Psychology
961
Training
and Development in Organizations
Spring 2004
Instructor:
J. Kevin Ford Office:
Phone: 353-5006 Office Hours: By
Appt.
E-Mail Fordjk@msu.edu
Course
Description
This
course is a doctoral level graduate seminar that focuses on critical conceptual
and empirical issues facing the field of training and development. The course is structured around major
training themes such as training needs assessment, design, evaluation and
transfer. The course is not
specifically designed to "train" trainers but to give participants an
appreciation for the critical research issues that must be addressed in the
training literature. To appreciate these
issues, participants will also be involved in projects designed to simulate the
practical issues and constraints in designing a training program. Thus, the course is based on the principles
of action learning and learner control of the learning process.
Course
Readings
Goldstein,
I., & Ford, J.K. (2002). Training in organizations (4th
Edition). Wadsworth.
Assigned
readings and research project readings (see below)
Course
Projects
There
are four major expectations for the course:
(1)
Active participation in class discussions. Students are expected to come to
class prepared to discuss the assigned readings. In addition, students are expected to
complete pre-class assignments and contribute to the discussion. Of course, you
are also expected to come to every class. The quality of one's contributions to
the seminar will be evaluated. Feedback
regarding participation is available upon request.
(2)
Each student will serve alone (or with one other student) as a facilitator for
one of the class meetings. Facilitators
will need to thoroughly familiarize themselves with that day's topic as well as
to locate and read additional relevant materials. Facilitators may want to provide abstracts of
additional readings, give out questions to focus that week's readings or other
structuring activity the week prior to their facilitation week. In addition, facilitators are encouraged to
present a project that they are currently working on or to provide some
"hands on" activities for action learning. It is expected that the facilitators will
provide a structure for the discussion of the concepts and issues relevant to
that week (providing an integration and perhaps a new framework), and
facilitate the discussion. The
facilitators should also link the issues for the current week with past
readings/discussions. Topics for facilitation will be arranged early in the
term. You must present to Dr. Ford an
overview of your presentation/facilitation and meet with him about your ideas
(by Monday before class). Having
material and/or thought questions for students to come prepared in class to
discuss is strongly encouraged. Expectations are that the facilitators will
have 1 1/2 hours of class time -plan accordingly. Facilitators will be
evaluated by the class members and information fedback to them. This evaluation will also be incorporated
into your grade for this requirement.
(3)
The third requirement is to complete a research based written assignment. “Research teams”: (groups of 3 or 4) will be
created. The research team and meet with me on a regular basis (every 2 weeks
for the term) to pursue one of the following topics (or some mutually agreed
upon topic). The goal is to develop a publishable paper/chapter from this work.
Team 1: Review the past 25 years of training research in I/O Psychology. The articles will come from Personnel Psychology and Journal of Applied Psychology (search could extend to overseas journals like Journal of Occupational Psychology is group sees this as useful). The general idea is to summarize the types of studies being conducted (e.g., what the focus of the studies have been, what changes have occurred in training research in the field, how has the criteria of interest shifted etc.) and to provide a critique of the field and directions for future research.
Team 2: Look at the last 2 to 3 years of research in applied cognitive psychology and provide a summary of the research that is both learning related and more relevant to understanding workplace training issues. The general focus is to identify up and coming concepts and methods from the field of applied cognitive psychology that are particularly relevant to understanding workplace training and development. Then the team will generate possible research studies and/or generate research propositions/hypotheses.
Team 3: Look at the last 2 to 3 years of research in educational psychology and provide a summary of the research that is learning related. The general focus is to identify up and coming concepts and methods from the field of education that are particularly relevant to understanding workplace training and development. Then the team will generate possible research studies and/or generate research propositions/hypotheses.
Team 4: Look at the last two years of Training and Development. This magazine is from the American Society of Training and Development and provides a view of real time practice issues relevant to training. First, summarize the kinds of issues and topics that have appeared in the magazine. Based on this analysis, detail the kinds of research questions that would be most relevant for addressing these practical issues. In addition, you can detail how existing research on training could be directly applied to understanding one or more of the issues raised in one or more of the articles in Training and Development.
(4)
Participants will work as part of a team to complete assigned work relevant to
developing a training program. The
project will include conducting a needs assessment, writing training
objectives, designing a training program, and developing methods of
evaluation. A separate handout on the
training project will be provided that explains the steps to be completed. The
team will also have the opportunity to present their work to the class.
Course
Evaluation
The
four parts of the class will be graded as follows:
Active Participation/completion of
pre-class work 20%
Facilitator Role 20%
Research Project 30%
Training Project 30%
Course
Topics
January
14 Introduction and
Overview
January 21 Understanding Learning:
Different Lens for examining transfer issues
January
28 The Practice of
Learning and Transfer
February
4 The role of cognition
February
11 The role of motivation
February
18 The Instructional
Training Model and Training Needs Assessment
February
25 Training Design
March
3 Training
Evaluation
March
10 Spring Break
March
17 Training Media and
emerging learning technologies
March 24 Influence
of individual
differences and context effects on training effectiveness
March 31 Interventions
and training effectiveness
April
07 Training Methods
April
14 Team Development
April
21 Developmental
Learning Systems
April
28 The Science and
Practice of Training and Development
May 05 Presentations of
research ideas/next steps
Readings
Introduction
Sources
for Presentation and Discussion:
Ford, J.K. (2002). Employee training. Encyclopedia of Psychology. American
Psychological Association, Oxford Press.
