The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * November 2006 8
The Practice of Training Program Design at Selected Training
Institutes in Malaysia
Dr. Norhasni Zainal Abiddin, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
The study aims to identify the practice of training program designed at selected training institutes around the district of Bangi in the state of Selangor, Malaysia. The objectives of this study are: (1) to identify the use of particular model or approach being practiced; (2) to compare the models used with theories proposed in the literature and; (3) to study the factors that influenced the practice of training program design. There were 50 program planners and trainers were selected to become the respondents for this study. These respondents were from 12 identified training centres. This quantitative survey is using a set of questionnaire for each respondent as its research tool. A purposive sampling was used based on trainer’s responsibilities in designing and implementing training. The study found that there were various approaches used by different training institutes. These selected training institutes were found to be using their own approach in designing training program. These approaches were different from those recommended in the literature. There were several factors found to be the main impediments to these selected training institutes from using formal designing model. Among them were the used of too rigid model, too theoretical, too complex and unsuitable to organizational surrounding. In conclusion, these selected training institutes were found to be using their own approaches in designing training program.
INTRODUCTION
Training is an important learning process for organizations or dynamic development agencies. Program design is a series of continuous process comprise of program planning, outlining and arranging learning experiences in order to achieve the set goal through effective planning and implementation. Generally, training is a learning activity that aims to increase workers knowledge, skills, change attitude and learn new practice (Batten, 1962). Training is a human resource development process which becomes an important factor in the economic development of the country. The development of an organization is truly depending on excellence performance of their workers. Usually, training were done in a way of theoretical as well as practical in order to let the trainees have better understanding on the training given to them. Hence, the best way to get excellence performance from the workers is through training and not forgetting an effective training program design.
One of the successful factors of a training program is how it was designed. If the program was well planned and designed, the objective of the program is definitely can be achieved effectively. In the literature review, there are various models or approaches in designing training program. This model was formed in order to help the planner or the trainer to plan, implement and evaluate the training program more effectively (Pesson, 1968). In designing and making the model, people actually endeavour to find ways to plan, implement and evaluate training program more systematically and follow certain rules. A model is important in building up the training program because it shows specific actions or stage that should be followed so as the actual goal will be achieved. Nadler (1983) had mentioned that a model is like a road map. Before someone get to any places, he or she should went through the map first as to avoid lost. By having a complete map, it still does not ensure someone’s journey because there are many other things that need to be considered. Based on the above statement, training model can determine the component and important process that involved in the program planning and also can show clearly the results of the training activities. The practice done by the planner of the training program will be interesting to study whether they follow what recommended in the literature. In daily practice, there are many factors that influenced their behaviour in designing the
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * November 2006 9 program. These factors are also something interesting to understand as to explain why the practice is done in that manner.
Most organizations have their own in-house training institute or centre to train their employees more effectively and cheaper. The institute had designed variety of training programs for their employees as well as catering for other agencies to train their employees as and when they employ new staff as well as to improve the skills, attitude and knowledge of current employees. Thus, this study is intended to determine how the training program is planned, implemented and evaluated. Is the planning be the same with the training model recommended in the literature review? And what are the factors that influenced the practice of program design done by the planner or trainer of the training program in the selected training institutions?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Training can be divided into three types, namely; pre-service, induction and on-job (Verner and Booth, 1964). Pre-service training is a training conducted to expose the newly employed employees on the nature of the job. The newly employed staff will normally be given the chance to identify whether they like the job or identify the type of task they most interested. Induction training is a training given to newly employed workers before they begin their job. The new employees will get the chance to be introduced to all members of the organization, departments, rules and regulations of the organization and basic introduction to the job. It rationales is to let the workers to get familiar with their task before they start to put their hand onto it. Whilst on-job training is conducted for existing employee with specific objective and in order to improve their attitudes and skills or when there are changes in the way of handling the new task. Cunningham (1967) in his study on co-operative development workers in Ohio, United State had found that on-job training is one of the best ways for the workers’ to get the chance to be trained and subsequently, able to work more effectively.
