows.
Still, the goal spelled out seems quite unfocused. What does it mean to have
a “general appreciation” for safety. Furthermore, how this would be observed
is not immediately apparent. In this case, the “fuzziness” of the aim makes
this objective unsatisfactory. But there is an additional problem here. Note
that the objective begins “to provide. . . .” Providing the trainee is an activity
of the trainer. We must have goals that are stated in terms of what the trainees
will be able to do, not what the trainer does in the training exercise. Otherwise,
we might satisfy the objective by merely “providing” the trainees with the
information required to “appreciate” safety, and it might have absolutely no
effect whatsoever on the trainees. Therefore, it is never wise to write objectives
that refer to behavior on the trainer’s part. The thinking here is that in a
learner-center model, it is the trainee that matters, not the trainer.
Because good training objectives require some type of visible behavior,

and because it is preferable to employ active rather than passive verbs, training
objectives frequently take the following form: “to be able to . . . .” with the
verb followed by the standard and conditions. To some this may seem
unnecessarily repetitive, but it does provide a familiar and easily understood
framework for the learning objective. Doing something—as in “to be able to
. . . “ says clearly than the learner must demonstrate their new capabilities by
acting out a behavior. If a training objective begins with this simple phrase,
constructing the terminal behavior will hardly ever go wrong. This convention,
is so widely accepted that the introductory phrase “to be able to . . . “ is
simply abbreviated as TBAT. When you see an objective beginning “TBAT,
it means to be able to . . .”
Conditions are a source of problems in training objectives mainly when

they are incomplete. Usually this happens when the person writing the
objectives takes for granted that the unstated conditions are nevertheless
understood. Take for example this objective: “to be able to list the ten different
operating modes of the video mixer/switcher.” Sounds fine, doesn’t it? But
there are questions one could ask. Is the list to be offered from memory, or
from notes, operating manual, or other document? A person reading this
objective would have to guess that the ten modes would be recalled from
memory, and not from some other documentation. The implication of this
objective might not be clear to everyone. Similarly, any kind of tool, appliance,
reference, document, or other support should not be assumed, unless specified
within the training objective. Sometimes even clothing and safety devices are
included. The setting of the performance might also need to be described
(indoors, outdoors, in a studio with full lighting, etc). Sometimes the list can
become very long. Don’t be overly concerned if this happens; length is not
as important a consideration as completeness and clarity.
There are several ways that standards can present problems in training
objectives. One way to avoid problems is to ask whether the standards are
achievable. Even though you might like to reach a high level of performance,
it is not a good strategy to spell out a standard that very few will be able to
reach. If many trainees find it impossible to meet the standard, motivation
will decline; they may lose their commitment to the entire training project.
If a large portion of the trainees do not succeed, it also makes the trainers
appear ineffectual.
It goes without saying that the usual rules of good writing apply when
drafting training objectives. Don’t be wordy. Do cut out any unnecessary
language. As stressed throughout this section, you should strive for clarity of
meaning. Despite what was just said about the possible need for long lists of
conditions, try to keep it brief. Long sentences are hard to understand. If
you find it absolutely necessary to include a lot of detail, break the objective
into two or more sentences. Although there is no rule requiring it, most
training objectives are only one or two sentences in length. This is a convention
you are certainly allowed to break when it suits your purpose.
Learning domains and learning objectives
Objectives concern learning that falls within the three major domains—
cognitive, psychomotor skills, and attitude. Each domain requires a different
type of objective because of the dissimilar learning each requires. Consider
the cognitive domain. Cognition requires mental activity that onlookers can
seldom see. For this reason, cognitive learning objectives typically require
the learning to act out behavior that will demonstration learning. Objectives
like this might require learners to “name” or to “identify correctly” a list of
facts, or carry out some other act that will make the cognition visible to
trainers.
Actually, experts often prefer to divide the cognitive learning domain into
two subcategories. The first is known as information gain. Simply acquiring
knowledge—that is, knowing facts—is one example of learning within the
cognitive domain. The other type of cognitive learning goes beyond merely
memorizing information, it involves mental skills. This subcategory requires
a learner to utilize facts in a systematic process to produce a prescribed result.
Dividing one number into another is an example of a mental skill. This kind
of skill requires different learning abilities than simply memorizing, for
instance, the multiplication table. Another example is learning a new language.
Learning the meaning of words is primarily a task of memorizing translated
meaning. But putting words together to make meaningful sentences and
paragraphs demands a different set of capabilities.
For training objectives of the mental skill sort, learners are usually required
to demonstrate their mastery of the skill itself. They might be asked to “divide
two three-digit numbers together following the prescribed procedure,
producing a correct answer.” Likewise, learners might be requested to
“construct sentences using proper grammar and syntax and with correct
vocabulary use.” As can be seen, objectives like these call for learners to make
observable their internal mental changes that result from training.
The second category, psychomotor skills, seems on its surface to be the

most straightforward. After all, by definition they require a physical act of
some kind. Merely observing the physical act provides trainers an opportunity
to verify that the learning has been transferred as intended. For psychomotor
objectives, the only issue that may need special care is defining actions so
that they can be studied and measured appropriately and accurately. For these
kinds of learning objectives, a simple demonstration is usually all that is
required. An objective such as “TBAT swim 100 meters unaided and without
stopping in an outdoor swimming pool” or “TBAT to make clean edits on a
personal computer using Pro-Tools® audio editing software” might be all
that is necessary.
The affect or attitude domain of learning presents the most difficulty in

writing training objectives. Several reasons for the difficulty can be mentioned.
First, by definition attitudes are internal states that cannot be observed directly.
Furthermore, attitudes and beliefs are often elusive. To make attitudes visible
to an observer it frequently involves some type of attitude questionnaire.
There are really no other convenient ways of requiring learners to expose
their inner states. However, because the questionnaire asks for learners to
voluntarily describe their attitudes, it is possible that they may not be able or
willing to disclose their true feelings. After training, it is usually obvious what
attitudes the trainer wants the learner to adopt, so questionnaires tend to
result in responses that trainers “want” whether or not they truly reflect the
learner’s inner state. It often happens that a course intended to modify
attitudes, such as ones on workplace safety, results in significant changes as
measured by questionnaires prior to and after the training. But whether those
measured changes result in altered behavior in the workplace is an entirely
different issue, and these behavioral changes may not be accurately predicted
by questionnaires.
The issue of attitude measurement will be taken up in a later section on

training evaluation, but a few points are worth considering here. First, because
the attitude training is invisible to onlookers, it—like other kinds of objectives
already mentioned—should be stated in behavioral terms only. Even if you
wish to change attitudes towared workplace safety, what matters is how staff
members exhibit safety consciousness through their behavior. It helps greatly
if the attitudes to be influenced can be phrased so that the intent of training
is clear. In other words, the objectives should point to the positive results of
behaving safely in the workplace—results that benefit both the staff member
and the organization. A particular problem is in stating standards for attitude
training. Assigning levels or measuring attitudes is not easy to do, hence
defining a standard and making it clear to learners presents its own problems.
In summary, the keys to writing good training objectives are simple: Clear,
precisely worded statements of goals stated in terms of changes in learner’s
behavior specifying the conditions and standards of performance. Learning
by objectives is a model of training that should provide both the trainer and
the learner with a good road map toward a productive outcome. The use of
this approach should produce predictable and verifiable learning gains.
References
Odiorne, George S. (1970). Training by objectives; an economic approach to management

training: New York: Macmillan.
Motivating adult learners 71
SECTION FIVE
Motivating
adult learners
SECTION FIVE
Motivating adult learners
Training is an activity that strengthens an organization by increasing the

productivity of its human resources. Enterprises have various sorts of assets,
including physical assets such as buildings, land, equipment, facilities and so
on. There are financial assets that may include cash, stocks, partnership shares,
and many other types of investments that can be converted into money.
Human resources are an asset too; just as facilities and financial resources
determine the capabilities of an organization, to an even greater extent so do
human resources. An organization that has highly developed human resources
can do more, achieve its aims more efficiently, and do so at a lower cost than
an organization with a poorly developed human resource.
However, training has positive consequences that go beyond making the

organization more effective. It also produces great benefits for individuals
who make up the human resource. They become more valuable to the
organization, but their value on the open labor market rises too. Since their
worth is greater, they may command higher earnings, and the learning they
gain should provide them better career opportunities throughout their working
lifetime. This is why staff members should be eager to accept training
opportunities—they gain as much as does the organization. If they are not
eager, then further investigation is indicated, and the question needs to be
asked, “why would anyone not wish to take advantage of something that has
such clear benefits?” The answer to this question frequently is that staff
members do not consider the training offered to be personally rewarding.
Perhaps they believe that the training will not be worthwhile or would develop
them in ways that they will not like. Other explanations are possible too.
Maybe they’re simply not aware of the benefits.
Because a learner oriented approach to training guides the concepts put

forth in this manual, a lack of acceptance for training poses serious problems.
Learner oriented training assumes that people who participate in training are
active partners in the instructional process, not disengaged or worse, opposed
to training. It is an obligation of those responsible for training to cultivate
cooperation on the part of participants not merely to accept training but to

become actively involved in the process. Actively committed learners will
not only put forth the effort needed to master material, but will work with
the trainer in defining and achieving learning goals.
An important motivation for most learners should be that they are the
chief beneficiaries of training. The organization naturally reaps a reward for
good training, and this is the principal justification for it. But the learner
actually gains more than any other party in the process. Trainers should find
it possible to demonstrate that the cost-benefit ratio of training is heavily
weighted in the favor of learners.
Motivation theories
Without a doubt the most well-