Ford, J.K. (1997). Advances in training research and
practice: An historical perspective. In
J. K. Ford & Associates (Eds.). Improving training effectiveness in work
organizations, (pp. 1 - 18), LEA.
Kraiger, K., & Ford, J.K. (in press). The Expanding Role of
Workplace Training: Themes
and
Trends Influencing Training Research and Practice
Understanding
Learning: Different Lens for Examining Transfer Issues
Baldwin, T., & Ford, J.K. (l988). Transfer of training: A review
and directions for future research. Personnel
Psychology.
Barnett,
S.M., & Ceci, S.J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A
taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612-637.
Cox, B. (1997). The rediscovery of the active learner in adaptive contexts: A developmental-historical analysis of transfer of training. Educational Psychologist, 32, 41-55.
Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching
critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53,
449-455.
Ford,
J.K. & Fisher, S. (1997). The role of training in a changing workplace and
workforce: New perspectives and approaches.
In E. Kossek & S. Lobel (eds.) Managing Diversity.
Yelon,
S., & Ford, J.K. (1999). Pursuing a
multidimensional view of transfer. Performance Improvement Quarterly.
Broad, M.L. (2000). Managing the organizational learning transfer system: A model and case study. Advances in Developing Human Resources.
Laker, D. (1990). Dual
dimensionality of training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1,
209-223.
Ford, J.K. (1990).
Understanding training transfer: The water remains murky. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 1, 225-229.
Ford,
J.K. & Kraiger, K. (l995). The application of cognitive constructs to the
instructional systems model of training: Implications for needs assessment,
design, and transfer. International
Review of I/O Psychology.
Schmidt, A. & Ford, J.K. (2003). Learning within a learner control training environment: The interaction effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 56, 405-429.
Aleven,
V., & Koedinger, K. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning
by doing and explaining with a computer based cognitive tutor. Cognitive
Science, 26, 147-179.
Thiede,
K., Anderson, M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive
monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
66-73
Desoeete,
A., Roeyer, H. & DeClercq, A. (2003). Can offline metacognition enhance
mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 188-200.
Colquitt,
J.A., LePine, J.A., & Noe, R.A. (2000).
Trainee attributes and attitudes revisited: A meta-
analytic
structural equation modeling analysis of research on training motivation. Journal
of Applied Psychology
Mathieu,
J., & Martineau, J. (1997). Individual and situational influences in
training motivation. In. K. Ford &
Associates (Eds.). Improving Training
Effectiveness in Organizations. LEA.
Pintrich,
P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation
in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
667-686.
Fisher,
S., & Ford, J.K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal
orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397-420.
The
Instructional Systems Model and Training Needs Assessment
Goldstein, I. (l993). Training
in Organizations. Chapters 2 & 3
BuBois,
D.A., K. Levi, V. Shalin, & W. Borman (1998). A cognitively oriented
approach to task
analysis.
Training Research Journal, 3, 103-141.
Dipboye,
R. (1997). Organizational barriers to implementing a rational model of
training.
In M. Quinones and A.
Ehrenstein (Eds.). Training for a rapidly changing workforce.
Ford, J.K., Smith, E., Sego,
D., & Quinones (l993). The impact of individual and task experience factors
on training needs assessment ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
583-590.
Ford, J.K., & Wroten,
S.P. (1984). Introducing new methods for
conducting training evaluation and for linking training evaluation to program
redesign. Personnel Psychology, 37,
651-665.
Goldstein & Ford, Chapter
4
Gagne,R.
Briggs, L, & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design. (4th
edition). Chapters 3, 4, 5, 10, 12.
Gagne,
R.M. (1962. Military training and principles of learning. American Psychologist, 17, 83-91.
Winfred, A., Bennett, W., Edens, P., & Bell, S.
(2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A
meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 234-245.
Donovan,
J. & Radosevich, D. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of
practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 795-805.
Schaafstal, A., Schraagen, J., & Berlo, M. (2000). Cognitive
task analysis and innovation of training: The case of structured
troubleshooting. Human Factors, 42, 75-86.
Training
Evaluation
Kraiger,
K., Ford, J.K., & Salas, E. (1993).
Integration of cognitive, behavioral, and affective theories of learning
into new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Kraiger,
K. (2002). Decision-based evaluation. In K. Kraiger & Associates (Eds.).
Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kirkpatrick,
D. (l976). Evaluation of training. In R. Craig (ed.) Training and Development
Handbook.
Alliger, G., Tannenbaum, S., Bennett, W., Travor, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341-358.
Morrow, C. Jarrett, M., & Rupinski, M. (1997). An investigation of the effect and economic untility of corporate wide training. Personnel Psychology, 50, 91-119.
