Introduction
Chapter 1 outlined the background for this thesis indicating that Transfer of Training: Challenges faced by technicians in the Malaysian manufacturing industry. The Chapter described preliminary evidence suggesting that motivation is a factor which enhances training transfer.
Chapter 2 intended to place the research problem in its academic context by canvassing the International based research literature on transfer of training before moving to a detailed discussion of the concept of motivation to transfer. First, the Chapter outlines the various definitions of training and transfer of training in order to set a base line for understanding the operational variables in this area. The Chapter then sets out the definitions of motivation to transfer training and the third section explores the factors which may influence trainees' motivations to transfertheir training by considering the evolution of several key training evaluation models: the Kirkpatrick (1994) four level evaluation model and the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) (Holton et al. 2000). The Human Resource Development Evaluation Research and Measurement Model (the HRD model) (Holton 1996) is described in the fourth section of this Chapter. The HRD model was the first attempt to comprehensively specify factors that can influence trainee's motivation to transfer training both directly and indirectly.
2.2 Training and Transfer of Training
The International Encyclopaedia of Adult Education and Training (1996:519) defined training as the stipulation that is meant at creating intentional learning processes that contribute to improving the performance of workers in their current job. The explanation does not vary drastically from definitions of training in the HRD circumstance. For example, in an HRD situation, training is frequently defined as a planned learning practice designed to bring about permanent change in an individual's knowledge, attitudes, or skills (Campbell, Dunnete, Lawler & Weick 1970:497).
Goldstein (1992:3) provided a description that related training to individual performance which is, debatably, a more apt descriptor of HRD objectives. He defined training as the orderly gaining of attitudes, concepts, knowledge, roles or skills that outcome in improved performance at work. Normally, it has been found that most workplace training definitions in the international literature highlight the current job as the focal point. For example, Tziner, Haccoun and Kadish (1991) noted that the primary idea of training is to assist people increase skills and abilities which, when applied at work, will improve their normal job performance in their current job.
The definition provided by Tziner et al. (1991) links the achievement of knowledge and skills gained through training to an application in the workplace. This link represents the concept of training transfer. Transfer of training is usually defined as the quantity to which trainees apply the knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in training to their job (Ford & Weissbein 1997; Tannenbaum & Yulk 1992; Wexley & Latham 1991). Most researchers used the terms ‘transfer of training' and ‘transfer of learning' interchangeably to refer to the application of the knowledge and skills learned in training back to the job. The application of these skills has also been described as in progress exercise rather than a once-off task. In this sense, transfer of training has been described as the preservation of skills, knowledge and attitudes over a certain period of time (Baldwin & Ford 1988).
Transfer of training required to be measured as a multidimensional build because different authors view transfer of training differently, attributing a variety of features to its definition. For example, Wexley and Latham (1991) suggest that transfer can be measured as a positive, negative or a zero. Positive transfer occurs when learning in the training situation results in better performance on the job. This reflects the general assumption behind most definitions of transfer of training. Negative transfer occurs when learning in the training situation results in poorer performance on the job. Zero transfer, not surprisingly, occurs when learning in the training situation has no effect on the job performance.
Other researchers have offered different closely into transfer of training. For example, Cormier and Hagman (1987) measured it to consist of two elements: general or specific transfer. On this analysis, common transfer refers to the request of learned knowledge and skills to a higher level or to a more composite work circumstances. It occurs when a trainee has grasped the generic skills or concepts and generalised their application (for instance, problem solving). Specific transfer occurs when the trainee can apply what has been learned in the training surroundings to a similar work circumstances (for instance, learning to use a word processor in training with application of that learning at work).
Finally, Laker (1990) proposed a difference between near transfer and far transfer in a training context. According to this author, near transfer occurs when trainees apply what was acquired in training to situations very similar to those in which they were trained. Far transfer, in difference, occurs when trainees apply the training to different situations from the ones in which they were trained.