Program design is one of the activities in order to meet the objective and changes (Gall, 1987). It involves three main management processes such as planning, implementation and evaluation. In managing the training program, the organization’s goal will be formed as planning term of reference. Overfield (1989) had identified two important aspects in work such as managing and involvement. He found that managing is the decisive factor for achievement in employment and planning is a process of choosing and organizing the scheduled activities. Meanwhile, implementation is the process of working the scheduled activities in order to achieve the identified objective while evaluation is analysing the result and the effectiveness of the program. The result from the evaluation will be used to design the future program (Rogers, 1970).
Approach and Model in Designing a Training Program
Program design model aims to understand and improve the practice of training program design. It counts all the activities done by the planner or trainer of the training program. Good practice of training program design needs integration between several views or approaches. In the literature there are more than 50 models of program design which can be allocated in four groups namely Classical, Naturalistic, Critical and Negotiating Interest. Various aspects have been identified in every stages or steps in these approaches. There are obvious similarities in the steps namely: (1) analysing training context and recipient; (2) identifying training requirement; (3) creating objectives; (4) selecting program contents; (5) selecting resources; (6) determining budget and; (7) evaluating the program. Classical view which founded by Tyler (1949) is more emphasized on continuous learning. According to Tyler (1949), there are four important stages to create a program design model. The stages are: (1) specify objective; (2) identify learning experience to achieve objective; (3) organizing learning experience in more effective manner; and (4) evaluating whether the objectives achieved. In Naturalistic approach, it was stated that the program planner will try to make the best decision in designing a program. Planning is a process of selecting several existing alternatives. This problem solving process is known as deliberation and practical reasoning. This approach also emphasized on planner ability to make decision in certain context such as in organization and way of using limited resources such as money. Whilst according to Critical approach, justice is the important thing in planning a training program. There are no specific steps
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * November 2006 10
in this view because it is focus to the goal of helping disable individuals so as they can experience the organized training program. Besides, the purpose of this approach is to reorganize the relationship of the community in culture, politic and economic through education. Meanwhile, Negotiating Interest approach is involves process that relates to social, politic and ethics. The program planned must get the consent of the managing people in organizations, program planner and the target recipients. The practice of this program design as well as should consider the goal or the final purpose which involves the contents, format and the program recipients.
Program design model normally suit the types of the program and the recipient target group (McLagan, 1989). The model introduced by Leagan (1955), Kelsey and Hearne (1963), Pesson (1968), Raudabaugh (1967), Berger and Duvel (1981) and Boyle (1981) are among the popular models. These models have something in common in their components such as planning, implementation and evaluation. All those three components are equally important in each model and follow the reality of procedure. It is in fact influenced each other and sometimes always overlapping. Leagan’s Model is the most outstanding model found from the literature. It consists of five main stages: (1) studying the situation or problem; (2) creating objectives; (3) outlining and carrying out the work schedule; (4) evaluation; and (5) re-planning. Kelsey and Hearne’s model is clearly more detail even though it has the stages as found in Leagan’s Model. Obviously, the difference in Kelsey and Hearne’s Model is that it has not having the structured objective as compared to the one in the Leagan’s Model. A model which made popular by Pesson (1968) had also divided the program design into three main components of which planning, implementation and evaluation. Three stages of planning are data collection, analysing the situation and identifying problem. Meanwhile, the implementation stage involves three activities namely work schedule, implementation of planning and monitoring the process. Evaluation component of this model emphasizing on the activities carried out on the overall program stage not only at the last stage like what in the previous models do. Raudabaugh’s Model (1967) has similarity with Leagan’s Model. The difference between these models is Raudabaugh’s Model (1967) separate the outlining and the carrying out of work schedule into two close stages. While evaluation components is done at the final stage of the program. Another intricate model is the one that proposed by Burger and Duvel (1981). Although the design of the program consists of five components that not separated from the other models discussed previously, but this model explain in detail every stages of planning, investigation, preparation, implementation and evaluation which have a series of activities in decision making process.
