The very best I can do, as a trainer, is tell you whether or not a person has demonstrated the ability to perform a specific skill to a specific standard under specific conditions. In short, I can affirm that the person can do something. How do I know? I saw them do it.

That's my guarantee to the manager and the learner. But it comes with a limited warranty. From that point forward the context (leadership, resources, processes, et al) come into play.

Any evaluation involving the trainer needs to examine the design of the learning event itself as well as the degree to which learners are able to meet expectations before they walk out of the class.

But...if a fully qualified employee returns to the work[place and performance is unsatisfactory...the trainer is not where I would look first. In fact, training is often the least accountable culprit for performance gaps...behind other factors like motivation and organizational constraints.

Have you closely examined the evaluation plans for the training events? http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/k4levels/index.htm

I'm sorry, but the trainer is responsible for providing the opportunity for someone to learn what needs to be learned. You can lead a horse to water...

The trainer should not and cannot be held accountable for things that are beyond his/her control, and the only thing in his/her control is the learning environment and the tools provided to *help* transfer and to *help* cut back on the likelihood of relapse to old habits. One must also take into account whether or not the trainer was also the instructional designer -- how good was the design? Was it learner centric? Was it tied directly to an expected business outcome?

And then from the business perspective (outside of the trainer/ISD realm)...Was EVERYONE made aware of and held accountable to his/her role in the learning process? etc...

P.S. Just because leadership makes a directive, doesn't make it something that is possible, ethical, correct, etc.

quote:

That's my guarantee to the manager and the learner. But it comes with a limited warranty.

Bingo!!

I don't disagree with everything that's been posted regarding this, but look at it from another perspective:

What if one of your trainers has skills/techniques that allows new hires to get up to speed more quickly. Wouldn't you want to identify that trainer, find out what he or she is doing right, and then share that knowledge with the rest of your training staff?


Conversly, wouldn't you want to know if one of your trainers was not up to snuff, and sending students out without the knowledge and skills they need to be successful?

I'm curious why one would think that measuring a trainer's effectiveness would be considered impossible, unethical, or incorrect. Businesses measure performance metrics for all sorts of employees. Why should a training staff be any different?

Of course, both of the items you mentioned are not only worthy of evaluation, but essential.

But they have to do with what takes place in transferring the skills from trainer to student. Yes, you want to identify best practices and nuances in the delivery so that other trainers (and students) can benefit. And yes, you must be able to determine if some are (for whatever reson) not effective in their role as trainer.

You could set up a series of fairly simple Level II and III assessments to begin getting at the data....and be able to track it back to specific learning experiences/trainers.

The caution here is that you run the risk of getting really unreliable data once the employee is back on the job. The very same things that can get in the way of their performance can also supercharge it.

For some reason I have a feeling you already have a pretty good idea about trainer effectiveness.