In spite of how the transfer of training fundamentals has been described, there has been universal agreement between researchers that transfer of training is a significant issue in HRD. For example, Baldwin and Ford (1988), in their early model of the transfer process provided HRD researchers and practitioners of organisational training with an understanding of the variety of factors affecting transfer of training include a variety of trainee characteristics, the training course design and the type of work surroundings. Further, many researchers in this area have emphasised that any attempt taken to assess training effectiveness must look for these elements of transfer of training (Broad & Newstrom 1992; Kirkpatrick 1994; Noe 2005; Noe et al. 2004). According to Bates (2003), training can do little to increase individual or organisational performance unless what is learned as a effect of training is transferred to the job.
The breach between what is learned and what is applied on the job represents, at least in HRD terms, a huge transfer problem (Baldwin & Ford 1988; Broad & Newstrom 1992; Ford 1994). In one study, Broad and Newstrom (1992) surveyed 85 trainees and asked them how much of the material learned was used on the job over time. The responses were: immediately - 41 percent; six months later - 24 percent; and one year later - 15 percent. Broad and Newstrom (1992) also noted that the lack of participation of line managers and the lack of strengthening on the job were major barriers to the transfer of training. Not amazingly, it has been reported in the literature that a measly of 10 percent of the investment in training is returned in presentation upgrading (Garavaglia 1993; Georgenson 1982).
Regardless of the reported problems in achieving successful transfer of training reported in the international HRD research, the training and development of employees continues to be viewed as a key strategy for organisations to gain a spirited advantage (Goldstein 1992; Noe 2005; Wexley & Latham 1991). One of the issue which stands out in the literature as a contributor to more effective transfer has been the point to which trainees are stimulated to use their training on the job.
2.3 Motivation to Transfer Training
Many researchers have approved that transfer of training will occur only when trainees have the inspiration or desire to use the learned knowledge and skills on the job (Baldwin & Ford 1988; Noe 1986; Noe & Schmitt 1986; Wexley & Latham 1991). Arguably, without motivation to transfer, even the most organized training program will thrash about to be effective. However, petite is known about the detailed factors that impact on a trainee's motivation to transfer training to the job (Seyler et.al. 1998; Tannenbaum & Yulk 1992). As this thesis is concerned with uncovering factors that could influence a technicians' motivation to transfer his or her training to the job, it is pertinent to examine the two key training evaluation models in the HRD literature.
The Kirkpatrick (1994) training evaluation model (see 2.3.1 below) and the Learning Transfer System Inventory (see 2.3.2 below) (Holton et al. 2000) have received the most attention by researchers in the area of training evaluation. Other training assessment models such as developed by Hamblin (1974), Phillips (1995) and (Brinkerhoff 1987) are not discussed because they are encompassed in the extended version of Kirkpatrick's (1994) model. For example, Hamblin (1974) included economic benefits (in a five-level model) while Brinkerhoff (1987) proposed a six-level model. Phillips (1995) focused on return on investment in his model. Although each of these other authors' work contributes greatly to the knowledge in training evaluation, their models largely mirror Kirkpatrick's model and it is to this model the thesis now turns.
2.3.1 The Kirkpatrick Model
The Kirkpatrick (1994) model of training evaluation, also recognized as the four-level evaluation model, has conquered the field of training evaluation for further 30 years and over (Alliger & Janak 1989; Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennet, Traver & Shortland 1997). As depicted in Figure 2.1 below, the model consists of four stages: reaction, learning, behaviour and results. Kirkpatrick (1994) described reaction, learning, behaviour and results as training outcomes (measures that organisations use to evaluate training programs) that interference (the training course) hopes to produce.
