The field of training is not rooted in a specific discipline; the research and published articles span a range of backgrounds and perspectives including (but not limited to) education/pedagogy, industrial/organisational psychology, cognitive science, systems management and engineering (Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger & Smith-Jentsch 2012). They corroborate my personal view that over the past three decades the research and theory of training (as science) made great advancements; “generated empirically driven principles”; with “better, deeper, and more integrated theoretical models prescribing when and how training works”; and “made significant contributions to practice” (p. 77). Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012: 74) present the results of a series of meta-analyses they did about published research, which clearly substantiate their assertion that “properly designed training works”.
The work-integrated learning part/s, of cooperative and work-integrated educational programmes, does not just happen; is not spontaneous—as might be assumed; but require specific attention to the design, delivery and implementation in order to ensure effectiveness. Much can be gained from applying the theoretical drivers synthesised by Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012) to work-integrated learning. They emphasise “training as a system” (p. 78) and how before, during and after impact on the effectiveness thereof; regardless if it is experiential learning, work-based learning, project-based learning, clinical training or work-experience learning. They summarise (table 2, p. 80) the evidence-based recommendations and best practices for maximising effectiveness. Among others, the importance of undertaking a training needs analysis (TNA) is pointed out. Work-integrated learning, as integral part of the curriculum lends itself more readily to customisation and/or adaptation to changes.
Another before-aspect Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012) emphasise is the learning climate. How conducive is each student’s workplace for the required learning to occur? Some aspects of the checklist (table 2, p. 85) of steps to take before training apply.
Many of the issues Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012) present as part of during, should be addressed before work-integrated learning commences. The student takes to the workplace learning environment past experiences and personal characteristics that impacts learning, for example:
- Self-efficacy or what the student personally believes about own ability to influence learning outcomes.
- Goal orientation or the mental framework underlying the behaviour of the student in the learning environment. Two contrasting orientations, namely mastery versus performance, result in different approaches and ideally require different learning tools.
- Motivation to learn matters much and can be enhanced by clarification of the purpose of the work-integrated learning, as well as the role the workplace mentor plays.
The second during-aspect, namely instructional strategies and principles, should also be addressed before work-integrated learning commences, as part of the design. Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012) clarify instructional strategies as “tools, methods, and content that are combined and integrated to create the delivery approach” (p. 85). Work-integrated learning need proper planning, organisation and structure. Students need to understand the objectives, purpose and the intended outcomes. The scope of the work-integrated learning must to relate to the workplace and the overall curriculum of the qualification. Workplace mentors should provide a relatively safe (to make mistakes) learning environment for students and provide feedback to students on their work and learning. Four aspects of good learning are presented (p. 86) namely, (a) the concepts, facts and information mostly acquired in academic modules; (b) observation in the workplace of the demonstration of the desired performance, cognition and attitudes; (c) own opportunities to try-out and practice; and (d) feedback and remediation where necessary by the workplace mentor. Ideally work-integrated learning should instil in students the ability “to cope with errors strategically and on an emotional level” (p. 86). Self-regulation is another important item in the checklist (table 4, p. 89) of steps to take with regard to during work-integrated learning.
The primary issues pertaining to after work-integrated learning are transfer of the learning acquired, and the evaluation of the work-integrated learning. The importance of debriefing as powerful means for reinforcement of learning; and of reflection on the learning acquired. Table 5, p. 92, provide a checklist of typical steps to take after work-integrated learning.
The article further elaborates about the implications for business leaders and for policy makers. Tables 6 and 7, p. 94 and p. 95 respectively, present key questions business leaders should ask and key questions policy makers should consider. Because evidence suggests that training works, it is argued that training should be viewed as an investment in human capital. Passive investment (e.g. approval of budgets for training) is contrasted to active investment, by being well informed about the training research and science in order to make informed investment decisions. Active investment further implies asking challenging questions, based on knowledge of what impacts training effectiveness, with the view of optimising return of investment.
The article is conclude with pointers about what the future hold for the science of training.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kraiger, K. & Smith-Jentsch, K.A. 2012. The science of training and development in organisations: what matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74-101, June 2012.