For companies, the transfer of training is the be-all and end-all. Employees with excellent knowledge and skills provide a competitive advantage for companies. To expand this advantage over the competition, time and money are invested in further education.
The topic of training transfer has occupied trainers, human resource developers, and other continuing education officers for almost 50 years. A report on training transfer typically begins with various data and figures. It either points out how much money is lost due to a lack of training transfer or that only a very small amount of seminar content is applied in everyday work.
Training Transfer and Learning Transfer
An excellent summary of training transfer with a comprehensive bibliography is offered by Wenzel and Cordery (2014). In their English paper, they define “transfer of training” as follows:
We define the transfer of training (training transfer is used synonymously) as the extent to which knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired in a training setting result in sustained change in the way work is performed.
I translate this definition as follows (according to Wenzel and Cordery):
We define training transfer as the extent to which knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired in a training or similar environment are transferred into a sustainably changed way of working.
The two authors point out that training transfer can be viewed in two fundamental dimensions:
Generalization: This means how acquired knowledge and skills can also be applied in other situations, with other target groups, and in a different setting. The classic case: I learn something about project management. This knowledge can also be applied in customer management.
Sustainability: How stable are the changes from learning in training, and how long do the changes remain after the training?
In their summary, the two authors provide a very nice overview of the different transfer models and how these models have developed over time. At a suitable time, you should take a detailed look at these models. I can only give you a brief overview of the presented models:
The conceptual transfer model by Baldwin and Ford (1988)
The transfer typology by Russ-Eft (2002)
The systemic approach by Kontoghiorghes (2004)
The systemic approach by Holton, Bates, and Ruona (2000)
The developed model by Burke and Hutchins (2008)
A comprehensive list of influencing variables on training transfer has been compiled by De Rijdt, Ste, van der Vleuten, and Dochy (2013).
How do Learning Transfer and Training Transfer differ?
Theories and models of training transfer are built on the theories of learning transfer. The topic of learning transfer was studied by the psychologist Edward Lee Thorndike at the beginning of the last century. He particularly examined whether learning skills in one area simultaneously means that there is expertise in other (untrained) skills. His investigations showed that one cannot assume a generalized learning transfer. He was against mechanical learning. What is important is the learning content and its value to the learner. Contrary to these recommendations, school pedagogy in the USA developed in the 1930s towards mechanical learning. The learning strategies were strongly oriented towards behaviorism. This meant memorization supported by rewards and punishments.
So when you hear the term learning transfer, it concerns the question of how what has been learned is transferred to other areas (for example: Someone who is good at geometry finds it easier to understand algebra). As you have likely already seen above, this learning transfer is also a subfield of training transfer. Furthermore, training transfer includes the question of the effects on work activity.
The Online Support as an Important Pillar for Transfer
In a day-long event (e.g., a face-to-face day as training), participants engage with the training topic for exactly one day. But where is the opportunity to test the training knowledge? We are deeply engaged in how a training concept can be designed with successful training transfer. A basic assumption: It is usually not about the understanding. Many training participants understand the training content. This reminds me of the quote from Konrad Lorenz:
Thinking does not always mean saying, saying does not always mean being heard correctly, being heard does not always mean being understood correctly,
being understood does not always mean agreeing, agreeing does not always mean applying, applying does not necessarily mean retaining.
The Key to Transfer is: Understand - Practice - Reflect
As a trainer, you help your participants when you make learning as easy as possible for them (“understand”). The challenge called transfer lies in two areas: practicing regularly or behaving in a new way repeatedly (“act”) and reflecting on these changes (“reflect”). Through online support, the trainer can accompany these three processes (“understand,” “practice,” and “reflect”) over a long period. The diverse applications of online support make this approach a powerful tool for trainers and coaches. This works for small training groups that receive regular content and exercises on their training content in the 3-6 months following training and exchange ideas with the trainer and other group members about their obstacles and successes. It also works for large groups, as preparation for an event.
The BDVT Certified Method of blink.it
The BDVT is one of the largest associations for trainers, consultants, and coaches in Germany. It continuously seeks new and valuable methods to improve its members' activities. Recently, it also took a close look at our "Online Support with blink.it" method. The result is the certified "Online Support with blink.it" method, which I would like to briefly describe in the next section. You can find the examination conditions on the pages of the BDVT.
A Brief Summary of the Method:
The method illustrates how online content and face-to-face content are coherently linked. This linkage maximizes learning success and ensures practical transfer. Here, the method is influenced by the blended learning approach (see Erpenbeck, Sauter & Sauter, 2015). Additionally, the preparation of participants for face-to-face events is the focus of the method. The focus of the face-to-face events is not solely on knowledge acquisition, but rather on the exchange of experiences among participants. The provision of foundational knowledge can be conducted in advance via e-learning.
After the face-to-face event, participants report on the implementation of the training content. They exchange ideas on ways to overcome transfer obstacles. The second focus of the method shows how trainers incorporate action prompts into training content (e.g., worksheets or short videos) and how trainers support their participants in formulating intention statements in training or in support (Implementation Intentions, see Gollwitzer 1999).
Do you want to implement the method for your training? Then take a look at the steps on this page: https://www.blink.it/bdvt%5Fgepruefte%5Fmethode/ To make it even easier for you to create your own online support or a blended learning course, we have developed a card game based on this certified method. Send us a comment or an email, and I will write to you when the games have arrived.