Based on the model, reaction is the first level in the evaluation process and is defined as how well the trainees were satisfied with a particular training program (Kirkpatrick 1994:27). According to Kirkpatrick, evaluating response is vital for some reasons. First, it will provide precious comment and suggestions for recovering future training programs. Second, it tells trainees that the trainers are there to help them do their job better and that they need feedback to determine how effective they are. Third, reaction sheets can give quantitative information to managers and those who worried about the program as well as to found standards of performance for future training programs. In order for trainers to get the maximum benefit from reaction measures, Kirkpatrick (1994:28) provided strategy for evaluating reaction that included: designing a form that will quantify the reaction to training; encouraging written comments and suggestions which can be useful in the redesign of the training course; aiming for a 100 percent response; developing acceptable standards (for instance, standards for instructors or facilities) and to measure reactions against standards.
Next, learning was defined as the level to which trainees change their attitudes, improve their knowledge and increase their skills as a result of attending training (Kirkpatrick 1994:42). Kirkpatrick stressed that evaluating learning is important because no change in behaviour (level 3) can be expected unless learning objectives have been accomplished. The suggested guidelines for learning included using a control group (if practical); using a paper-and-pencil test to evaluate the learned knowledge and skills both before and after the program and using the evaluation results to take appropriate action, particularly for trainers to work on being more effective in teaching in the future (Kirkpatrick 1994:43).
Behaviour is the third level in the evaluation process and is defined as the extent to which change in behaviour has occurred because the trainee attended the training program (Kirkpatrick 1994:52). This level attempts to measure how much transfer of knowledge, skills, and attitudes occurs. Kirkpatrick stressed that it is important to see whether the knowledge and skills learned in the training program were transferred to the job. However, he warned that no evaluation should be attempted until trainees had an opportunity to use the new learning. Thus, for some training programs, two or three months after training may be appropriate. Evaluating learning behaviour can be done by using surveys or through interviewing one (or more) of the trainees, their immediate supervisor, their subordinates and others who are knowledgeable about their behaviour (Kikpatrick 1994:55).
Finally, level four of the Kirkpatrick model is the evaluation of results. Results can be defined as what occurred as a consequence of the trainees attending the training program (Kirkpatrick 1994:63). Kirkpatrick used this fourth level to relate the results of the training program to organisational objectives (for instance, increased production, improved quality, decreased costs, increased sales and higher profits). He stressed that the final objectives of the training program need to be stated according to the organisational objectives for optimal return on investment. The suggested guidelines to evaluate results included using a control group (to eliminate factors other than training that could have caused the changes observed); measuring both before and after the training program and considering cost versus benefits (the value of the actual results compared to the cost of the training program).
According to Kirkpatrick (1994) there is a natural flow between the levels in the model. Reaction could lead to learning; learning could lead to behaviour change; and change in behaviour could lead to positive organisational results. As the model depicted only four variables (reaction, learning, behaviour and results) the effect of trainees' motivation to transfer training to the job was not an overt consideration of Kirkpatrick's. However, it is likely that motivation was an assumption underpinning the model as Kirkpatrick (1994:51) wrote that ‘without learning, no change in behaviour will occur'. This corresponds broadly with research which has demonstrated that changes in behaviour occur when trainees are motivated to use their training on the job (Holton 1996; Noe & Schmitt 1986; Seyler et. al. 1998). The findings from previous studies have also shown that other variables lying outside the training classroom also affect behaviour change (Baldwin, Magjuka & Loher 1991; Hicks & Klimoski 1987). These external factors have been identified as the transfer climate (Holton, Bates, Seyler & Carvalho 1997; Rouiller & Goldstein 1993), workplace design (Kupritz 2002) and personality characteristic variables such as selfefficacy (Gist 1989; Gist, Schwoerer & Rosen 1989; Gist, Steven & Bavetta 1991) and readiness to participate in training could also affect behaviour change.
Despite its dominance in the field, as described above, the Kirkpatrick (1994) model did not provide a strong guide to understanding what influences trainees' motivation to use training. In light of more recent literature on motivation, this could be a key omission in this traditional model. It is relevant then to turn to the other dominant training evaluation model in the HRD literature: the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) developed by Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000).
