After reading this thread when it re-surfaced today, I got the impression that most folks tend to believe that in the end, training really doesn't result in much change - if any. And also, that there is really no use evaluating the training or learning because it tells you nothing of value. If all we are concerned about is the resulting performance, only a fraction of which is influenced by training, why is so much money being WASTED by corporations on training? I think people are waking up to the fact that training contributes very little to the bottom line. Or am I mis-understanding what is being said in this thread?

Training is valuable for those who value it. You can lead a horse to water...

Additionally - how many people doing this actually know how to ensure that training, when developed and delivered, is the appropriate solution in the first place? How many step up to ensure that the business is taking responsibility for all of the other pieces that directly impact performance? How many work with the company and insist on partnerships between managers, employees and training and also work to ensure that managers actually hold people accountable to using what they learned?

Training can be very valuable, but cannot live in a vacuum.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LoveLearning,

quote:

How many step up to ensure that the business is taking responsibility for all of the other pieces that directly impact performance? How many work with the company and insist on partnerships between managers, employees and training and also work to ensure that managers actually hold people accountable to using what they learned?

In an ideal world........... But don't you think it is asking a lot of trainers to expect them to take on the entire business and all the other factors influencing performance, to make sure others, including managers, do their jobs correctly, and at the same time deliver the training? That's an awful lot of responsibility to have - for a trainer. I just don't think this is practical in the real world. If we're talking about performance consultants or performance technologists doing this, then okay. (They probably wouldn't be delivering the training.) But trainers?

Are roles clearly defined enough in the training industry for people (training types) to know what they are responsible for and where to draw the line? What are the responsibilities for trainers? for ISDs? for facilitators? for performance consultants? for performance technologists? Do they overlap, and if so, to what extent?

quote:

But don't you think it is asking a lot of trainers to expect them to take on the entire business and all the other factors influencing performance

That is not what I said.

Good discussion...no doubt one that goes on every day in organizations around the globe.

Training gets a bad rap when it seems to produce little behavior change. Evaluation gets a bad rap when it just confirms the previous.

Part of the problem with the conversation about learning and evaluation is the tendency to forget the essential nature of what must take place in-between.....coaching, practice, reinforcement, feedback, accountability and organizational support for the learning.

Without those activities, the training has the same effect as throwing grass seed on a concrete driveway.

Kirkpatrick's levels of eval remain a useful tool for understanding the touch points in a learning system...but they do not change the behavior. The same applies to ROI/ROL. However, it is of little value to measure something when nothing has been done between the event and the assessment.

PS...I have posted an article on my website related to the topic. (The eval tool mentioned is 360 feedback...but the focus is on the importance of what happens after the learning).