METHODOLOGY
This research was done at 12 well established corporate training institutes in Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. As many as 50 program planners and trainers were chosen as respondents. The selected training centres are Maybank Training Centre, PusatPutra (Bumiputera Bank), Permata (PETRONAS), Bank Pertanian Malaysia Training Center, Pos Malaysia Training Centre, PORIM Training Institute, INSPEN Training Institute, IKRAM Training Institute, MARDI Training Institute, Sultan Ahmad Shah Training Institute (UNITEN), Serdang Agriculture Institute and Agriculture Development Training Institute. The questionnaires were distributed to the respondents to collect the information that relates to research area. Most of the questions stated in the questionnaires were open-ended in order to understand better the practices of designing the training program. Data were analyzed using Statistical Packages for Social Science (SPSS) program in order to get the descriptive statistic.
RESULTS Respondents’ Background
The respondents consist of 50 training planners and trainers. Out of that total, 38% of the respondents had been involved in training for 2-5 years. Whilst only 12% had in this position for less than 1 year and 4% involved in training for the same period of time (Refer Table 1).
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * November 2006 11 Table 1: Length of Experience in Position
Time Period In Job Position (%) Involved in Training Field (%)
Less than 1 year 12 4
2-5 years 38 38
5-10 Years 30 32
More than 10 years 20 26
Total 100 100
As for the academic qualification, most respondents were holding Masters Degree (34%) and Bachelor Degree (30%). In terms of academic area, there were 46% of the respondents qualified for management and only 28% of the respondents qualified in training. Table 2 also shows that there were 84% of the respondents gained their training knowledge through their working experience, 68% through attending short course, 52% through reading and 46% through discussion and only 32% from the total number of respondents who have learned training in the university. Table 2 indicates that there were 16 respondents or 32% had attending course in training program design field at the Universities.
Courses Attended
The study shows that there are similarities in the courses attended by the respondents from several training institutes. There was a difference in the period of time for the same courses because it was depending on the organiser and the agencies that send their workers for training. Table 3 shows that the respondents had attended various short courses in training field. Among the courses attended were Training the Trainers which was the most attended course at 24% of the respondents, followed by Training and Development (22%), Training Methodology (16%) and Training Needs Analysis (TNA) attended by 14% of respondents.
Table 2: Academic Achievement and Training Sources
Academic Qualification Total of Respondent Percentage (%)
Short courses 3 6 Diploma 14 28 Bachelor 15 30 Master 17 34 PhD 1 2 Total 50 100 Academic Area Management 23 46 Training 14 28 Engineering 11 22 Administration 7 14 Business 7 14 Others 6 12
Sources in Learning the Training
Work experience 42 84
Short courses 34 68
Reading books 26 52
Discussion 23 46
Taught in the university 16 32
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * November 2006 12
Table 3: Courses Attended
Course Name of Organizer Time Period (Days) Total of Respondent (%)
Training the Trainers SMR 14 24
Training and Development SMR 28 22
Training Methodology INTAN 14 16
Training Needs Analysis INTAN 7 14
Training and Management INTAN 21 8
Sales Advantage Program Dale Carnegie 6 6
Curriculum Development SMR 5 4
Developing Effective Training IPA 3 4
Communication Skills SMR 5 4
Designing & Analyzing Training Program Irshad Consultancy 3 4
Preparing Training Program IPA 3 2
Training Program Top-Q 3 2
Andragogy MILPB 2 2
Personnel Management MIMP 30 2
Human Resource Development USC 60 2
Training Consultancy BAC 5 2
Mind Mapping Carpe Diem 2 2
* Respondent list out more than one course. Note:
SMR = Specialist Management Resource Sdn. Bhd. INTAN = National Institute of Public Services Management IPA = Institute of Professional Advancement
MILPB = Training and Research Training Council MIPM = Malaysian Institute of Personnel Management USC = University of Southern Carolina, US BAC = Bush Allen Consultancy, Washington
Planning of the Training Program
Only 88% of the respondents agreed that planning the training program is one of their main tasks at their training unit. There were 94% of respondents who planned their training program in group and 64% planned individually. As for time allocation in planning the program,around 10-30% from the total work hours was used for this purpose. This was agreed by 52% of the respondents.