known of motivation theories was
supplied by pioneering psychologist
Abraham Maslow. His enduring
contribution to our understanding of
motivation was the “Hierarchy of
Needs” theory. According to Maslow,
we can define five basic types of
motivations—or needs—that guide
human behavior. These five are
arranged in a hierarchy so that the
lowest level needs take priority over
higher level needs. Maslow’s model
suggests that by understanding the
priority of human needs we as
managers and trainers can tailor our
planning responses to achieve the
maximum result.
At the most basic level, the need for survival takes precedence. Sometimes
also called physiological needs, these include the need for food, water, oxygen,
shelter, and procreation. Unlike other needs, these are innate; no one has to
be trained to seek any of these. Unless these needs are satisfied, they remain
in an individual’s consciousness to become the prime determinant of behavior.
When hunger, for instance, is a chronic or critical condition, it is highly
unlikely than an individual (or a society for that matter) will be much
concerned with higher order needs such as art, status, or grandeur.
At the next level are security needs. Most people in the world are relatively
well fed, well clothed, and well housed, so that physiological needs are
generally satisfied. According to Maslow’s theory, when a need is satisfied it
ceases to influence behavior; that is, it no longer acts as a motivation. But as
one need is satisfied, new ones inevitably come into focus, directing the
individual to new action. In the hierarchy of motivations the need for safety
and freedom from threat arises when only when the basic physiological needs
have been met.
As security and physiological needs are taken care of, needs arise of a
social nature. Humans are gregarious. We want to feel accepted in society, to
belong, to be included in groups of other humans. Yes, we even want to love
and be loved. These are social needs, the desire for companionship, friendly
relations with others, human contact, and so on.
Following satisfaction of social needs, there next arises the longing for
esteem. The desire for a positive self image, for self-esteem, as well as respect
and appreciation of others is found in the next higher stage of the hierarchy.
The individual’s sense of self-respect the feeling of respect by peers is essential
for mental health and well-being.
As described by Maslow, the first four of the levels of need are called
“deficit needs,” that is, they arise from something lacking in life. The fifth
and last level calls for personal “growth” and has been given the name “self-
actualization.” This is perhaps the most difficult need to explain adequately.
It is at this level of need that training can play a significant role. Self
actualization is a complex concept, referring to human desire to grow and to
develop to one’s fullest potential. What it means, basically, is to attain a
sense of fulfillment through development of one’s abilities to the maximum
extent possible, and to realize the satisfactions that come with that
achievement. As people advance in their careers, they gradually shift their

attention from issues such as their salaries and opportunities for promotion,
to gaining a sense that they have done well in their work and in their lives by
“doing good” for the larger causes of their society. Training can definitely to
contribute to a greater sense of fulfillment through development of individual
potentials. Training programs therefore should take into account trainees’
striving to realize their individual potentials and use this as a motivating factor
in the design of programs. The person who is motivated by self-actualization
is always in the process of finding new goals, new challenges, or new means
of self-expression—the search for the “complete” human being.
Another important theoretical concept is the distinction between what

are called “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” motivators. Extrinsic rewards are ones
that are given by an organization or its management as an inducement for
good performance. Among these are salaries (including salary bonuses and
raises) and promotions. Organizations customarily use these as the primary
tools for rewarding achievement among staff. These rewards are external to
the individual and are therefore not within his or her direct control. Intrinsic
rewards are ones that arise purely from one’s activities in an organization. A
journalist might get enormous satisfaction just from writing a well-crafted
story or a producer might find great pleasure in sharing his productions as
creative self-expressions. Rewards like these are inherent in the work we do
and are not in the control of external agencies such as our boss or our
organization. Recognizing both types of motivators can be important in
training.
Using motivational techniques in training
Some factors affecting the motivation of participants in training programs

may be beyond your control. For example trainees who have been told they
must attend will probably have a very different perspective than those who
have actively chosen to participate. Indeed, creating a situation where trainees
actively elect to participate in a training program could be seen as an important
first step in ensuring a strong motivation to succeed.
Sometimes extrinsic forms of motivation can be used. Among the most

common is the potential for future promotions or salary increases if a
particular training program, or series of programs, is completed successfully.
It undoubtedly has its place, but there are limits to the power of extrinsic
motivation. Many researchers, most notably Vroom, found that once
motivators like these have been awarded, they cease to be important
motivations. The person who receives a raise quickly begins to take the reward
for granted and is no longer motivated by it. In most cases intrinsic motivation
will prove to be a more powerful force.
When adults can see that what they are learning makes sense and is
important according to their values and perspective, their motivation emerges.
Like a cork rising through water, intrinsic motivation surfaces because the
environment elicits it. Intrinsic motivation is an evocation, an energy called
forth by circumstances that connect with what is culturally significant to the
person. (Wlodkowski, 1999, p. 7)
This section of the manual is concerned with how you can create learning
environments that will elicit intrinsic motivation among the participants in
your training programs. It builds on our earlier observation in the first section
that adults learn differently from children and many adolescents. You will
also be able to make connections with some of the ideas we introduced in
section three on theories of training.
In this section we will be presenting broad suggestions about ways to

increase motivation, rather than specific recipes for success. The context of
each training program is different and the skill of the trainer is in finding
what will work in specific situations with those trainees. The remainder of
this section is divided into two parts. In the first we note that the way you
sequence the material being presented is crucial. You must take into account
the expectations and prior experiences of the participants and help each trainee
recognize the value of that training program for them. This involves
recognizing at all stages, from design through presentation, that adults are
active learners. You need to involve them in the learning process by adopting
a learner centered approach. Finally, in the final section, we argue that you
need to work hard to create a safe and supportive learning environment that
frees trainees to experiment, question, and reflect on what they have seen
and heard without fear of failure or embarrassment.
Encouraging motivation through a learner centered

structure
Prior experiences
The idea that “personal experience is the key learning tool” comes as the
first in a list of six “Principles for Training and Design” created by Milano
and Ullius (1998, pp. 24-25). This conforms with our earlier observation
that adults bring a wealth of personal experiences to any learning situation.
Whatever you present in a training session will be filtered through those
personal experiences. You have no choice over this. It will happen. Even in
those situations where it is not evident during the session it will still be
happening silently within each participant. And after the session, when the
trainer is safely out of earshot, the participants will compare their assessments,
perhaps over lunch.
But we are not suggesting you structure your training programs to use
their personal experiences to reflect on what is being presented simply because
it will happen anyway. Inviting adult learners to participate in this way also
encourages them to be active learners who take responsibility for their own
learning. It also demonstrates that you value their experiences and respect
them. Vella (1994, p. 13) terms this a “dialog of learning” between two adults;
the teacher and the student.
What happens if the prior experiences of the participants conflict with

the new way of doing things that the training program is designed to promote?
Milano and Ullius note that this is not at all uncommon in training situations
but they argue that you cannot sidestep this. Here again you must
acknowledge it and deal with it within the training session.
If your design encourages people to compare their previous experience

with what is being presented, then the comparison can be processed in the
training room—where other participants, as well as the trainer, can influence
the learning. If the design does not call for the dissonance or resistance to be
processed as part of the learning event, then it will come out in some other
way or time—when there is much less chance to influence the processing.
(Milano & Ullius, 1998, p. 28)
How can we create a safe learning environment in which these kinds of

comparisons with previous experiences can occur without challenging the
self-esteem of the learners? Milano and Ullius have suggested one approach.
“By asking participants to talk about ‘ways it is done’ rather than ‘ways you
do it’ we engage participants’ experience while also making it safe for them
to talk” (p. 30).
Prior expectations
In addition to a broad range of experiences participants will also bring a set
of expectations to the training program. Again, this is something you must
take into account both in the design of your training program and the way
you structure each session. During the needs assessment, and the early phases
of program design, it can be very helpful to investigate what kinds of training
expectations are likely to be found among the future participants.
Sometimes these expectations are a result of prior training programs but

they can also be based on school experiences that were much more passive
than the learner centered approach we are suggesting here. Therefore, the
first session is very important. It sets the tone and should include a clear
explanation of what is to be done, how that will be achieved, and the roles of
all involved. But avoid the first session simply being a one-way transmission
of information from you to the group. When you invite their contributions,
you create opportunities to show that this will be a regular part of the program.
This brings us back to the idea of the “dialog of learning” described by Vella
(1994). She notes that “. . . if the learner sees the teacher as ‘the professor’
with whom there is no disagreement, no questioning, no challenge, the dialog
is dead in the water” (p. 17). She continues by observing that the question of
role “is a delicate cultural issue” (p. 18). In some cultures prior experiences,
and the expectations they have created, will require taking a different path
towards dialog, and it will take different forms. However, we would argue
that its value in adult training makes striving toward this goal worthwhile.
One of the authors of this manual was reminded of something that

happened during a graduate training program in which he was a student.
Part of that program involved learning some statistical methods to analyze
data. A highly qualified person was provided and he began to present his
standard undergraduate course. After several classes it became clear to him
that, while we were obviously listening to what he said and studiously taking
notes, there was little enthusiasm for the class. The passage of time clouds
why it happened but he stayed after class one day and ate lunch with us in
the organization’s cafeteria. Over lunch we talked about our backgrounds
and found aspects of his fascinating. He had worked on several major statistical
projects that several of us had at least heard about. But he was amazed when
he found that between us the class had taught virtually every age group of
students in a variety of settings on four continents. In future weeks he
sometimes stayed for lunch and the classroom discussions frequently included
exchanges about how a particular statistical test might, or might not, be
relevant in the work we did. Everyone involved enjoyed the remainder of the
course much more, and we certainly learned more.
Creating a safe and supportive learning environment
A learner centered environment is one in which trainees not only feel safe
to question what is being said, and to consider new ways of doing things, but
is also an environment in which trainees are eager to do so. The first step you
can take in creating the kind of supportive environment that creates this
climate for learning is to recognize that most people who choose to enroll in
a training program see it as a means to an end. There are other times when
the pleasure of learning may be an end in itself but that is not always the case
with training programs. As a result, it is important that you demonstrate at
the very first session how successfully completing this program will help them
achieve that end. It is also important for you to know why trainees are taking
the course. This is information you may want to collect through a telephone
call before the training program begins, asking those who are registered what
they hope to learn and how they will use that knowledge. If appropriate, the
objectives you have set can then be adapted to satisfy as many as possible.
Less personal, but more practical with larger numbers of trainees, would be a
brief questionnaire asking them similar questions and inviting them to contact
you if they need further information. The early sessions should also be
structured to allow for some rapid learning at the beginning of the program
to demonstrate the utility of the material they will be covering.
A safe and supportive learning environment also means one that allows
for different learning preferences. As adults, the trainees will have had many
educational experiences before they reach your training program. They know
what learning style has worked for them in the past and, in most cases,
remember only too vividly when they failed. In a relatively brief training
program you can encourage the type of active learning that we have described
throughout this manual but you also need to recognize that adults will have
preferred learning styles that are very deeply rooted and cannot be changed
overnight. While you can encourage change during a short training program
it is also wise to structure it in ways that accommodate a wide range of
preferred learning styles.
For example, some people prefer to jump straight into a discussion and
work through what they think by exchanging ideas with others. You will also
encounter trainees who prefer to sit back and observe what is happening. Do
not necessarily assume that they are not engaged. Sometimes that will be the
case, but with others it is simply a preference for a different learning style.
Working in teams can often provide a context in which both preferences can
be accommodated.
Similarly, some people like to listen while others prefer to learn visually.
The latter group create lists and when something puzzles them they map it
out on a sheet of paper looking for the relationships between the various
elements involved. It might seem that a lecture by you would inevitably ignore
the learning preferences of those with a bias towards the visual. But you can
accommodate both groups, and the vast majority whose preferences lie
somewhere between the two extremes, by using visual aids, perhaps an
overhead projector, and distributing an outline of the points you will be
making.
The strength of these learning preferences should not be underestimated.

