A process approach to the transfer of training

Abstract

In the previous article [Foxon, 1993] the author presented two models of transfer. The first, based on force field analysis, highlights the inhibiting and facilitating factors that impact transfer. In particular, intention to transfer and the perceived level of supervisor support were discussed. The second model conceptualises transfer in terms of a five stage process (ranging from initiation to unconscious maintenance) rather than as an outcome or product of training. In this article three strategies to facilitate greater transfer are presented, with a detailed discussion of end-of-course action planning as an effective means to help learners bridge the gap between the training environment and the application arena.The previous article presented a model of transfer (Figure 1) based on Lewin's (1951) theory of force field analysis. This model situates training within the organisational system, treating transfer not as a training product or outcome, but as a process subject to various inhibiting and facilitating factors. This is a significant departure from the traditional approach to transfer. Typically evaluators and trainers have attempted to measure the use of previously learned skills (referred to as training transfer) at a specific point in time. Such evaluations of the post-course application of training focus on whether learners are using the training on the job or not. However, in treating transfer as a 'product' many of the nuances of transfer are missed. The evaluation fails to assess which skills have been used, how often, and why they are not being used or used more often. By contrast the Stages of Transfer Process model (Fig 2) conceptualises transfer as an on-going process, and recognises both the phases and the extent of transfer. Transfer may be limited to occasionally "trying a few things out" (initiation) or it may result in deliberate application of newly learned skills and knowledge until these become integrated in the repertoire of work behaviours (unconscious maintenance).

The differences between hard and soft skills and their relative impact on training transfer

“…Building upon Laker' s work, Powell (2009) examined the effects of employees' perceptions of transfer intentions, general self-efficacy (GSE), and supervisor support to identify better the conditions for actual transfer based on Laker' s temporal dimension concept. Laker' s (1990a) multidimensional perspective has received some support (Foxon, 1993(Foxon, , 1997Yamnill & McLean, 2001). As with the contention of the present discussion concerning the differences between hard and soft skills, the Yelon and Ford (1999) perspective of open versus closed tasks and degree of supervision refers to the specific content of the training rather than to different dimensions of the underlying nature of transfer of training itself.…”

“…and soft skills (intrapersonal skills such as one' s ability to manage oneself as well as interpersonal skills such as how one handles one' s interactions with others.) Anecdotal evidence has routinely shown that soft-skills training is significantly less likely to transfer to the job than hard-skills training (Foxon, 1993;Georgenson, 1982;Kupritz, 2002). Most studies of training transfer identify the specific skills being trained, but often do not specifically consider the significance of whether they are either hard or soft skills.…”

Individual and situational factors affecting transfer of training in a call center environment.

“…Motivation can create very powerful learning constructs that often make up for the lack of instructional rigor or positive learning climate. Conversely, well designed training with appropriate follow-up and feedback may not make up for a lack of motivation to learn (Foxon, 1993). While not the only key, motivation is a central component in the puzzle of improving transfer effectiveness.…”

“…Some research suggests that work environment accounts for 42% of the identified inhibiting factors in the transfer process (Foxon, 1993). Within the context of organization climate, we will discuss both job support and organizational support factors since they are often found in closely linked in both research and the minds of employees.…”

The electronic journal as reflection‐on‐action: a qualitative analysis of communication and learning in a peer‐mentoring program

“…While it is obviously most important that learners actively transfer what they have learned in training to their work, research has shown that the intention to transfer has a strong relationship to the transfer process. In other words, as Foxon (1993) asserts, if trainees leave training without transfer intention then they will be unlikely to perform behaviors learned in training on the job later on. To support this assertion, Foxon cites a study by Huczynski and Lewis (1980) of the outcomes of intention to transfer, where the researchers questioned course attendees four months after the training and found that transfer initiation was more likely to occur among trainees with a higher level of intention to transfer.…”