Learning Transfer as Transformation? - Key Factors of the Transfer Process Over Time
Author(s):
Anja-Christina Hinrichs (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2014
Network:
02. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Format:
Paper

Session Information

02 SES 07 C, VETNET Early Researchers: Supporting Learning

Paper Session

Time:
2014-09-03
17:15-18:45
Room:
B025 Anfiteatro
Chair:
Lázaro Moreno Herrera
Discussant:
Charlotte Chadderton

Contribution

The legitimation of vocational training is of central importance regarding the investments made. Therefore, it is not surprising that the design of training measures is currently leading the list of challenges within vocational training (SCIL trend study, Diesner & Seufert 2010). The two questions “What effects are noticed in the work context?” (outcome-oriented research; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick 2006, Philipps & Philipps 2010) and “Which parameters contribute to knowledge development and knowledge transfer?” (process-oriented research; holton III et al. 2000; Bates et al. 2007) are discussed in separate lines of research. Practice and research of in-company continuing training are currently dominated by these two approaches. However, a linked study of person, process and outcome data would be a necessary condition in order to evaluate and improve the effect of training in the work context (Desky & Tessaring 2006). Reflecting on Baldwin & Ford, learning transfer is defined as follows: "For transfer to have occurred, learned behavior must be generalized to the job context and maintained over a period of time on the job." (Baldwin & Ford 1988, p.63). In this respect, Gessler (2012) argues that the movement from learning to application does not imply that knowledge from the learning field may easily be transferred to the work environment respectively performance field. A more sufficient term or concept would be “transformation” because learning transfer in vocational training is more like a context-based transformation of knowledge. If both contexts - learning and performance field - have an effect at the same time, transfer takes place parallel, not sequentially. On one hand, transfer occurs as transformation within the learning and the performance field, and on the other hand, these transformations build resources for the respective other field. In this understanding, the learning field rather exists "beside" the performance field, not after it, and the effects are mutually reciprocal, not unilateral.

Relating to this Gessler (2012) tested an empirical model, which brings together equivalent process and outcome data while taking into account the interaction of the learning and the performance field. Using structural equation modelling, 78% of the variance of self-reported learning transfer could be explained within the cross-sectional study.

According to the assumptions mentioned above and as a continuation and deepening of the previous research the author is currently carrying out a longitudinal study, gathering specific quantitative data on person, process and outcome.

The central research question is: What are the key factors (predictors) of the transfer success when being considered over time?

Method

Since the author assumes that transfer should be understood as a transformation over time, data of the transfer process is being collected at four time points of measurement: (1) at the “kick-off” of the training, (2) after 6 of 11 training days, (3) 2 to 3 weeks after the certification, and (4) approx. 6 months after the certification. The online-questionnaires are based on the pre-study of GESSLER (2012), but further developed, adapted to the different research design and complemented by additional latent variables such as self-efficacy and work identification. Therefore, existing inventories (i.a. HOLTON, BATES & ROUNA 2000) and meta-analysis have been considered (i.a. BLUME ET AL. 2010; MANDL, PRENZEL & GRÄSEL 1992). Whereas the identification of factors of learning transfer has been intensively researched internationally, the structure of linkages has been mostly neglected. That is why CHENG & HO (2001) – as part of their meta-analysis of studies of the years 1989 until 1998 - recommend on one hand the validation of the factor structure and on the other hand the usage of structural equation modeling for further research studies in this field. This recommendation has not been seized on with only a few exceptions, such as YAMKOVENKO (2009) who analyzed a factor model of personality, self-efficacy, goal orientation, and intent to transfer training on the job, and GESSLER (2012) who also examined the structure of the factors of learning transfer by integrating process and outcome data (as mentioned above). Causal dependencies between latent variables can be tested with the help of structural equation modeling. Therefore, content related hypotheses are linked in the model and tested by the empirically obtained data. The correlations between the variables are tested and the variance of the dependent variable will be explained. Analyses that represent development processes over time have to consider both individual development parameters and the variation of these developments within the study population. The covariance matrix and the mean information of the manifest variables are considered for modeling the intraindividual and interindividual development trends. Such a model is referred to as a growth curve model (Reinecke 2005). These methods will be used to analyze the data. To date 363 participants out of 88 Germany-wide vocational training courses have completed the first questionnaire (out of four). The data collection will end in August 2014.