Undergraduate students working in honors programs are among the most
academically gifted at any university in the United States. To complete their

honors program they are usually required to complete an honors thesis. This
is an extended piece of writing that also usually involves considerable research.
As supremely successful students, both previously at their secondary schools
and now as undergraduates at university, they have learned how to succeed.
They know that for most assignments the ‘trick’ is to get it right the first
time. One submits an assignment and later receives a grade for it. There is
rarely an opportunity to receive comments on an assignment, revise it, and
then submit it again. They know they are stars at this “game.”
But the honors thesis is a much longer piece of work, and to be successful
it will almost certainly have to go through several drafts. This experience is
often profoundly unsettling for these students. The methods that have brought
them great success in the past no longer seem to be working. If they are to go
on to graduate school, as many of them do, this experience will prove
invaluable. However, changing their deeply engrained patterns of working,
ones that have been handsomely rewarded in the past, is inevitably a slow
process.
We will end this section by emphasizing again the value of having trainees
work in teams.
Teamwork is itself both a process and a principle. Teams provide, in the

adult learning experience, a quality of safety that is effective and helpful.
The assurance of safety and shared responsibility available in teams has always
proved welcome, no matter what the cultural setting. (Vella, 1994, pp. 18-
19)
Challenging what is being presented in a training session as the better

way of doing things will probably seem safer when the challenge is not
attributable to any individual. And, as we noted earlier, those challenges will
occur anyway either inside or outside the session. It is much better that they
happen in a context where they can be discussed openly. It may seem that
life for you as the trainer would be easier if you simply avoided these potential
challenges. But in the final judgement training is only successful if those who
have participated in a program decide to adopt the ideas that were presented,
or the skills that were learned, and adapt them to the particular circumstances
of their own work. This is more likely to happen if their doubts and
uncertainties about the proposed change have been addressed during the
training program.
References
Milano, M. & Ullius, D. (1998). Designing Powerful Training: The Sequential-Iterative

Model. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vella, J. (1994). Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue in Educating
Adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn. Rev. Ed.. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
SECTION SIX
Training
techniques
SECTION SIX
Training techniques
T
his section considers the practical side of organizing training
programs. If you’ve had any concerns that theories discussed in earlier
sections might not be so easy to incorporate in training, we hope to
dispel those worries in the following pages. Here, we wish to stress one
important thing—the development of a consistent model of planning. The
procedures employed in training should be systematic, based upon the logic
of adult learning, and aimed at producing changes in behavior on the job.
This does not mean that everyone should plan training activities using exactly
the same methods. Individuals naturally have personal differences that shape
the character of their work in the training room; some people work more
effectively using one method, others perform better using another. The main
thing is to devise a strategy that is comfortable for the trainer and one that
remains consistent from training activity to training activity.
Preparing your session
It is customary to plan an activity by breaking it down into a series of sessions.

As such, the session becomes the basic building block of a training program.
Indeed, most training programs can be thought of as a sequence of sessions
that collectively encompass the activity’s subject matter. Typically, each session
is made up of a self-contained presentation on a single topic . The length of
the session can vary from a few minutes to several hours, perhaps even an
entire day—the duration is not as important as the requirement that each
session cover its topic thoroughly. Individual sessions should link together
or fit into a logical pattern within the training schedule.
The first step

According to Hugh de Silva, long-time trainer and manager with AIBD, the
first step in preparing a session is to consider the four key ingredients of
training:
(1) Audience,
(2) Objectives,
(3) Resources, and Subject.
Decisions based on these components ensure that the plan will take into
account the main issues that ought to be weighed in designing training
programs.
The audience is made up of the training group. In order to make an

effective plan, the learner’s abilities, level of knowledge, and related aspects
must be known. The trainer needs to be aware of their educational
background, age, and the types of relevant experience they have had. Other
considerations may be important as well, including the trainees’ cultural
backgrounds and language proficiency. All these things, and more, must be
determined prior to finalizing details for a course. As a rule, the more complete
the knowledge of a training group, the easier it will be to construct a good
training plan.
Objectives should be drafted based upon the findings of the training needs
analysis. Only after a review of needs has been made can one know the precise
problems that training must address. As noted previously in this manual,
large sums of money have been wasted in training activities that were based
upon faulty assumptions about training needs. The end result of a training
needs analysis is a set of objectives that the planned program is expected to
adopt. Consequently, by means of the training needs analysis, objectives
should connect directly with the audience—the training population of the
course.
Resources come next. Within this category fall a range of resource

considerations. Perhaps the training room comes to mind first, but included
also may be equipment, hardware, communication facilities, not to mention
expendables such as pencils, paper, and the like. Furniture, transport, and
food may also need attention. Human resources, of course, are usually the
most important. Who will be responsible for each session, and will other
resource persons be needed? Finally, one should not forget that time is a
resource too. How time is allocated within the limits set by the program
schedule can prove to be one of the most difficult calculations in the planning
process.
Last, the subject matter to be covered by the activity must be carefully

evaluated. What is the scope of the program? Is it practical or theoretical in
nature? Does it require extensive hands-on work or demonstrations? Does
the subject lend itself to visual presentation? Is the subject effectively treated
in seminar discussions? Are simulations or role playing exercises appropriate
for any topic? These are only a few of the questions that the trainer must ask
in constructing a detailed plan for each sequence within the training activity.
Sequencing
Arranging the order of topics within the session is often a problem. Putting
the concepts in the right sequence demands careful analysis and thought on
the part of the planner. Several strategies are available, however, and the best
choice among them is often readily apparent. If the topics are related in some
direct way, for example by order, then it is usually best to follow that order—
step one, step two, step three, and so on. Some explanation to the participants
of the reasons why the steps need to follow in the prescribed order is probably
a good idea, in order to encourage the trainees to follow the logic in the
structure of training and in the application of learning. In many cases, perhaps
most, topics will not have any readily apparent natural order.
Another way of organizing sessions is to begin with the least complex

then proceed to progressively more complicated topics. In other words, arrange
the topics in an order from the simple to the difficult. If a trainer begins
with a complicated point and the learners fail to grasp it, a shadow may be
cast over the entire training session. It could mean that learners lose their
motivation to follow the remaining portions of the presentation. By beginning
with the easiest points first, trainees build confidence in their ability to
understand the material and will put forth more effort to keep up with the
presentation as it proceeds. Even if some participants fail to fully master the
most difficult material, at least they will be able to learn from earlier points
in the presentation. In most cases, learners will expand their capacity to
manage progressively more difficult material, and will ultimately rise to the
challenge.
A variation on the same theme is to arrange the sequence in a pattern

that begins with the known, or familiar, and then advances to the unknown.
By such an order, learners will be able to link their existing knowledge with
newly-acquired learning. This is believed not only to make information more
understandable but more likely to be retained and used later. The intent in
most activities is to build on learners’ existing knowledge. As we have often
noted, adult learners bring a wealth of experience to the workplace and to
the training room. Capitalizing on their experience will enhance training in
many ways—the learners will be more cooperative when their state of
knowledge is recognized and respected, the trainer will be able to meet more
ambitious goals, and the entire efficiency of training will be greatly enhanced.
Similarly, the order within a sequence could be arranged to move from the
concrete to the abstract, or from the general to the particular. These
approaches also begin with material matched to the learner’s state of
knowledge and extend from this to more unfamiliar information.
Regardless of the arrangement, the training schedule ought to be perceived

by learners to be sensible and appropriate. It should be possible to move
smoothly from one subject to the next in a way that the learners can follow
with a minimum of mental effort. Once again, the aim is to enlist learners in
the task of learning; not merely to cooperate with the trainer, but to anticipate
their own needs and then to work with the trainer in achieving their individual
learning goals.
Whichever sequencing strategy is employed, the plan should provide for

progressive testing, that is, checks on learning gains made at different points
through the sequence. Progressive testing monitors trainees’ progress
continuously, and gives both the trainer and the learner valuable feedback
about what is, or is not, being learned. This is much preferred over simply
issuing a single comprehensive test at the end. Not only are the smaller
incremental tests better from the point of view of reducing stress on the
learners, they also afford the trainer checkpoints along the way. If learners
seem to be having trouble with a particular topic, remedial action can be
taken immediately and the learning points in question revisited.
Needs to know
Choosing which topics to include in a session and which to omit presents a
continuous challenge for trainers. In the typical case, trainers intend to cover
more material than time will allow, and so they are forced to eliminate some
useful, possibly interesting things from their schedule. In making these
decisions it can be helpful to sort potential topics into three categories: “must
know,” “should know,” and “nice to know.” By making these distinctions,
the choices may be clearer. To select topics that fit the “need to know ” and
“should know” categories, one should refer to the job analysis performed in
training needs analysis. Topics that are essential to job performance will fit
into one of these classifications. The reader may wish to refer to section two
for a review of job analysis.
“Must know” topics are the ones that are absolutely essential in order for
the subject to be fully understood. These learning points represent the hard
core of knowledge. Another way of describing “must know” topics are those
one must definitely learn in order to do one’s job. The key points on a subject
are surrounded by another layer of supplementary information that add to a
person’s knowledge of the hard core material, and these can be termed “should
know” points. Information that learners should know is made up of points
that are not quite essential, but are important enough that they need to be
included in the training plans. The “should know” points add information
that aid learners’ understanding and improve their competency, but are not
vital to carry out their jobs at a minimum level of performance. Finally, there
are topics that may be useful but lie beyond the “should know” topics. These
are termed “nice to know.” These are the fancy frills on which planners need
not waste valuable time.
Take as an example, troubleshooting a piece of electronic equipment.