2.3.2 The Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI)
According to Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000), organisations wishing to improve the ROI from training require to know the factors that influence transfer of training and then get involved to get rid of the factors which slow down transfer. In fact, the authors argued that the initial move to improving transfer is to precisely identify the inhibiting factors. In their 2000 study titled “Development of a Generalised Learning Transfer SystemInventory”, they introduced the idea of transfer scheme which encompassed factors in the self, training and organisation that persuade transfer of learning to work presentation.
The LTSI theoretical evaluation model used to extend the LTSI is depicted in Figure 2.2. Three main training results were defined in this model. These results were learning, individual performance, and organisational results. Learning defined as attainment of the learning results wanted in interference which transform in individual performance as a effect of the learning being applied on the work. It also defined as results at the organisational stage as an outcome of the transform in individual performance (Holton 1996:9). In contrast with Kirkpatrick's (1994) training evaluation model, three main dissimilarities are of note. First, there is an lack of response as a training result in the LTSI. Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000) argued that reaction should be separated from evaluation models citing several studies which indicated that reactions had no major connection with learning (Alliger and Janak 1989; Dixon 1990; Noe & Schmitt 1986; Warr & Bunce 1995). For instance, Warr and Bunce (1995) alienated reactions into three parts such as enjoyment, usefulness and perceived difficulty and they found no important association between any of them and learning results. Second, individual performance is used in its place of performance in the Kirkpatrick (1994) model because Holton et al. (2000) said that individual performance is a broader made than behaviour change and a more suitable descriptor of HRD objectives. And third, the LTSI conceptual model is debatably a more complete model than the Kirkpatrick (1994) model because it accounts for the crash of inspiration, environmental and capability/enabling elements.
The progress of the LTSI into its near form occurred crosswise the late 1990s. Following the development of Holton's (1996) conceptual evaluation model (Figure 2.2), a revision by Holton, Bates, Seyler and Carvalho's (1997) identified a quantity of climate variables which influence transfer of training. In this 1997 study, the creators set up that trainees apparent transfer climate according to referents to their organisation (for example supervisor, peer/task, or self) and the issue analysis in this study extracted seven transfer climate builds. These constructs are comprehensive in Table 2.1 and scheduled below:
Additionally, factor analysis from the records also suggested two extra transfer design constructs: content validity (trainee's critic training satisfied to precisely reflect job requirements) and transfer design (training has been designed to offer skill to transfer learning to the job and commands match job requirements). The authors then searched the literature on transfer of training to recognize seven other constructs that had not been before experienced in Holton et al.'s (1997) study but which they supposed, would fit into the conceptual model. The seven additional variables are detailed in Table 2.1 and include performance-self efficacy (the faith that trainees are talented to transform their performance when they desire to) (Gist 1989; Gist et al. 1989; Gist et al. 1991); two expectation related variables: transfer effort-performanceexpectations and performance-outcomes expectations (probability that effort loyal to transferring learning will guide to changes in job performance and results correspondingly) (Bates & Holton 1999; Noe & Schmitt 1986); personal capacity fortransfer (trainees make the changes necessary to transfer learning to the work) (Ford, Quinones, Sego & Sorra 1992); feedback (formal and informal indicators about an individual's job performance); learner readiness (trainees prepared to contribute in training) (Knowles, Holton & Swanson 1998); and motivation to transfer (trainees' wish to use the information and skills mastered in the training program on the job) (Noe 1986; Noe & Schmitt 1986). Figure 2.3 shows how the sixteen variables fit into the conceptual model and Table 2.1 provides definitions for each of the 16 final transfer variables.
Figure 2.3 shows how the LTSI accounts for the crash of main variables such as environmental, capability and motivational variables. The LTSI indicates that motivationto transfer is prejudiced by secondary variables such as performance-self efficacy and learner readiness. Holton et al. (2000) demote to the variables affecting an individual's performance in the LTSI as a transfer system, which they distinct as all the issues in the person, training and organisation that influence transfer of learning to job performance. In other words, they argued that transfer must happen before learning can guide to individual job performance. Table 2.1 below details the definitions of the variables as depicted in the LTSI.