Bartel,
A. (2000). Measuring the employer’s return on investments in training: Evidence
from the literature. Industrial Relations, 39, 502-524.
Training
Media, Practices, and New Training Technologies
Goldstein,
I., & Ford, J.K. (2002). Chapter 7
Steele-Johnson,
D., & Hyde, B. (1997). Advanced technologies in training: Intelligent
tutoring systems and virtual reality. In
M. Quinones and A. Ehrenstein (Eds.). Training for a rapidly changing
workforce.
Bell,
B., & Kozlowski, S. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self regulation,
knowledge, and performance in technology based training. Personnel Psychology,
55, 267-306.
Brown,
K. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn and why?
Personnel Psychology, 54, 271-296.
Williams,
M. (1996). Learner control and instructional technologies. In Jonansen, D.
(ed)., Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp.
957-983). New York: Simon and Schuster McMillan.
Maki,
W.S., & Maki, R. (2002). Multimedia comprehension skill predicts
differential outcomes of web-based and lecture courses. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 8, 85-98.
Olson,
T., & Wisher, R. (2002). The
effectiveness of web-based instruction: An initial inquiry. International
review of research in Open and Distance Learning.
Powell,
W. (2001). Like life. Training and Development, 32-39.
Individual
differences and contextual effects on training effectiveness
Ford, J.K., & Oswald, F.(2003). Understanding the dynamic learner: Linking personality traits, learning situations, and individual behavior. In M. Barrick and A. Ryan (Eds.) Personality and work. Jossey-Bass.
Warr,
P. & Bunce, D. (1995). Trainee characteristics and the outcomes of open
learning. Personnel Psychology, 48, 347-375.
Tesluk, P., Farr, J., Mathieu, J., & Vance, R.
(1995). Generalization of employee involvement training to the
job setting: Individual and situational effects. Personnel Psychology, 48,
607-632.
Ford,
Smith, Gully, Weissbein, & Salas (1998). Relationships of goal orientation,
metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and
transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218-232.
Herold, D., Davis, W., Fedor, D., & Parson, C. (2002). Dispositional influences on transfer of learning in multistage training programs. Personnel Psychology, 55, 851-869.
Ford,
J.K., Quinones, M., Sego, D., & Sorra, J. (l992). Factors affecting the
opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45,
511 - 527.
Stevens,
C. & Gist, M. (l997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal orientation
training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955-978.
Heimbeck, D., Frese, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2003). Integrating errors into the training process: The function of error management instructions and the role of goal orientation. Personnel Psychology, 56, 333-361.
Gully,
S., Payne, S., Koles, K., & Whiteman, J. (2002). The impact of error
training and individual differences on training outcomes: An attribute –
treatment interaction perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 143-155.
Smith-Jentsch,
Jentsch, F., Payne, S., & Salas, E. (1996). Can pretraining experiences
explain individual differences in learning?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 110-116.
Weissbein, D., Ford, J.K., & Schmidt, A. (in progress). Improving
Training Effectiveness Through Motivation
Creating a Learning State Intervention.
Loewenstein, J., Thompsn, L, & Genter, D. (2003). Analogical
learning in negotiation teams: Comparing cases promotes learning and transfer.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 119-127.
Goldstein, I., & Ford,
J.K. (2002). Chapter 8
Latham, G.P. & Saari, L.M. (l979). Application of social-learning
theory to training supervisors through behavioral modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,
239-246.
May,
G.L., & Kahnweiler, W. (2000). The effect of mastery practice design on
learning and transfer in behavior modeling training. Personnel Psychology,
53, 353 –373
Frayne,
C., & Geringer, J. (2000). Self management training for improving job
performance: A field experiment involving salespeople. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 361-372.
Friese,
M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic
leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on
inspirational communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56, 671-697.
Team
Development
Salas,
E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1997). Methods, tools and strategies for team
training. In M. Quinones, and A. Ehrenstein (Eds.). Training for a rapidly
changing workplace. American Psychological Association.
Brown,
T. (2003). The effect of verbal self-guidance training on collective self
efficacy and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 56, 935-964.
Bunderson,
J. & Sutcliffe, K. (2003). Management team learning orientation and
business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 888, 552-560.
Marks,
M., Sabella, M., Burke, C., & Zaccaro, S. (2002). The impact of cross
training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3-13.
Ellis,
A., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., Porter, C., West, B., & Moon, H. (2003).
Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 821-835.
Developmental
Learning Systems
Goldstein,
I., & Ford, J.K. (2002). Chapter 9
Maurer, T., Weiss, E., & Barbeite, F. (2003). A
model of involvement in work related learning and development activity: The
effects of individual, situational, motivational, and age variables. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 707-724.
Raelin,
J. (2000). Work based learning. Chapters 4 & 5. Addison Wesley.
Pawlowsky,
P. (2002). The treatment of organizational learning in management science. In
the Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford Press.
The
Science and Practice of Training
Salas,
E., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Blickensderfer, E. (1997). Enhancing reciprocity
between theory and training practice: Principles, guidelines, and
specifications. In. K. Ford & Associates (Eds.). Improving Training Effectiveness in
Organizations. LEA.