Under the must know category might be placed topics such as “be able to
read a circuit schematic,” “be able to use common test equipment,” and “be
able to follow standard troubleshooting procedures.” Under the should know
heading one might place topics such as “other makes and models of equipment
that have identical specifications and testing procedures.” Many nice to know
points might be mentioned, such as “manufacturing procedures for the
equipment being tested” or “the latest research and development on
equipment like this.”
The aim in a sorting exercise such as this is to clearly identify which topics
cannot be ignored and which ones can be discarded. In planning, one should
always concentrate on the must knows and eliminate the nice to knows. The
should knows need to be included only as time and other resources permit.
If you discover a should know topic that cannot be dropped, consider
reclassifying it as a must know point. Never waste any resource on the nice
to know; it will add to the learning burden for trainees without any
corresponding benefit.
Structure of sessions
As noted earlier, the arrangement of topics within a session plays a large

role in determining its effectiveness. Choosing the right sequence of topics is
only one aspect of organizing a training session.
Learner centered sessions

The manner of training employed in sessions will dictate the precise way
that they will be presented. For example, whether the activities will be learner
centered or trainer centered will determine precisely what will occur within
a session. In general, the use of a learner centered approach is strongly
recommended in this manual, as you have seen. Once again, here’s why: The
purpose of training is to develop learners’ abilities. If the training focuses on
the learner, each participant will be forced to take a more active role in the
learning process. Participants will be required to reflect on their own
performance objectives and to work with the trainer in meeting those goals.
On the other hand, if the sessions are trainer centered, participants inevitably
play a more passive role. In such cases, the total responsibility for the outcome
is shifted to the trainer, leaving the learners in a somewhat uncertain position.
These issues were discussed in the first section. You may wish to review them
before moving on. The principles of learner centered training are so important
we would like to restate them here, in the context now of session planning.
Years ago, trainer centered learning was the approach used in activities
almost everywhere. The role of the trainer was central—he or she presented
the material in the course, and the learners listened and watched. Typically
the mode of presentation was the lecture. All of the choices about subjects
covered, the allocation of time, and the selection of materials were made by
the trainer. Learners might seldom even have an opportunity to ask questions
or to make requests, and they were hardly ever consulted on daily activities
within the course. The conduct of the program was totally in the hands of
the trainer, and the learners were subservient to the wishes of the trainer.
This clearly created a potentially restrictive atmosphere for learning.
The training tradition in most Asian countries remains very much trainer
centered. The reason seems to be the tendency to adopt an instructional
approach frequently used in schools, especially an approach widely used during
the first half of the twentieth century. At that time, school teachers assumed
that their pupils were much too young and inexperienced to make any
meaningful contribution to the planning and conduct of courses. They felt
it appropriate to take charge of the instructional program and to dictate to
the children what they should learn, and how they should go about learning
it. Whether this was a good approach for children is debatable, but it definitely
is not suited to the situation faced in adult learning. Nevertheless, because
this was the predominant instructional method for such a long time, many
Asian trainers have tended to maintain this style of training.
Placing the learner at the center of the training activity means that learners
must assume a key role in defining training objectives and in structuring
their work. This forces trainers to strive continually to shift the focus in courses
from the trainer to the learner, and to gain the cooperation of learners in
accepting a greater role in the conduct of the activity. This may not be an
easy task because learners are usually unaccustomed to assuming this
responsibility. When this is the case, it will be up to the trainer to guide the
learners into taking on a larger role in their own training.
In preparing a session based upon a learner centered strategy, the trainer

needs information on the trainees’ current state of knowledge, skills, and
attitudes. If the program preparation has been thorough, this information
should be available. Training needs analysis should yield sufficient detail for
the purpose of planning the program and preparing sessions. If not, some
preliminary estimates should be made ahead of time, so that arrangements
can be made for such things as training materials, facilities, and a general
outline of the schedule for the activity. Lists can be drawn up reflecting
probable requirements for the course and a tentative outline of sessions can
be drafted.
In a learner centered approach an emphasis is placed on activities and

involvement of the learner. Each participant is given abundant opportunity
to demonstrate and to practice their learning. For each learning point, the
session tends to be constructed around a three-step cycle—present information
on the learning point, organize an activity to practice and demonstrate the
learning, then a summary and revision. If necessary, each cycle can be repeated
to reinforce the main ideas in each learning point. Thus the session can be
schematically represented as a series of I-A-S cycles, where I represents
Information presentation, A represents an Activity, and S stands for a
Summary and revision of the cycle. Each I-A-S cycle builds on previous cycles
and ultimately leads to the satisfaction of the learning objectives defined for
each session.
The mark of a well-planned learner centered training session is that the

learner is thoroughly engaged in demonstrations, interactions with the trainer
or other learners, and other kinds of physical and mental activities. In short,
the training session absorbs the learner both intellectually and physically.
Sessions like this keep the learner’s attention focused on their own needs and
busy in the work of learning and self-development. An advantage of this kind
of training is that learners enjoy the opportunity to be highly involved in the
work of training and appreciate the respect and consideration that naturally
flows from the trainer’s attention to their needs.
Training of the sort described here might include regular repetition of

skills and other learning. Repetition is not a bad thing, provided it allows for
continual improvement. To achieve this aim, it is vital that the trainer be
highly involved in practical exercises. It is in this phase that detailed, accurate
feedback is called for, in order to produce improvement over successive
repetitions. Indeed, repetition without feedback may merely ingrain bad habits
or other errors. Consequently, plans for each session must afford the trainer
an opportunity to observe and interact with each participant. This is time
consuming, of course, but vital to the success of training sessions. Usually it

is desirable to include other learners in the demonstration-feedback cycles;
they may gain much from observing their peers. Other learners can be enlisted
in the feedback process too. At any rate, they should be discouraged from
becoming merely passive onlookers; trainers should make an effort to engage
everyone in the evaluation and discussion that flows from each I-A-S cycle.
A high priority should be attached to the process of gaining maximum
involvement of participants.
To summarize on this point, if one-on-one interaction is built into a

training program, the session plan must include generous opportunities for
interaction and individualized instruction. This affects not only allocation
of time, but also the organization of the training room, availability of
resources, and a host of other considerations. A significant portion of the
trainer’s responsibilities in the training room revolves around management
of individual observation and coaching. The feedback generated in these
individual sessions provide the foundation for individualized instruction
within each activity. Attention to individual differences is important because
training populations usually encountered in adult training are rarely
homogeneous.
Discussion leading
An important facet of conducting sessions is in preparing, organizing, and

leading discussions. Discussions are a normal way of communicating among
humans, and any exchange of ideas with or among participants in a course
will naturally involve discussions. Guiding discussions is one of the chief
responsibilities that trainers must assume, and often one of the most
demanding. In order to gain maximum benefit from discussions, they must
be focused and orderly, leading toward the learning objectives set out in the
training plan. Discussions in training activities can produce several good
results. They help in such key areas as encouraging the personal involvement
of learners, using and building upon learners’ experiences, enriching the
learning environment, promoting active learning, and ensuring a learner
centered approach.
An open discussion is surely one of the most learner centered formats

available for use in training. When discussions are used in training, the
discussion leader’s primary functions are to provide direction and to keep
the dialogue moving forward. The contribution of thoughts or information
by the discussion leader is very much secondary; it is learners who should
furnish most ideas. They should also set the pace of learning. Personal
motivation and intellectual inspiration is much more evident in open
discussion than in the closed communication format of a lecture. As
participants talk about their experiences and their knowledge of different
issues, the discussion leader should be able to sense their interests and steer
the discussion toward learning goals. This can be done in a way that satisfies
the group and yet keeps objectives clearly in view. A discussion of this type
fits the requirements of a learner activity mentioned above. An active
discussion requires thought and reflection on the part of each participant
and should draw out each member of the group. Adult learning leans heavily
on this kind of interaction.
Leading the discussion is a job that is more complicated than it may seem
at first. There are least eight distinct responsibilities that fall to the discussion
leader. First, is the basic responsibility for preparation and planning—deciding
what will be discussed, then breaking the topics down into a number of clear
ideas that need to be raised in the exchange. Second, the leader must stimulate
the group to take up the issue to be addressed. Unless this happens, the
discussion might never get started, or once started it might simply come to a
halt. Three, the group’s attention should be focused on the subject at hand,
often by defining the topic and the aims of the discussion. Four, guidance is
needed to keep the discussion going and to keep the conversation moving
toward the intended outcomes. Five, the leader must sustain the group’s
interest in the problem. Once a discussion begins, contributions should be
invited from everyone, and particular efforts should be made to draw out
personal experiences from each member of the group. If interest begins to
fade, it is up to the leader to find new approaches to maintain the momentum
of the discussion. Six, the leader must find a way to accommodate the
individual differences within the discussion group. Usually, this is
accomplished by refocusing the exchange from time to time, in order to suit
the different perspectives within the group. Trainers should build on these
individual differences rather than discouraging them, for this will encourage
the maximum involvement of each person. Seven, the leader must make it
clear to the group what is expected of them. The discussion’s agenda can be
explained by the leader and framed within the context of the entire activity.
In training, discussions are not idle conversations, they are a forum for sharing
the wealth of experience within the group. Finally, eight, the leader has the
responsibility of summarizing the discussion—what ideas were agreed to, what
ideas were rejected, and to enumerate the major points of the discussion.
The discussion can be divided into segments made up of four phases.

The first phase, called the introduction, is one which the leader defines the
topic and the scope of the discussion. The second phase is called the approach.
In this stage, the exchange is begun, typically by making a direct question to
one of the members of the group, one whose response is likely to initiate
further discussion. The third phase is called drawing out. Here the leader
attempts to fill in the gaps in the discussion by probing or asking participants
for clarification or elaboration. This is done only if necessary; generally,
participants will take care of these matters spontaneously as the discussion
proceeds. The fourth stage is called acceptance, this is where the group has
said what it wants to say, and some sense of closure has been reached. The
final phase is conclusion, in which the leader attempts to restate what the
group has agreed to. There may not be complete consensus among members
of the group, but there should be agreement on the points of disagreement.
After this, the group can take up additional issues and keep the discussion
moving forward. The cycle can be repeated again and again, leading eventually
to a thoroughgoing review of the subject at hand.
Using questions
To guide and motivate discussions, the trainer needs to become skillful in
the use of questions. Questioning is a potent instructional technique. It was
a method of instruction used in ancient Greece where Socrates employed
questioning to train his followers, including Plato and Xenophon. He was so
much identified with this technique that it became known as the “Socratic”
method. A number of questioning methods can be employed, each of which
has a different effect on discussions.
The “direct” question is one that the discussion leader asks of a specific
individual in the group. The trainer can select that individual so as to draw
out a participant who has not contributed much or to get the views of a
person whose thoughts the trainer believes may be particularly helpful. The
disadvantage of this type of question is that only the person being questioned
will be forced to think of an answer; everyone else will merely wait for an
answer to be given. The “overhead” question is one that the trainer addresses
to the entire group and waits for a response, or selects a volunteered response
from among the participants. This method does force everyone to formulate
an answer, but the discussion can take unexpected directions if the responses
are not the ones the leader desires. Keeping the discussion on the topic can
be a struggle if overhead questions are used. “Probing” questions are used to
pursue a point further. These questions ask for additional detail, clarifications,
or explanation, allowing the leader to dig more deeply into a subject. These
are particularly useful for keeping a discussion moving forward. “Leading”
questions are ones that are stated in such a way that the answer is suggested
by the way the question is worded. You might ask, “you don’t really think
that is true.” This question tells the respondent what answer is expected.
Although this kind of question does produce predictable answers, it can place
the person responding in an uncomfortable position if they don’t truly accept
the answer being suggested. A related kind of question you might encounter
is the “rhetorical” question. In truth, rhetorical questions do not invite a
response; in effect, they are statements phrased in the form of a question. An
example might be something like “don’t we agree on this?” In asking this, it
is clear that the meaning
is really “I believe we
agree on this.”
Demonstrations
Demonstrations are a mode of training that can fit within a course, but are
more familiar in the micro-training setting. Micro-training is the training of
a group smaller than would be appropriate for a course. Micro-training is
most often encountered in on-the-job training (OJT). OJT and micro training
are a predominant training modes in many organizations simply because they
are cheap and require little in the way of infrastructure. OJT, however, is
not a panacea—unless the training meets minimum requirements, problems
can result. Usually these requirements are:
(1) Clear and well-defined objectives;
(2) the organization must place the trainee in positions in which the new
knowledge and skills can be used;
(3) the management of the organization must value the training, for instance,
recognize it in annual appraisals;
(4) the training must be cost-effective; and
(5) the trainee must have a clear understanding of the purpose of training.
Within this outline, a demonstration follows the usual principles of