Table 4 shows the important steps that always been done in planning the training program. Training Needs Analysis (68%) was the most important step in planning training program, while for course contents determination, 58% of the respondent agreed to apply this step at their training institute followed by identifying training objectives (54%) and providing facilities needed (36%).
Table 4: Steps in Planning the Training Program
Steps Total of Respondent (%)
Training Needs Analysis 68
Determine course contents 58
Identify training objectives 54
Provide facilities needed (place, equipments, trainers and participants) 36
Preparing budget 28
Outline course schedule 14
Interview/Survey 8
Data analysis 8
Table 5 below shows that the respondents were given the chances to identify the most important steps to be carried-out in TNA and it was found that preparing questionnaire were the most important step (30%) and followed by identifying focus group which as same important as identifying task list which received 22% choices. However, only
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * November 2006 13 8% of the respondents were agreed that course evaluation is important and cost minimization has been the least important steps in carrying-out TNA with only 2% choices.
Table 5: Steps to Carry Out Training Needs Analysis
Steps Total of Respondent (%)
Preparing questionnaire and survey 30
Identify focus group 22
Identify task list 22
Identify problem 18
Study the participants’ level of knowledge 18
Discussion with management 12
Program/module design 10
Formation of objectives 10
Course evaluation 8
Cost minimization 2
Implementation of the Training Program
From this research, it was found that 98% of the respondents had involved in designing the training program. From there, 92% had used the schedule to ensure the program went smoothly as planned. As for the rest, 70% had relied on self-observation, 68% base on checklist and 10% of the respondents depending on the feedback received from the participants.
This research had also found that 84% of the respondents said that the planning had been changed and the contents of the course were the things that always changing about 30% from the original plan. These changes were made because certain courses need to suit the trainers who receiving the training. Only 4% of the respondents had agreed to objective changes. In the literature review, it has been mentioned that objective is part of the important factors in designing a program. If the objective changed, the whole training program that had been planned is expected to get effected. Therefore, the training program that facing this kind of situation will be seen as failed to properly and effectively plan from the very beginning.]
Table 6: Things Changing before Implementation of the Program
Item Total of Respondent (%)
Course content 30 Time 26 Date 24 Participant 22 Place 8 Budget 8 Facilitator 8 Timetable of event 8 Objective 4
* Respondent list out more than one item. Evaluation of the Training Program
Various training evaluation method were conducted either through questionnaires (92%), written (62%), observation (60%), interview (50%) and participant feedback (12%). There were 96% of the respondents stated that training evaluation was done at the end of the training. Whilst 40% of the respondent had evaluation done during or after the training completed.
There are number of parties involved in evaluating and analyzing the training program. Table 7 shows that 72% of the respondents agreed that the training program planner is responsible to do all the aspects. Only 16% agreed that it should be done by somebody from outside or those who not involved in the organization. However, there are departments such as The Training and Quality of Services Department and Administration Department who should involve in evaluating and analyzing the training program.
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * November 2006 14
Table 7: Person Who Should Evaluate & Analyze Training Program
Individual Total of Respondent Percentage (%)
Program planner 36 72
Coordinator 35 70
Outsider 8 16
Training Division/Unit 7 14
* Respondent notes more than one person to evaluate and analyze the training program.
Program Design Approach/Model
There were 20 respondent (40%) said that they used certain model, while 38% of the respondents not using any model in planning their training program and 22% were unsure whether they were using model or not. For those who were using the model, they have been asked to list down the name of the model however they failed to give a correct answer.
Table 8 below shows the approaches that have been used by training program planner or trainer. Prior to ask this kind of questions, the researcher had mentioned briefly each approach in the questionnaire in order to make the respondents understand these four approaches of program design. The result found that most of the respondents have learned and used Classical approach in planning their training program which represented 80% who learned and 76% used this approach as guidance. Negotiating Interest approach also reported quite a high number of respondents when it goes as high as 58% respondents had learned about this approach and 62% had used it as reference.
