Compare and contrast the five different models of training: instructional model; apprenticeship model; inquiry model; self-evaluation

model and situational model and consider the strengths and weakness of teacher-led and trainee-led training and how each can be evaluated.

Training is an essential phase for workers. It not only ensures they have the required skills for the job but it also aims to assimilate them into the organisation and improve their job performance. Because of its important function in improving an organisations efficiency, various training models have been developed. This essay will describe each models role for trainer and trainee, compare their learning processes and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. Kirkpatricks four-level training criteria will be used to describe how training evaluation might be conducted along with considering its limitations to illustrate the challenges of conducting effective training evaluation. The industry or instructional training model allows numerous workers to be systematically trained under one or more instructor. The model is based on behavioural principles such as reinforcement and observation when teaching trainees the required skills and knowledge for the job (Millward, 2005). The trainees role is to listen to the trainers instructions, observe how they accomplish the task and then simulate those steps. They need to practice those new skills and apply it once they are in the work setting. The trainers role is basically to instruct, shape the trainees skills and conduct performance tests to assess their progress (De Jong, Thijssen, & Verslooy, 2001). One advantage of this training model includes being costeffective, since a large number of trainees can be instructed at the time-expense of only one supervisor or trainer. The instructional model is particularly favourable when the task is complex or a new concept is being introduced because it would give trainees the opportunity to ask questions directly to the trainer. The model does have its weaknesses, for example it cannot cater to different learning styles that trainees may have. In this respect, training from the instructional model has a rather fixed format (De Jong, Thijssen, & Verslooy, 2001). On the other hand, the apprenticeship model has the liberty to cater to a trainees particular learning style because it is very much a one-to-one training. The trainer is considered to be a master in their area of expertise and the trainee is referred to as an apprentice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Like the industry model, the apprenticeship model is largely instructorcentred (pedagogy); hence the quality of training will largely depend on the trainers ability to communicate the processes involved in the job, as well as transferring their skills and knowledge effectively. Both models have similar trainee and trainer roles i.e. observation, modelling (Millward, 2005). However, in the instructional model, the trainer is not just limited to modelling, but can use other behavioural methods to shape behaviour (De Jong, Thijssen & Verslooy, 2001) according to the tasks requirements for example, providing positive feedback when the right actions are performed this reinforces the trainee to continue the same behaviour. However, the trainers role in the apprenticeship paradigm is entirely dedicated to being a role model. Another contrast is the duration of training - an apprenticeship can last for many years, usually five according to the Rip Van Winkle approach by Wexley (1984, cited in Millward, 2005). This training model is most likely to be appropriate for certain tasks or jobs for example, trainees aiming to become a craftsman or to work in the medical field. People wanting to become surgeons in particular would benefit from the apprenticeship model as the nature of the work requires them to know every process and procedure accurately. The apprenticeship model can adopt a similar learning process as
1

the instructional model i.e. practice and guided acquisition (Millward, 2005); however it also has the additional requirement of socialising with the specific work communitys practice and language (Sfard, 1998). Compared to the instructional and apprenticeship training models, which are instructorcentred, the following training models inquiry, self-evaluation and situated learning, are more learner-centred (andragogy). The inquiry model allows the trainee to be more responsible for their learning and training performance. The trainer is considered to be less dictatorial, and adopts a more facilitative and supportive role (Millward, 2005). They aim to encourage the trainee to explore and gather information regarding their task. An important aspect of the learning process involves interacting with the work environment which prompts problem-solving and analytical thinking (De Jong, Thijssen, & Verslooy, 2001). The model also supports error training, which refers to the trainee learning through their mistakes. This contrasts greatly against the instructional model which would discourage error-making. Nordstrom, Wendland and Williams (1998) described error training to be rather effective after finding an increase in ability and intrinsic motivation when trainees comprehended their errors. This demonstrates innovative learning (Smith, Ford & Koslowski, 1997 cited in Millward, 2005). On the other hand, error training can be detrimental towards people who are highly conscientious of their job performance and can reduce their self-efficacy. This may prevent them from considering alternatives, and therefore inhibit exploratory learning (Gully, Payne, Koles & Whiteman, 2002). The self-evaluation model is considered to be highly similar to the inquiry model but with a slight variation. This variation is mostly attributed to assuming the trainee is motivated to increase their self-esteem and personal development. The learning process entails selfdirected learning, which includes observation and reflection on experiences (Millward, 2005). However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support whether self-directed learning is indeed effective along with how self-directed learning works in a particular context (Brookfield, 1984, cited in Hill & Song, 2007). Candy (1991, cited in Hill & Song, 2007) stated if the individual has previous experience in the area of work, then they are more selfdirected. Thus self-directed learning may only be as effective depending on the context. Just as there are different learning styles, there is also the issue of different reflection tendencies such as interpersonal reflection, internally-oriented self-reflection, and rumination. This differentiation along with its possible consequences has not been investigated (Millward, 2005). Another criticism in regard to the self-evaluation model includes self-report measures being unreliable because the individual tends to overestimate their ability. This can be shown in correlational studies that have found inconsistent results (Wexley, 1984). Both the self-evaluation and inquiry model require the trainee to explore their task and rise to challenges. However, in the inquiry model the trainer sets challenges so that it stimulates the trainee to learn whilst exploring their task, whereas in the self-evaluation model, the trainee would set their own challenges as a way of reaching their goals, which the trainer helps facilitate (De Jong, Thijssen & Verslooy, 2001). Another contrast is that the inquiry model encourages problem-solving, and is characterised by its exploratory and action-learning (Farnham, 1994), whereas the self-evaluation model focuses heavily on reflective practice and thought (Millward, 2005). This can be a problem as people may reach different conclusions when evaluating themselves. Individuals may have different interpretations and learning experience, therefore outcomes derived from the self-evaluation model can be extensive, which implies low training validity because the change the training model aims to make may not occur as planned (Pulley, 1994, cited in Millward, 2005).While the inquiry
2