learning by objectives. That is, the training must have a clear goal and the
trainer must make a reasonable effort to obtain results consistent with those
goals. In addition, the trainer should be clear about the purpose of the
demonstration exercise. That is, the learner must know why the demonstration
is being presented and how will the trainee be able to apply the learning.
Here, as always, the learner is expected to participate actively in the training
and to interact with the trainer in defining the training exercise. Often this is
easier in OJT because the learner is in a “one-to-one” setting with the trainer;
he or she won’t be concerned about how other learners react to their questions
and requests.
This kind of training is also called “coaching.” Coaching is a mode of

training that concentrates on optimizing individual performance. This is the
type of training associated most commonly with sports and athletics where
individual adaptation is well known as the key to success. The same principle
can work in the job setting too, and the demonstration mode is central to
coaching methods. Coaching is a very flexible tool for organizational training
needs because it can be conveniently coupled with other training modes. Some
advantages of coaching include the following: Training can be totally
individualized, involving only the learner and the trainer. It can ensure
complete validity if the coach is the trainee’s immediate superior. Since the
“boss” is coaching, there can be no doubt about the management’s support
of the training. This extremely personal, one-on-one communication permits
a quick and powerful feedback mechanism. Likewise, one-on-one
communication allows dynamic reappraisal of the learning objectives.
Moreover, in coaching on the job, responsibility is delegated to that point in
the organization where it has the most immediate and direct payoff: the
relationship between superior and subordinate.
Manager/coaches tend to learn a great deal about the skill, attitude, and
knowledge levels of the individuals whom they coach—as well as about the
process of motivation, directing, and communicating with their subordinates.
Thus, the manager learns a great deal in conducting on-the-job training that
can be useful in making the best use of personnel. This can become an
enormously powerful asset in mobilizing the human resources within work
units.
Training aids
Training aids are unquestionably important tools to enliven and animate

one’s presentations. However, training aids do not necessarily produce
improved learning and, if used incorrectly, they can be counterproductive.
Even though a detailed discussion of training aids is beyond the scope of this
manual, we would like to offer a few suggestions on their usage. It is vital
that the trainer makes use of training aids discriminatingly. If used
haphazardly, they are likely to become distracting and a source of potential
confusion. There are three primary functions for training aids—to add clarity
to instruction, to stimulate participants, and to enhance the learner orientation
of training. Of these, the first function is perhaps the most important. Some
topics are best presented visually, not just orally. These topics automatically
call for the supplement of some type of training aid. For example, it is
impossible to imagine an explanation of the steps required in repairing an
automobile engine without the use of drawings and other visual aids. Even
topics that are not particularly visual in nature can profit from the use of
drawings and graphic representations. For instance, courses in the
fundamentals of journalism almost always employ drawings to represent the
“inverted pyramid” structure of news reports.
Although one could make a long list of possible training aids, only a few
are widely used. Among these are the overhead projector (and its more modern
cousin, the computer video projector), printed materials, audio and video
recordings, whiteboards (or chalkboards), and the flip chart. Each of these
types of aids has advantages and disadvantages, and the trainer should be
conscious of them.
The classical training aid is the chalkboard/whiteboard which have been

used in various forms for at least two centuries. Most trainers feel at ease
with their use and hardly any training course would be complete without
one. Their advantages are that they are cheap and easy to use. But writing
boards do have limitations—once boards are erased, their former contents
are gone forever. To overcome this, several companies have introduced
whiteboards whose contents can be output on an integrated printing device.
Whiteboards and chalkboards can also be quite messy. Many of us do not
write neatly enough to make attractive visual presentations, and chalkboards
are a prolific source of dust. The flipchart is similar in most respects to the
whiteboard or chalkboard, except that the contents may be retained for later
reference. The usual practice is to employ the flipchart when the trainer wants
to keep information for use over an extended period of time. Flipcharts have
smaller writing surfaces than boards, thus several sheets of paper may be
required to hold the information that could be placed on a good-sized
chalkboard. Trainers often use masking tape to stick flipchart sheets to the
walls of the training room. By this means, information can be kept as a
reminder throughout an activity.
Second only to chalkboards as training aids are printed materials. This is

the best way to present large amounts of information for reference over an
extended period of time. Preparing good print materials can be time-
consuming, but the costs tend to be comparatively small. Care in the
presentation of print materials is necessary. If the trainer distributes printed
items to participants while continuing to discuss a topic, it is highly unlikely

anyone will hear what the trainer has to say. Everyone will be absorbed in
reading the printed material. For this reason, it is usually best to distribute
printed materials at the end of your session.
Audio and video materials can be very powerful and stimulating aids in
the training setting. But producing the materials can require a great deal of
time and money, so their use is usually quite restricted. If materials are
acquired from outside sources, they may not fit into the training schedule
well. Once a video or audio playback is begun they move at their own pace,
regardless of the learners’ desired pace. If learners want to move at a slower
pace, the best the trainer can do is periodically to interrupt the presentation.
Also, video and audio material can entail copyright issues. Many videos are
sold for personal use only and showing them to a large group may violate
laws in some countries. Lastly, the training room needs to be arranged properly
for audio and video presentations; control over light and noise in the training
room must be available.
The overhead projector (usually referred to as the OHP) needs to be used

in a room with controlled lighting also. The OHP is a simple device, but it is
often used incorrectly. OHPs are meant to be used with the speaker facing
forward. The speaker can look down at the OHP or look up to see the
participants. Pointing to different items on the transparency should be done
with a pencil or other pointer on the transparency itself, not by pointing at
the image on the screen. OHP transparencies and computer graphics work
best if each slide is kept simple. Bold letters and bright colors can be used to
focus attention on key portions of the slides. OHP transparencies are of
moderate cost and can be produced by hand drawing, by photocopying
machines, or by computer printers.
In conclusion
In this section we have offered numerous suggestions for training

presentations, discussions, and demonstrations. These are the main modes
of introducing information in courses. Although we have not described them
here, there are additional modes that you might wish to use. Among these
are the case study, simulations, and computer aided training, to name just
three. The case study is frequently used in management training and has
been especially favored as a technique for sharpening decision-making skills.
Simulations and computer aided training are particularly useful when the
training room cannot provide the proper conditions for the training exercise.
All these are specialized techniques that require extensive preparation. If you
are interested in any of these, you should consult a publication that gives
more detail on their use.
The points presented in this section leave the trainer with many things to
think about when planning an activity. We would like to close this discussion
with a memory aid. It is an acronym that has been used in training courses at
AIBD for many years—SMARTE. SMARTE should remind trainers of six
important factors that they should take into account when organizing their
sessions.
The S in SMARTE stands for

“student centered” and reminds the
trainer of the need to arrange training
so that it focuses on the learner, not the
trainer. M stands for “motivation” and
stresses the importance of building
motivational elements into the
schedule. A is a reminder of “activities,”
that adult learners require opportunities
for active participation in training, both
physical and mental. R stands for
“reinforcement,” that is, the need to
include opportunities for learners to
demonstrate their learning within a
course as a means of reinforcing their
new knowledge and skills. T stands for
“transfer” and prompts the trainer to check for transfer throughout a training
program, to make certain the desired learning points have been internalized.
And finally, E is for “environment,” the setting used for training—whether
it is comfortable and conducive to learning. As you prepare your training
activity, make an effort to think about each of the issues raised by SMARTE.
If your plan addresses each of these, the probability of its success will be
greatly increased.
Evaluation 105
SECTION SEVEN
Evaluation
Evaluation 107
SECTION SEVEN
Evaluation
L
et’s begin with a simple definition of training evaluation. Properly
conducted, training evaluation is a systematic means of analyzing the
learning of our participants. By this we mean the how, what, and the
how much of participants’ learning. Evaluation should not be limited to
handing out a questionnaire at the end of a training program. In this section
we will describe how you can use results of evaluation to create better training
programs and how to improve your sessions in future presentations. But there
are additional possibilities. For example, other forms of evaluation can be
used to justify your organization’s continued support of your training
department by showing that those who have completed its programs perform
more effectively and help the organization achieve its broader goals.
In many publications on training, a typology of evaluation developed by