Table 8: Approach that been Learned and Used
Approach Learned (%) Used as a Guidance (%)
Classical 80 76
Negotiating Interest 58 62
Naturalistic 22 14
Critical 18 8
* Respondents learned or guided by more than one approach.
The study had found that the 84% of the respondents had used specific model to suit with the existing program, while 32% of the respondents used it because it was the easiest, 16% used it because it was popular, 8% said that it was flexible and effective and another 6% stated that it is the only model that they knew.
Factors of Non-Applicable Program Design Model
Table 9 shows the factors that had been identified as the reason why certain program design model could not be applied. From the table below, it shows that 36% of respondents agreed that the program design model could not be applied because it was not suitable to the situation. It is followed by the reason of too theoretical, too rigid and inexpert which receives 8% of respondents.
Table 9: Factors of Non-Applicable Program Design Model
Factors Total of Respondent (%)
Not suitable to the situation 36
Too theoretical/idealistic 8
Too rigid 8
Inexpert 8
Disagreed by managing people 8
Impractical 4
Complicated 4
Unclear/different objectives 4
Bureaucracy 4
Do not want to try 2
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * November 2006 15 CONCLUSION
Base on what have been studied in this research, it was found that most of the training program planner or trainer are well educated and experienced and had been in this position for within 2 to 5 years. Most of them obtained their skills in designing the training program from their working experiences as well as from attending short courses for training and it is obviously different from what they have learned at their higher learning institutions. This had showed that the trainers are short of formal training knowledge and this resulting in they cannot suit themselves to the training program design model.
The statement above is supported with the proof that 38% of the respondents of this research had not using the model while planning their program at their training centres and 22% were not sure whether they had used the model or not. Even though 40% of the respondents had said that they used the training design model, but when been asked to list down the name of the models, they failed to give a correct answer. This shows that the planners who design the training program had failed to design their training program as what proposed and recommended in the literature and this had caused the trainers learning the basic thing of designing a program. However, most of the respondents had responded that they used Classical and Negotiating Interest approach as their guidance when designing their training program.
The respondent had not used the models that being recommended in the literatures for the reason that it is not suitable at the situation that they are at. This is because they had planned their program base on their working experience rather than trying to use the models that been recommended in the literatures. There were 2% of the respondent had totally refused to try the models and most of them blamed that the models are not practical, too theoretical, too complex and too rigid but all these blames are not convincing enough to support their arguments. As a whole, the selected training centres have their own way of planning their training program and their methods are not the same as the models that being recommended in the literatures. Most of the respondents have no idea of the main model in designing a program.
REFERENCES
Batten, C. W. (1962). Training for Community Development: Getting Agriculture Moving. New York: The Agriculture Department Council, Inc. Boyle, P. G. (1981). Planning Better Programs. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Co.
Burger, P. J. & Duvel, G. H. (1981). Extension Education and Rural Development. United State: John Wiley and Sons.
Gall, L. G. (1987). What do Contract Trainers Need to Know to be Successful. Training and Development Journal, 41 (4): 26-32. Kelsey, L. D. & Hearne, C. C. (1963). Cooperative Extension Work. New York: Comstock Publishing Associates.
Leagan, J. P. (1955). A Concept of Extension Education Process. New York: Constance Publishing Associates. McLagan, P. A. (1989). Models for HRD Practice. Training and Development Journal, 43 (9): 49-59. Nadler, L. (1983). Designing Training Programs: The Critical Event Model. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Overfield, K. (1989). Program Development. Training and Development Journal, 43 (11): 66-71. Pesson, L. L. (1968). Principles of Extension Teaching. Kuala Lumpur: College of Agriculture, Malaysia. Rogers, T. G. (1970). The Recruitment and Training of Graduates. London: Institute of Personnel Management. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Verner, C. & Booth, A. (1964). Adult Education. Washington: Center for Applied Research in Education.