model supports error training, the self-evaluation model is almost based on it. It is all about self-improvement and being critically aware of ones performance. Learners cannot afford to be highly conscientious about their performance but rather, they must always seek out ways to develop themselves and learn how they can improve their performance. This is the reason for why the trainers role incorporates an improvement-oriented management style (Zubes & Miller, 1995, cited in De Jong, Thijssen & Verslooy, 2001, p. 412). The trainer provides feedback but unlike in the instructional model where this would act as positive reinforcement, this helps trainee set their goals. The situational model incorporates many of the features found in the inquiry, self-evaluation and apprenticeship model. Many of the striking similarities can be recognised in the article The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings (Glazer & Hannafin, 2006). The model emphasises that learning is truly codependent on three components: content, context and the work community (Stein, 2001). Content refers to the nature of the task and what it aims to make trainees do. Like the inquiry model, it allows the trainees to apply their knowledge and encourage problemsolving. The context is the work-setting and allows trainees to understand how a workplace functions and manages. Without learning in a situated context, it is less likely that skills and strategies will be transferrable (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). It gives the trainee the opportunity to encounter genuine work problems and confront issues they may not know how to handle. It also provides cues to guide the trainee into mastering the content. Such cues are delivered through socialisation and collaboration, which is a large part of the third component work community (Millward, 2005). Like the self-evaluation model, a major part of the learning process involves critical reflection, but it also involves interacting and communicating with other experts. Whereas trainees in the apprenticeship model aim to become part of the work community, the trainees in the situational model learn directly by training amongst the work community, integrating their everyday activities and extracting valid knowledge (Stein, 2001). The trainers role is perhaps more multifaceted compared to the other models as they need to determine four critical aspects proposed by Young (1993, cited in Stein, 2001). These include considering the right situations that would provide optimal learning for the trainee, selecting the appropriate type of guidance, changing their role from a transmitter to a facilitative role when trainee becomes more competent and lastly, to consistently assess the learners progress in training. Training that is conducted on-site (e.g. situational and apprenticeship model) is perhaps more effective compared to training models that are conducted off-site. The reason why off-site training may be less effective in regard to learning is because if the trainee cannot see the similarity between the situation and training task, it is unlikely they will apply their skills appropriately. The inquiry model may select a task that incites problem-solving and analytical skills, but it is not enough to just increase a trainees cognitive abilities, they must also be able to select them in the right situations (Ford & Kraiger, 1995, cited in Millward, 2005). This can only occur when trainees have contextual knowledge (Tennyson, 1999, cited in Millward, 2005). The aim of training is to create a change in the individuals behaviour in terms of skills, knowledge and attitude that would have a positive impact on the organisation (Goldstein, 1980). Training evaluation is a way of systematically collecting information that will be used to judge how effective the training program was in improving the organisations performance (Snyder, Raben & Farr, 1980). A well-known training evaluation model is Kirkpatricks four levels of training criteria. According to this model, evaluation may be
3