Donald L. Kirkpatrick is mentioned. He described four levels of evaluation,
with each building on the previous level: The first is “reaction.” At this level,
evaluation measures the reception of training programs among participants.
At the second level evaluation investigates “learning” that occurred among
the participants—how much did the program change their attitudes, increase
their knowledge, or improve their skills? Evaluation at the third level,
“behavior” asks whether those who attended the training program really did
change their behavior when they returned to their work units. Finally, at the
fourth level, “results,” tries to assess whether a training program has benefited
the organization (Kirkpatrick 1998, pp. 19-24). Of these, the most important
is the first, the participants’ reactions to the program. As Kirkpatrick notes,
while measuring reaction to a program (level one) is something we should
always do, “trainers should proceed to the other three levels as staff, time,
and money are available” (Kirkpatrick, 1998, p. 24).
Recognizing that many who read this manual will face severe limitations
in resources to conduct evaluations, our approach here will be to concentrate
on the relatively simple things you can do on your own. The starting point is
to recognize that you need to design a strategy for evaluation. In particular
you want to decide before doing anything else what information you want
and can use. It is wasteful to collect data that either do not answer the questions
you want answered or focus on issues that are beyond your power to control.
In this section of the manual we will distinguish between two forms of

evaluation. The first—formative evaluation—happens during the creation
of a new training program and is aimed at improving its design. Summative
evaluation can occur either during a program or after it has been completed.
The purpose in summative evaluation is to improve subsequent presentations
of that training program. In the following discussion, we will review some of
the methods you can use and describe some issues you may want to consider,
such as providing participants with anonymity. Since questionnaires are
frequently used we will also consider aspects of questionnaire design that can
help you generate responses that genuinely reflect the trainees’ experiences.
Formative evaluation
The purpose of formative evaluation is to improve a training program’s design

during the planning stage. As such, it builds on some of the things you
discovered during the needs analysis described in section two. The
fundamental question you will ask is whether the program you are designing
will satisfy the needs you discovered. You will also want to assess whether the
program would be likely to achieve the specific objectives you set—that is,
those objectives you formulated following the process described in section
four of this manual. In the first section we proposed that planning of training
is a circular rather than a linear process, and this becomes very apparent during
the formative evaluation process. The results from the needs assessment, the
objectives you set yourself, and anything you discover through formative
evaluation all influence each other. For example, you may conclude that one
of the objectives was unrealistic. Or perhaps one objective is so different from
the others that a separate training program would need to be developed.
But how do you conduct formative evaluation? You certainly cannot give
a questionnaire to trainees who have taken the program, since it has not yet
been presented. One approach is to ask for the responses of those who already
possess the skills you are trying to develop. This can either be done individually
Evaluation 109
or by bringing together a group. Show them what you are proposing to do

and ask them for their observations. Do they think this would rectify the
deficiency discovered in the needs analysis? Is there anything they think you
have missed and that should be added? Alternatively, is there anything that
they think could be omitted.
Sometimes people are hesitant to undertake formative evaluation because

they worry that the results of pre-testing may not be valid if the program
plan is not in its final form. This concern is unnecessary. We can illustrate
this with a simple analogy. Many of you reading this will be familiar with
the way advertising agencies regularly use “storyboards” to pretest ideas for a
new television commercial. Since it is so expensive to produce the commercial
advertising executives customarily present clients with a series drawing showing
each element of the commercial and how they will be sequenced. In the same
way that advertising clients can make intelligent decisions based on
storyboards, so too can you make good decisions about training through
formative research.
Several years ago, one of the authors of this manual was working on a
university undergraduate distance education course. A proposal had been
made to use a series of audiocassettes as one component of the course and
several ideas for innovative ways to structure them had been made. Nobody
knew whether these ideas would work. Therefore, the author and a specialist
in curriculum development sat in an empty office and recorded a sample
cassette of what we thought might work. It was very crude. Indeed, I
remember hitting the side of a glass with a pencil to produce the signal that
we wanted to use to tell the student that this was the point to stop the tape
and complete one of the accompanying written exercises. Later, when one of
the audio engineers heard the cassette he was appalled by the poor quality
and made us promise that we would make it clear to everyone that neither
he, nor any of his colleagues, had anything to do with its production. But
the crude cassette proved invaluable. We distributed copies to a number of
the academics who were writing other parts of the course and even contacted
a few students who had previously taken similar courses. Their responses
were very helpful in planning the finished structure of the cassettes, and best
of all, the whole process cost very little.
Collecting feedback during a training program
Questioning trainees who are currently taking a training program can serve
both formative and summative evaluation purposes. Reactions at various
points throughout the program can lead to changes in that presentation. For
example, as part of a program lasting several days, participants could be asked
to provide feedback at the end of the second day. The responses could be
used to decide what should receive more emphasis in subsequent days. The
other advantage of taking this approach is that, as we described in section
five, you can enhance adult motivation by demonstrating that you value the
knowledge and opinions of learners through your efforts to build a learner
centered approach into your activities.
The same information you collected to decide whether adjustments were

needed during presentation of a training activity can also be used later to
determine whether to make permanent revisions in subsequent presentations
of the program. It has been a common practice in some AIBD training courses
to offer a mid-course review. This has proved particularly valuable in longer
training courses where suggestions acquired in the review can be
accommodated as the course continues to its conclusion.
Summative evaluation
As noted at the beginning of this section, evaluation should not be limited

only to questionnaires collected from trainees at the end of a program. We
say this recognizing that the most common way to collect feedback is through
various types of questionnaires. However, alternatives do exist. For example,
if training has been designed to develop a particular skill, you might want to
incorporate an exercise into the later stages of the program that will both
provide practice for the trainees in that skill and also give you some
information on how much they have learned.
There is no single ‘correct’ way to design an evaluation questionnaire or

the individual questions it contains. Regardless of how it has been constructed,
a questionnaire is only successful if it supplies the kind of reliable information
you need to make informed decisions while not placing undue demands on
Evaluation 111
the respondents. As a result, questionnaire design is at least as much an art as

a science.
For instance, there is no simple answer to the question: “How long is too
long?” The number of questions you can ask, and the time you can ask
respondents to take completing the items depends very much on the situation.
When respondents are committed to the training activity, the questionnaire
can ask for more than if they see it as something incidental to their lives.
This is why in a training situation the questionnaire distributed at the end of
the last day has limitations. Not only will those completing them probably
be anxious to leave, they will also know that it is now too late for any
information they give to make any difference, at least for them. Because
questionnaires are so routinely used in training evaluation, participants may
be skeptical of them, perhaps doubtful that anybody ever reads the responses.
That is why evaluation at various points throughout the training program
can underscore the trainer’s interest in gaining the learners’ honest reflections
on their experience. Although it may initially sound strange, you may even
want to consider evaluation before the training program begins. It might be
very helpful to know what expectations the trainees are bringing to the first
session.
Creating items for questionnaires
The first decision you need to make is whether to use open-ended questions,
closed-response items, or a combination of the two. An open-ended question
places no limits on the ways a respondent can answer. A blank space is
provided into which the respondent enters his or her response. This type of
question is particularly useful when you do not know the sorts of answers
you might get and do not want to miss any possible thoughts or suggestions.
The disadvantages begin to appear when you try to analyze the responses.
First, it is very time consuming to read and organize all of the answers. From
these responses, you have the task of discerning patterns in the reactions of
participants. This is not to say that the time it takes to analyze open-response
questions makes them something you should avoid. Rather it is a warning
that, while they are usually easier to write, the work simply moves to a later
stage when you try to analyze them.
Closed-response questions force the respondent into selecting from a

predetermined range of possible responses. There are several familiar formats
for closed-response items. One of the most familiar is the multiple-choice
question. Respondents are given a series of alternative answers to a question
and asked to choose one, perhaps by circling a letter preceding it. Another
version of this type of question asks for a “yes” “no”, or “true” “false” response.
Checklists are also popular. Here the respondent is given a list of items and
asked which would apply in a particular case, perhaps by checking a box
next to everyone that applies. Ranking a list of items is also possible. In this
kind of questionnaire the respondent is asked to order a list of items perhaps
by placing a one (1) next to the item she or he considers most import and
then, if there are five items, ranking the others two (2) through (5).
Trainees’ opinions about a topic can be by investigated by asking them

to respond to a series of statements. For example: “It is important for a
manager to regularly visit all of the units he or she supervises.” The respondents
are then asked to indicate the strength of their agreement or disagreement
with the statement by selecting from options such as: “I strongly agree”, “I
agree” “I am undecided”, “I disagree”, “I strongly disagree.” Here, as in other
forms of closed-response questions, a category of “other” can be included.
Often this is accompanied by a request for a brief written explanation.
However, if a large number of participants select this “other” option
interpreting the results will be difficult and time consuming. In the worst
scenario, you may find many respondents have selected the “other” option
but have failed to explain the basis for their answer. Unless you can re-contact
the respondents and ask for clarification, you will be left in the dark on that
question. The advantage of closed-response questions is that, if properly
constructed, the answers can be easy to tabulate and analyze. If you find
yourself dealing with large groups, say many dozens or hundreds of
respondents, computers can be used to scan the responses and analyze the
data.
Although the techniques listed above are among the most widely used,
this brief list certainly does not exhaust the formats available. Many
introductory textbooks on social science research methods include examples
of more. A more specialized source on questionnaire design, interviewing,
Evaluation 113
and attitude measurement can be found in a book by A. N. Oppenheim

(1992).
Because of the foregoing list of pro and con issues, we urge you to consider
using a mixture of open and closed-response items. The combination of the
two can complement each other in useful ways. A particularly clear example
of the value of combining the two types of questions is recalled by one of the
authors of this manual. Several years ago he was conducting an evaluation of
a series of television programs that were broadcast as part of a university
undergraduate distance education course. One of the questions asked the
students to rate each of the television programs in the first half of the course
on a scale ranging from “very helpful” to “not at all helpful.” There was, of
course, also a response option of “did not view” for each program since every
student would not have seen every program. The second part of the question
asked the students to explain how they had decided which programs were
helpful. In other words, they were asked to describe on what basis they
answered the question about “helpfulness.” The responses to this second part
of the question were very time-consuming to analyze but the program
producers, and the academics who had written the accompanying written
materials found the students’ explanations very valuable in deciding what
revisions should be made before the next presentation of the course.
A follow-up inquiry about results obtained using an open-response item

can often provide insights into the way respondents have interpreted a
question. This is helpful for questionnaire designers, since we cannot assume
everyone will interpret our questions in the way we intended. It is impossible
to entirely eliminate problems with questionnaire items, such as unexpected
interpretations, but some techniques for avoiding some of the pitfalls are
described below.
Avoiding problems with questionnaires
The aim with all questionnaires, regardless of whether they are being used
for formative or summative evaluations, is to collect data that reflect as
accurately as possible the views of all members of the relevant population. In
this case the term population is being used not to refer the residents of a city
or country but rather the entire group of persons who have been trained (or
in the case of formative evaluation, might be trained). Thus if you organized
a workshop for twenty trainees, the population would be every one of the
twenty who attended. Similarly, if you were interested in the views of all
executive producers in a broadcast television organization, the population
would be “all executives producers working for that organization.” For the
purposes of this manual we will assume that you will always be trying to get
information from everyone in the intended population. This is known as a
census. When there are too many members of a population to contact
everyone, the alternative to a census is to use a sample. However, to be
successful and collect information from a sample that truly reflects the views
of the whole population, including those who were not questioned, an
appropriate sampling method needs to be employed. Constructing such a
sample is beyond the scope of this manual, but you may be able to gain the
assistance in your organization’s research department if you have one, or
alternatively someone from a local university might be willing to help.
There are, however, several steps you can take to ensure that your
questionnaires will gather the kind of information you need. Four techniques
will be described here: the value of pretesting, improving the response rate
on mailed questionnaires, the issue of respondents’ anonymity, and avoiding
problems with questionnaire wording.
Unless you have used a questionnaire previously and found it to be