Expected Outcomes

By implementing the Lisbon Strategy a process started by which vocational education and training (VET) has received new attention in Europe. Accordingly, VET has become a new priority area whereby the role and the competences of the teachers and trainers has received more attention as the improvement of their training is a central dimension to improve educational systems (HAASLER & TUTSCHNER 2011). However, when it comes to studying the learning transfer most investigations ignore this perspective. The present study seeks to close this gap by also collecting data regarding the trainer’s didactical and personal competences (such as teaching competence, meaning and comprehensiveness of teaching content, structuring, methods, feedback/advice, dealing with errors) in order to foster the European dialogue in this respect. Regarding the main research question the interim results already point out that transfer in the context of continuing vocational training is not to be seen as a phenomenon which only occurs after the end of training. Rather it already takes place as a development process in the temporal progress of the training course. At this stage, indicators are given, that GESSLER’S (2012) assumption of reciprocal effects between the learning and the performance field may be true. The sustainable development of transfer success over a longer period still remains open until the end of the data analysis; also to what extent the individual predictors are mutually dependent or which influence they have over time. It is expected to present the results of the first three time points of measurement at the conference.

References

BALDWIN, T.T. & FORD, J.K. (1988): Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41 (1), 63-105. BATES, R., KAUFFELD, S. & HOLTON, E.F. (2007): Examining the factor structure and predictive ability of the German-version of the Learning Transfer Systems Inventory. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31 (3), 195-211. BLUME, B.D.; FORD, J.K.; BALDWIN, T.T.; HUANG, J.L. (2010): Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review. In: Journal of Management 36 (4), S. 1065–1105. DESCY, P. & TESSARING, M. (2006): Der Wert des Lernens: Evaluation und Wirkung von Bildung und Ausbildung. Dritter Bericht zum aktuellen Stand der Berufsbildungsforschung in Europa - Synthesebericht. CEDEFOP Reference Series 66. Luxemburg: Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. DIESNER, I. & SEUFERT, S. (2010): Trendstudie 2010: Herausforderungen für das Bildungsmanagement in Unternehmen. St. Gallen: SCIL Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning. GESSLER, M. (2012): Lerntransfer in der beruflichen Weiterbildung – empirische Prüfung eines integrierten Rahmenmodells mittels Strukturgleichungsmodellierung. In: Zeit¬schrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 362-393. HAASLER, S.R. & TUTSCHNER, R. (2011): Evaluating the Situation and Qualification of Trainers in Enterprises – A European Perspective. Evaluate Europe Handbook Series Volume 5. Bremen. HOLTON, E.F., BATES, R. & RUONA, W. (2000): Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11 (4), 333-360. KIRKPATRICK, J.D. & KIRKPATRICK, D.L. (2006): Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. 3. Auflage. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. MANDL, H., PRENZEL, M. & GRÄSEL, C. (1992): Das Problem des Lerntransfers in der betrieblichen Weiterbildung. Unterrichtswissenschaft: Zeitschrift für Lernforschung, 20 (2), 126-143. PHILIPPS, J.J. & PHILIPPS, P.P. (2010): Show me the money: How to Determine ROI in People, Projects and Programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. REINECKE, J. (2005): Strukturgleichungsmodelle in den Sozialwissenschaften. München: Oldenbourg. YAMKOVENKO, B. (2009): Dispositional Influences on the Intent to Transfer Learning: A Test of a Structural Equation Model. Dissertation. Louisiana State University.

Author Information

Anja-Christina Hinrichs (presenting / submitting)
Universität Bremen, Institut Technik und Bildung
Bremen

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.