measured against these four criteria which follow a hierarchy starting with reactions, learning, then behaviour and lastly results (Alliger & Janak, 1989). Reaction refers to the trainees reaction to the training program, or their attitude and personal feelings towards the learning experience. This is usually measured using self-report measures or feedback forms. The criteria learning measures how much the trainee has understood of the concepts and whether the training taught the intended knowledge and skills required for the job. This can be assessed through observation and surveys. Behaviour evaluation is able to directly measure work performance. It measures the effects of learning experience on the trainees behaviour and how much of it was applied. Evaluation tools for this criterion include supervisor ratings, observation and even self-assessment (Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell, 2003). Results is the effects on the organisation, usually measured in terms of returns of investment, turnover and productivity (Alliger & Janak, 1989). There are several criticisms with Kirkpatricks four-levels of training criteria. Some of them are to do with its assumptions and some are in regard to the measures used for each criterion. Alliger and Janak (1989) asserted that a training program may not be affected by all four criteria during an evaluation process. They suggested an example to demonstrate this critique if the organisation aims to reduce prejudice, then perhaps only the reaction criterion would be affected, not the learning and results criteria. The model also appears to assume that one level of the criterion can affect the previous one, however if reactions and learning are both assessed immediately after the training, then we must question how can one cause the other (Alliger & Janak, 1989). Research has attempted to discern the links between the different criteria in order to investigate this assumption of causation and discovered a weak association between reaction and the other three criteria (Arthur, Tubre, Paul & Edens, 2003), implying that reactions criterion may be inadequate in providing useful information when evaluating a training model (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest there is a link between reaction and learning, more specifically, that the outcome of reactions can affect learning through motivation. If reaction is encouraging and optimistic, then the motivation to learn is higher (Mathieu, Tannenbaum & Salas, 1992, cited in Millward, 2005). On a final limitation, it is ambiguous to assume there is a positive correlation between the four criteria, for this is not necessarily the case with reactions and learning. Just because the trainee may give a positive feedback on the training program does not mean that learning has taken place (Kaplan & Pascoe, 1977). Problems with the tools for evaluation include the self-report measures used in the reaction criterion. Hofstadter and Dennet (1981) reported that people are faulty when describing their experiences. Some argue that measuring reaction involves multiple psychological factors such as self-efficacy and motivation (Kraiger, Ford & Salas (1993), which suggests reactions should be measured on a multifaceted level. The results criterion is a very useful means of evaluating whether the training program was effective or not, after all it measures the organisations performance rather than the individuals, and the aim of training is to make a change in the organisations process, thus it is able to express this relationship directly. On the other hand, Kirkpatrick (1979) admits that this is a difficult evaluation to carry out due to complex factors that may not be able to be operationalised and thus unable to be evaluated. There is also the concern in discerning which factors related to training is responsible for the change in the organisations process. Observation can be considered to be an unreliable measure as it can be subjected to bias due to variability in interpretations. The training evaluator who is observing will have to adhere to another set of criteria that codes the exact behaviour they are looking for. Some researchers suggested most of the measures that

collected data under the reaction criterion were eyeball attempts to measure reactions (Goldstein, 1980, p. 424). In conclusion, we should realise that despite the limitations of Kirkpatricks model, it certainly has proven to be useful as it has been widely used in numerous studies (see Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell, 2003) and provides a sound framework on how organisations can go about evaluating the effectiveness of their training programs. However, perhaps instead of focusing on training models and evaluation methods, more careful consideration should be directed on training needs assessment which includes task, person and organisational analysis (Goldstein, 1980). By understanding what the organisations objectives and needs are, training can be identified for the relevant areas. From there, task analysis can distinguish what training needs to involves, and lastly, person analysis decides on who will need the training (Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell, 2003). With all of this taken into account, a strong, efficient training model can be designed that can produce good outcomes when evaluated.

References

Alliger, G.M., & Janak, E.A. (1989). Kirkpatricks levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42, 331-342

Arthur, W. Jr., Bennett, W. Jr., Edens, P.S., & Bell, S.T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organisations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234-245

Arthur, W., Jr., Tubre, T. C., Paul, D. S., & Edens, P. S. (2003).Teaching effectiveness: The relationship between reaction and learning criteria. Educational Psychology, 23, 275285

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.

De Jong, J.A., Thijssen, J.G.L., & Verslooy, B.M. (2001). Planned training on the job: A typology. Advances in Developing Human resources, 3(4), 408-414

Farnham, D. S. (1994). Paradigms of knowledge and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 4463-477

Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 179 193

Goldstein, I. L. (1980). Training and organizational psychology. American Psychological Association, 11, 3, 421 - 427

Gully, S. M., Payne, S. C., Koles, K. L. K., & Whiteman, J. K. (2002). The impact of error raining and individual differences on training outcomes: An attribute-treatment interaction perspective. Human Performance, 15(4), 381-410

Hill, J.R., & L. Song. 2007. Conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 6, no. 1: 2742.

Hofstadter, D. R., & Dennett, D. C. (1981). The mind's I: Fantasies and reflections on self and soul. New York: Bantam Books

Kaplan, R. M., & Pascoe, G. C. (1977). Humorous lectures and humorous examples: Some effects upon comprehension and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 6165.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and Development Journal, 33(6), 78-92

Kraiger, K., Ford, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Applications of cognitive, skill-based and effective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311-328

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press

Millward, L. (2005) Understanding Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Sage: London.

Nordstrom, C. R., Wendland, D., & Williams, K. B. (1998). An examination of the effectiveness of error management training. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(3), 369282

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and on the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27 (2), 4-13.

Snyder, R. A., Raben, C. S., Farr, J. L. (1980). A model for the systematic evaluation of human resource development programs. Acad. Manage Rev. 5:431-44

Stein, D.S. (2001). Situated learning and planned training on the job. Advances in Developing Human resources, 3(4), 415-425

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399441.

Wexley, K.N. (1984). Personnel training. Annual review of Psychology, 35, 519-551