successful, it is always better to pretest (sometimes also called “pilot”) a
questionnaire. Even when you are using questions that others have used—
perhaps taken from a book on training, or similar publication—it is still be
better to conduct a pretest whenever possible. This is especially true for courses
offered in an international setting. Differences between cultures can mean
that a question that worked well in one context may be interpreted very
differently elsewhere.
One simple technique for pretesting is to find a few people who are
representative of the population who will eventually be completing the
questionnaire. Then ask those individuals to work their way through the
Evaluation 115
questionnaire. Afterwards, ask each one whether they experienced problems

answering any of the questions. You can also use the opportunity to ask
questions that probe the way they had interpreted each question. Sometimes
you will be quite surprised to discover that what seemed like a very
straightforward question can be interpreted in very different ways. Based on
the results of a pretest, however, revisions can be made to the questionnaire.
In the training workshop situation getting a high response rate to your

questionnaires should be easy. However, when you are mailing questionnaires
to people in other locations it may be quite difficult to get a large percentage
of those to whom you have sent questionnaires to complete them and mail
them back to you. People often ask what percentage you need to get back to
know that the results reflect the views of the whole population. This can be a
highly complex question to answer, but for our purposes a good rule of thumb
is that the lower the percentage of questionnaires returned the more cautious
you should be about the results. Consider a situation where only fifty percent
of the questionnaires have been returned. Can you be certain that those who
did not return the questionnaires would hold the same views as those who
did? Or is it likely that those who responded were in some way different? In
most cases, it is probably the latter.
A good example of this problem occurred a few years ago in the United
States. An organization sent questionnaires to all television stations across
the United States asking them how much free time for public service
announcements (PSAs) their station had provided. The response rate was
relatively low but the organization simply assumed that those who failed to
respond would have answered in a way similar to those who did reply. Clearly,
this was a highly flawed assumption. Here is why: A station that emphasizes
PSAs and is proud of its record is far more likely to respond than another
that grudgingly transmits a few. If a station saw this as an important part of
their public service commitment, it would probably have someone on staff
designated to deal with PSAs. The questionnaire would have been routed to
that person as soon as it arrived. At the less committed station it might well
be passed from desk to desk with each hoping that someone else would
complete it. Indeed, the questionnaire may merely have been discarded.
How then can you increase the likelihood that a larger percentage of
questionnaires will be returned? First, keep the questionnaire as short as
possible to collect the information you need, and indicate, honestly, how
long you think it will take to complete. As discussed above, there is no simple
answer to the question: “How long is too long?” But as a general rule the
shorter the better.
Always explain to the participants why you need this information and
what you will do with it. Include in the original mailing a copy of the
questionnaire and a cover letter explaining the significance of the information
they are being asked to provide and why they were selected. If you can be
certain that the questionnaires will reach everyone within a week, consider
sending a second mailing two weeks after the initial mailing. This can just be
a short letter reminding them of the survey and asking them to contact you,
if for some reason they had not received it. Finally, after a further two weeks
send another copy of the questionnaire together with a new cover letter to all
who have not responded. If someone has not replied in a month they may
have lost or discarded the questionnaire, or at least by then it may be hard to
locate, and a new copy of the questionnaire may prompt a response.
A third thing to consider in an effort to collect the best data from

questionnaires, whether used in the training situation or distributed by mail,
is to consider the issue of providing respondents with anonymity. We can all
think of situations where our response to a question was influenced by the
knowledge that a record of that response was being made and that our name
would be attached to it. In an organization’s internal training setting this is
certain to be an issue. Since your aim in distributing questionnaires is to
collect the most useful information, you should always consider whether you
really need to know the identity of the respondent.
Perhaps there is some characteristic of the respondent that you do need

to know. For example, you might believe that the responses to a questionnaire
would be influenced by the number of years an individual had worked for
that organization. But that does not mean you need to know the identity of
each respondent. Perhaps it would be adequate to know approximately how
many years they had worked. You could ask for this information in fairly
Evaluation 117
broad categories such as 0-5 years, 6-10 years, more than 10 years. Provided
the group is large enough, individuals will be less concerned that a particular
response might be traced back to them, and thus tempted to write only what
they think their superiors would want them to say.
Some readers may wonder how one can provide anonymity in a mail
survey, if you need to know who has not replied in order to mail them
reminders. Although not a perfect method, you can assign anonymous
respondent numbers to each individual in the mailing list and include no
other identification on the questionnaire. If you use this tactic, assure
respondents that only you have access to the list of persons and their number
assignments. Obviously, some will not believe you, and the success of this
approach depends on the culture of the organization, but in some situations
it may help to get the responses you need.
Finally, we will review a few of the potential problems that arise in

questionnaire wording. While some may be specific to questions written in
the English language we provide them because what we want to emphasize is
the importance of thinking how a respondent might misinterpret a question.
Again, pretesting can help to identify problems you have not previously
thought of.
If there is a particularly significant word in the question that could lead

to misinterpretation, if the respondent misses it, consider underlining it or
using italics. A frequent example is the type of question that asks the
respondent to agree or disagree with a statement that something should not
be done.
It is also important to avoid “double-barreled questions. These are ones

that ask for two pieces of information in the same question, leaving the
respondent with a choice of which to answer. For example: “Do you agree
that there is a problem with staff morale and that counseling sessions could
improve the situation?” As you can see, the respondent might agree that there
is a problem and yet believe the proposed remedy could make things worse.
In this case, it is impossible to know how a respondent might answer this
question.
Be careful when using words like “frequently”, “occasionally”, and “rarely.”

There is no agreement on what these terms mean. Thus, the responses to a
question asking how often someone reads a staff newsletter could be quite
misleading. One person’s “occasionally” could be another’s “rarely.” Provide
examples of the frequency of reading that would apply in each category.
Avoid providing inadequate alternatives in the response options. For

example, at times you may want to force respondents into selecting between
“agree” and “disagree” on a series of questions. But what if “don’t know” is a
valid response? Or, if respondents are being asked to rate the performance of
other units within an organization, what happens if someone has never had
any dealings with a particular unit? A response option of “no experience on
which to base a judgment” might be useful here.
Double-negatives should also be avoided. Consider the possibility for

misinterpretation if a questionnaire included a statement like: “Increased
resources should not be given to units who have not demonstrated improved
efficiency during the past year.”
Finally, consider the layout of the questionnaire as an important part of

its design. The questionnaire should be straightforward, attractive, with clear
directions. If someone answering “no” to the first question will be unable to
answer the next four, include an instruction sending them directly to question
six. Do not make them read items that are not relevant to them. This will
either confuse or frustrate your respondents and it might reduce your response
rate. Try to present questions in a logical sequence. Moving from general
questions to the more specific is often appropriate. However, if you need to
collect some general information that only provides a background to the main
focus of the questionnaire you may want to leave this until last. Starting
with those background questions may make some respondents decide that
the questionnaire is not important. In this case, beginning with questions
that clearly relate to the topic of the questionnaire would be better.
Evaluation 119
Evaluating learning outcomes
Apart from gaining the thoughts of your trainees on the planning of programs,
evaluation should additionally investigate whether learning objectives have
been satisfied. This matches Kirkpatrick’s second level of evaluation
mentioned at the beginning of this section. You may remember that in section
four we made the point that training is expected to do the following things:
(1) to develop cognition or to improve the knowledge of participants in
specific job situations;
(2) to develop skills to complete the required psychomotor tasks efficiently;
and
(3) to develop attitudes or beliefs which make participants more effective in
their work.
In order for you to determine whether a course has met its learning objectives,
you must decide whether participants have developed the skills, knowledge
and attitudes laid out by the training objectives. Measuring the terminal
behavior in each of the three kinds of learning requires different techniques.
So in the following discussion, we will consider the evaluation of cognitive,
skill, and attitude development separately.
First, let’s look at the evaluation of cognitive learning. Cognitive learning

is the increase of knowledge—the learning of facts and the relationships among
facts. To use another familiar term, one might say that cognitive learning
means gaining new information. Information gain is the result of cognitive
learning—one knows more as a result of cognitive learning. Objectives for
cognitive learning usually state that participants will be able to demonstrate
knowledge of specified terms, concepts, or ideas. Consider this then—the
words “will be able to demonstrate” tell us what we must do to evaluate
training aimed at this kind of objective. We must arrange a test that allows
participants to demonstrate their knowledge. The most common way to
evaluate cognitive learning is to allow participants to demonstrate their
knowledge through what is known as an objective test. An objective test is
one in which a trainer gives a participant a problem or a question for which
there is only one correct or acceptable response. Note our stress that in
objective measures there can be only one proper answer; all others must, by
definition, be wrong. The objective test can take several different forms. Which
of these types of objective measures you select is not really important to
evaluation of learning. Your choice will probably be based upon your own
preferences. If you favor a specific type of objective test, then use it.
A checklist is the most common way to evaluate psychomotor skill

development. A checklist contains all of the required operations or steps
necessary to demonstrate mastery of skills stated in the training objectives.
The required order of the steps are indicated in the checklist. To develop a
checklist one begins by breaking down a task into the smallest practical set
of specific actions. The manner of stating each step on the checklist should
imply how to determine whether the action was properly performed. The
checklist may be similar in form to ones developed in the job analysis carried
out during training needs analysis. It is important to remember that many
skills require steps or operations that a skilled individual might take for
granted. The purpose of a checklist is to make certain that all of the physical
actions required by a psychomotor skills task have been carried out. Through
the checklist, it should be possible to pinpoint problem areas in skill
performance.
Attitude development is likely to be more difficult to evaluate than other

types of learning. Part of the problem is that attitudes are apt to be less clearly
defined than cognitive learning. One of the many difficulties in measuring
attitudes is that often learners’ feelings on certain subjects are hidden, even
from themselves. Or ever if they are aware of their attitudes that may not
fully understand them. Haven’t you heard someone say that he or she prefers
a particular thing, but when that person is actually required to make a decision,
the choice is different? Because attitudes are often made up of contradictory
or confusing notions, people may seem to be unaware of their own beliefs. A
further complication in measuring attitudes is the difficulty in being
completely honest with others about our beliefs. We all want to be accepted
by others, so it can be awkward to admit we hold an attitude that others
might find disagreeable or peculiar. As a result, we tend to claim attitudes
that are conventional or ones we believe others are likely to accept. For this
reason, individuals tend to give respond in ways they think we would like.
Evaluation 121
And this usually occurs without any consciousness on their part. Finally,
attitudes are difficult to measure because we are not only concerned with
what attitudes are held, but also with the strength of those attitudes. We all
may agree that it is important to report to our office on work days at the
scheduled time. But just how strong is this belief in punctuality? Is it important
to be on time just when it is convenient? Or when traffic does not interfere?
Or, should we be on time even when there is a serious illness in our family?
This issue in attitude measurement obviously makes the evaluation task
different from tests of skills or knowledge, where the objective is merely to
observe whether learning goals have been met.
Although there are many ways of measuring attitudes, the most common
and the easiest to use is the multiple choice question asking for a response to
an attitude statement as described earlier. Questions of this type consist of
two parts. The first is a statement about an attitude or opinion; the second is
a set of five (occasionally fewer or more) choices: agree strongly, agree, neutral,
disagree, or disagree strongly. The object is to have persons select one of the
five choices that is closest to their own thinking about the matching statement.
By doing this, you will have gained information about both respondents’
attitudes and the strength of those attitudes. If the number of questions about
a set of attitudes is large enough, it is possible to gain an overall impression
of respondents’ attitudes. This is done by combining or adding together the
results of all the questions.
References
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. (2nd ed.).San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Oppenheim, A. M. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing, and Attitude Measurement.

