Laurel and Associates, Ltd. – Madison, WI

Tip #689: Why Was Classroom Training Rated So Poorly?

Tip #689: Why Was Classroom Training Rated So Poorly?

On September 19, 2017, Posted by , In learning, By ,,, , With Comments Off on Tip #689: Why Was Classroom Training Rated So Poorly?

“Speaking for myself, I spend a good ten minutes a day deciding whether or not to read the results of new surveys, and, once I have read them, a further five minutes deciding whether or not to take them seriously.” Craig Brown

In “The Changing Nature of Organizations, Work, and Workplace,” Judith Heerwagen of J.H. Heerwagen & Associates and Kevin Kelly and Kevin Kampschroer of the U.S. General Service Administration note that work is now more: cognitively complex; team-based and collaborative; dependent on social skills; dependent on technological competence; time pressured; mobile and less dependent on geography. http://studylib.net/doc/8493490/the-changing-nature-of-organizations–work–and-workplace

Managers and employees need new skills to effectively manage these challenges- and they require learning and skill development options that go beyond traditional classroom training or e-learning sessions.

This is validated by the results of a 2017 survey of Learning in the Workplace conducted by Jane Hart, the Founder of the Center for Learning & Performance Technologies. Over 5,000* managers and employees were asked to rate the importance (value/usefulness) of 12 work-related learning methods as either: NI = Not Important; QI = Quite Important; VI = Very Important; or Ess = Essential.

The results of that survey are identified in the table that follows. The methods are ranked by their combined VI+Ess (Very Important and Essential) scores. The red figures indicate the ratings that received the largest number of responses.

 

Results of the 6th Annual Learning in the Workplace Survey (8/8/17)

Rank

Learning MethodsNI %QI %VI %Ess %

VI+Ess %

1Daily work experiences (i.e., doing the day job)16266793
2Knowledge sharing with your team19306090
3Web search (e.g. Google)516275279
4Web resources (e.g. videos, podcasts, articles)420373976
5Manager feedback and guidance719393574
6Professional networks and communities424413172
7Coach or mentor feedback and guidance728432265
8Internal resources (e.g. documents, guides)832352560
9Blogs and news feeds1034332356
10E-learning (e.g. online courses for self-study)2039251641
11Conferences and other professional events174832335
12Classroom training2841191231

The survey results reveal that the least valued ways of learning in the workforce are classroom training and e-learning. http://c4lpt.co.uk/litw-results/

We don’t know why the respondents give classroom training such a low rating. There can be many reasons, such as:

  • Content focused on theory rather than on practical application.
  • Too general one-size-fits-all examples difficult for the participants to translate and apply to their own work situations.
  • Ineffective training methods, such as a predominance of lecture with PowerPoint.
  • Lack of useful job aids.
  • The wrong people received the training, due in part to a need to ensure a sufficient number of butts in seats.
  • Inconvenient scheduling.
  • The time commitment and high cost of registration and travel for off-site classes.
  • Poor content, either outdated or irrelevant to real work needs.
  • Poor instructors, lacking effective presentation skills and/or classroom management skills.
  • No follow up by supervisors to reinforce the learning.
  • A lack of support for implementing any new learning.

Since I design and deliver classroom training, I would like to believe that it is not classroom training per se that the respondents rate so negatively- just poor curriculum design, delivery and facilitation.

What do you think?

May your learning be sweet.

Deborah

 

* Breakdown of Survey Demographics:

Countries: 63 countries around the world, including USA 25%, UK 25%, Australia 9%, Canada 7%, New Zealand 6%, Germany 5%, and Netherlands 3%.

Industries: Education 25%, Financial Services 10%, Government 9%, Healthcare 6%, and Technology 6%.

Organization size: 250+ people 66%, and 51-250 people 13%.

Function: HR/L&D 59%, IT 5%, and Marketing 4%.

Job type: Non-managerial 39%, Senior manager 22%, Middle manager 18%, Line manager 10%, and Other 10%.

Age: 41-50 36%, 51-60 25%, 31-40 24%, <30 6%, and >60 6%.                                                                                

Sex: Female 62%, and Male 38%.

 

Share
Comments are closed.