Some studies have productively used the LTSI model to validate the factors affecting transfer of training (Chen 2003; Donovan et al. 2001; Holton et al. 2003; Yamnill 2001). For example, Chen (2003) found that the LTSI was valid in Taiwan and Yamnill (2001) validated it in Thailand. The LTSI model has also been claimed to be powerful in measuring training efficiency (Donovan et. al. 2001). Although the LTSI model integrated motivation to transfer as one of the variables that could influence individual performance, the model only specified two secondary influence variables (learner readiness and performance-self efficacy) that could manipulate motivation to transfer. In order to increase an in-depth perceptive of the direct and indirect result on motivation to transfer, this chapter now moves to argue the Human Resource Development Evaluation Research and Measurement Model (the HRD model) (Holton 1996). This model, according to Holton (1996) should be used for research purposes in investigating motivation to transfer training.
2.4 Influences on Motivation to Transfer
In Holton's (1996) model, five classes of variables are hypothesised to influence motivation to transfer: job attitudes, intervention fulfilment, expected utility, transferclimate and learning outcomes. They shape some of the transfer variables used in this thesis and are detailed below.
2.4.1 Job Attitudes
Job attitudes refer to trainees' attitudes toward the organisation and the job (Holton 1996:11). According to Noe and Schmitt (1986), extremely job-involved individuals are extra possible to be motivated to study new skills since participation in training activities can boost skill levels and get better job performance. Several studies have investigated the connection between job attitudes and motivation to transfer but their results have been varied (Cheng & Ho 2001; Clark 1990; Kontoghiorghes 2004; Mathieu, Tannenbaum & Salas 1992). For example, Mathieu et al. (1992) did not find a important connection between job participation and motivation to transfer for the cause that trainees who were extremely involved in their jobs did not observe the training program as influential in obtaining valued outcomes.
A related finding was originate in Cheng and Ho's (2001) study this time for the cause that trainees pursuing a postgraduate program may stand for their needs to improve their employability slightly than their job performance. On the other hand, two studies established the important result of the variables: job involvement on motivation to transfer (Clark 1990; Kontoghiorghes 2004). In spite of the slightly varied findings on job attitudes, it ruins a likely constituent with an influence on motivation to transfer training.
2.4.2 Intervention Fulfilment
Intervention fulfilment refers to the degree to which training meets or fulfils the trainee's prospect and requirements (Holton 1996:13). The outcome of intervention fulfilment on motivation to transfer training has received little concentration. Only one study was found to test this idea and the finding has supported the connection as hypothesised in Holton's (1996) model (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon- Bowers 1991). In Tannenbaum et al.'s (1991) study, the connection between intervention fulfilment and motivation to transfer was important. For that reason, they suggested that for involvement fulfilment to be a helpful concept in considerate trainees' motivation to transfer, future research should assess intervention fulfilment in other training environments.
2.4.3 Expected Utility
According to Holton (1996:13), training programs that have expected utility or show recompense to mutually the organisation and to trainees should product in greater motivation totransfer learning to the job. This idea is reliable with Vroom's (1964) expectation theory that individuals will be more enthused when they consider their attempt invested in the training program will effect in mastery of the training satisfied (effort-performance expectation) and when they consider that good performance in the training program will guide to desirable outcomes (performance-outcome expectation).
The researchers found that inherent rewards in the forms of attractive, significant and demanding work and criticism on performance were found to be highly valued. Other studies have also demonstrated the worth of expectancy theory (Vroom 1964) in explaining motivation to learn and training transfer (Noe & Schmitt 1986; Yamnill 2001; Chen 2003). For example, Noe and Schmitt (1986) found that expectations regarding effort-performance and performance-outcome linkages were highly concurrent with motivation to study.