(Rev. ed.). London: Pinter.
Supporting newly-trained staff 123
SECTION EIGHT
Supporting
newly-trained staff
SECTION EIGHT
Supporting newly-trained staff
T
his brief section is concerned with follow-up to training. Regrettably,
there is no guarantee that learning gains achieved in a training
program will produce positive results on the job. As discussed in
the preceding chapter, evaluation can and should be conducted to assess the
practical impact of training in the daily workplace. The fact is, however, this
is hardly ever done. Research on this point has shown that all too often newly-
trained staff members tend to slip back into old ways of doing their job. This
will happen unless trainees make a serious commitment to changing their
work behavior. For this reason, training planners need to consider ways of
gaining this level of commitment when laying out their programs.
If changes in behavior do not take place after training, the organization’s

managers are likely to assume that the training program was a failure.
However, as Kirkpatrick warns, we must be cautious not to immediately blame
the training program in these cases. There can be many reasons for the lack
of learning implementation, and most are unrelated to the training program.
Most observers think that a common—perhaps the most common—issue

in instances where learning fails to be adopted on the job is the character of
the work environment itself. Over time, an organization has a tendency to
maintain its status quo. Generally speaking, people resist changes in their
work routine. Even minor changes can be tremendously difficult to
implement, even with the full support of management. If the newly-trained
person needs to modify aspects of their working patterns in order to put
their learning into practice, the cooperation of others may be required. Unless
co-workers can be convinced of the value of these modifications, they will
probably not be enthusiastic about participating in changes.
There can even be a hostile climate towards the particular changes that
training intends to bring about. If a newly-trained staff member is thought
to be gaining an advantage of some sort in the organization, either directly
through their training or through changes that might follow from training,
it will be seen as threatening by some colleagues. Of course if training is

successful, learners are likely to be better equipped to advance their work
and their careers, perhaps at the expense of their less well-trained peers. Under
such conditions, opposition will almost certainly arise.
The influence of managers is crucial in activating the learning of

participants. If they are disinterested, or worse if they are opposed, there can
be little gained from the training. Some clues on this issue may be found in
the training needs analysis, although this cannot be depended upon. The
only solution to such a problem may be to train the managers too, in order
to gain their support. Indeed, we have frequently included both managers
and their staff in training activities, just to alleviate problems of
implementation in the workplace.
To overcome obstacles like these, a newly-trained person must be prepared

in advance to counter workplace resistance. This can be done within the
context of the course itself. A session on the obstacles to be expected on
returning to their jobs might help participants think through their responses
to opposition. If the trainer has knowledge of the particular job situations
faced by their learners this can be an important asset. Once again, some hint
of the reception likely to be faced by returning trainees can often be gleaned
from the training needs analysis. If part of the problem found in TNA was
the working environment, troubles can be expected.
We have found that even when we did not introduce a discussion on

implementation issues, our participants have frequently raised the subject
themselves, indicating their concern on such matters. Often this discussion
begins with a learner’s comment that goes something like this: “What we are
learning here is good and I would like to employ these new techniques, but
frankly speaking, they would never work in my organization.” What the
learner is saying is that they realize their organization’s environment will not
be conducive to put their new learning into action. When a discussion like
this is initiated by a learner, the trainer should listen carefully and be prepared
to talk through the issues thoroughly, perhaps in a discussion including the
entire group of participants.
One technique that we have used with some success is to follow a

discussion of workplace implementation problems with an exercise asking
each participant to detail their specific plans for using new learning. In this
exercise, learners can pick out which parts of their training will be most
relevant to their job and explain how these will alter the way they do their
work. Although participants may or may not actually act on these plans, the
mere requirement of thinking through problems in their own work setting
and then formulating a strategy may increase the likelihood of
implementation. By having a plan like this in writing, most participants will
feel some obligation to follow through on it.
References
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. (2nd ed.).
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Additional resources 129
SECTION NINE
Additional
resources
SECTION NINE
Additional resources
Print Resources
Birchall, D. & Smith, M. (1999). Technology supported learning. In A.

Landale (Ed.), Gower Handbook of Training and Development. (3rd ed., pp.
354-362). Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing..
Flannery, D. D. (Ed.). (1993, no. 59). Applying cognitive learning theory to

adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gagné, R.M.& Medsker, K. (1996). The conditions of learning: Training

applications. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Hart, L.B. (1991). Training Methods that Work: A Handbook for Trainers.
Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.
.
Klatt, B. (1999). The Ultimate Training Workshop Handbook: A Comprehensive
Guide to Leading Successful Workshops and Training Programs. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels.

(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Mager, R. F. (1984). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, Calif.: Lake

Publishing.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Milano, M. & Ullius, D. (1998). Designing Powerful Training: The Sequential-

Iterative Model. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Odiorne, George S. (1970). Training by objectives; an economic approach to

management training. New York: Macmillan.
Oppenheim, A.M. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing, and Attitude

Measurement. (Rev. ed.). London: Pinter.
Vella, J. (1994). Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue

in Educating Adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vella, J. (1995). Training Through Dialogue: Promoting Effective Learning

and Change with Adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vella, J. (1998). How Do They Know They Know?: Evaluating Adult Learning.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn. Rev. Ed..

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
World Wide Web Resources
Asia Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development:

http://www.aibd.org.my/
American Society for Training and Development:

http://www.astd.org/
Asia Pacific Broadcasting Union:

http://www.abu.org.my/
Asian Media Information & Communication Centre (AMIC):

http://www.amic.org.sg/
About the authors
Drew O. McDaniel. (Ph.D.) is Professor of Telecommunications and Director

of Communication and Development Studies, Ohio University. He also serves
as a member of the faculty in Southeast Asia Studies. He has been associated
with the Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, since 1981 where he has been responsible for presenting
numerous training courses. In 1989-90 he was a Fulbright Southeast Asia
Research Fellow. Prior to joining Ohio University he worked in broadcasting
in the United States. His latest book, Electronic Tigers of Southeast Asia:
The Politics of Media, Technology and National Development was published
by Iowa State University Press in 2001.
Duncan H. Brown. (Ph.D., University of Illinois) is Associate Professor and

Associate Director for Graduate Studies in the School of Telecommunications
at Ohio University where he teaches courses in electronic media policy, media
industry structures, and the history of mass media research. He previously
taught at the University of Maryland and Emerson College in Boston. Before
moving to the United States he was a Research Fellow in the Institute of
Educational Technology at the Open University in Britain where he worked
on the evaluation of television and radio programs produced for the Open
University by the BBC. His work has appeared in several edited books and
journals such as Critical Studies in Mass Communication, and the Journal
of Radio Studies.

Manual For Media Trainers

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Manual For Media Trainers

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach i

Manual for Media Trainers

Chin Mun Woh

Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development (AIBD)

Copyright 2001 © AIBD and UNESCO

All rights reserved.

Publication of this book was made possible

Illustrations by Chin Mun Woh

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Manual for Media Trainers: A Learner-Centred Approach _____________________

FOREWORD BY DREW O. MCDANIEL vi

PREFACE BY JAVAD MOTTAGHI viii

PREAMBLE BY WIJAYANANDA JAYAWEERA x

ABOUT THE AUTHORS 133

Good luck with your training!

Training Methodology was a special development course for Trainers/

In an era of unprecedented technological development in the broadcast

This Manual on Training of Trainers integrates the components of the

UNESCO’s continuous support for the Training of Trainers scheme

The joint publication of UNESCO & AIBD is a noteworthy and timely

We are deeply indebted to Professor Drew McDaniel, Professor of

T aining of Trainers is one of the most important tasks in building

Improving efficiency and performance to ensure that the organization is

Where an organization has dispersed operations, perhaps with production

It may not be obvious what trainers are expected to do in connection

Generally, we can identify five separate categories of responsibility. These

way training is usually carried out in broadcast organizations. Trainers must

The starting point of training is usually a training needs assessment. In

Second, the trainer is required to design courses and programs—including

Third, naturally, the trainer must be prepared to conduct training in

trainers must be skillful communicators,

Fourth, the end of the activity

Fifth, trainers should be expected to participate in consulting with

The broad responsibilities that are assigned to trainers in the modern

also play significant roles as managers, providing problem-solving, counseling,

Training compared to education

Training is different from education

While training may, of necessity, occasionally touch on these more

Fundamentally, training helps someone do something better and the skills it

Because of the difference in aims between training and education, the

Adults learn differently from children

Three principles that guide our approach to training

From these two fundamental beliefs:

(1) We need a learner centered approach because:

A learner centered approach

Adult training is different

Pedagogy is biased toward education rather than training and is associated

Andragogy takes into account the learning needs of adults in a number of

Pedagogy’s perspective is centered on the teacher, because the child learner

This idea of a training program as something that is not fixed in stone,

Planning training is a circular rather than a linear process

The topic of evaluation will be covered in section seven of this handbook.

Birchall, D. & Smith, M. (1999). Technology supported learning. In A. Landale (Ed.),

As suggested in the preceding paragraph, any training project should begin

productive capacity of the organization. The trained person is more competent

In broadcasting, change is a feature of daily life. New technologies enter

Unfortunately, it may not be obvious when staff need updating, so the

Often training seems to be called for because of organizational changes.

Sometimes training is proposed because basic indicators of overall

There are many sources of information that can help in investigating

In some organizations formal data gathering techniques are possible. The

Conducting a job analysis

One component of training needs assessment is job analysis. At the micro