design and assesment of training

I have spoken with people within and outside of the team to draw on their expertise and to gain knowledge and another point of view which has helped me greatly in coming to conclusions and making recommendations.

I assed the criteria or standards I have used by posing questions to the material myself and with my colleagues coming up with standards which can be commented as they can be measured against the standard. To do this I looked at a models (Hackett 2003) and (blooms 1956) and from our CTP session looked at the sessions plan for designing training and assessment (Brian Hamer DPG 2009) to then take this research and formulate the standards for the critique. This allowed me to scope this document using all the research mentioned above.

I have also incorporated the whole brain approach (Herrmann-Nehdi, 1995)

to the overall body conclusions and recommendations. All the criteria chosen had to cover off these areas and therefore are robust and valid criteria using the knowledge gained from these areas.

Body of the report

The e-mail and letter writing material is extensive for a day’s course and at first glance looks as if it covers all the bases when in fact it has a lot of gaps. It does not consider individual learning styles as all of them are not catered for. There is not much active participation as most exercises are done individually. The subjects that are covered within the course, although valid do not bear much resemblance to what happens on the shop floor. Although there is a progression within the exercises and material which allows some of the adult leaning principles (DPG 2009) to be met, a lot of potential learning is lost. The course does not meet much of the whole brain approach to learning (Herrmann-Nehdi, 1995) as the exercises and material is restrictive to this process. With changes this could be fulfilled and the need for refresher training and post coaching reduced considerably.

As I have gone through my critique and investigation a few things have become very clear through my methods of research. The objectives in some areas are not to the standards set by myself, and because of that and the fact the trainers guide is very wordy it does not allow the learning to shine through. It gets muddled in all the detail of what is covered over the day. I have experienced delivering this course and have had comments about this level of detail as most people do not have an opportunity to write a letter from scratch.

Using the standards set in appendix 1 and results in appendix 2 I want to focus in on the main points/results of what I have found. There are a lot of advantages with this course. It is very detailed and covers all of the aspects of letter writing in the RPA. Although there is an assessment of learning made at the end of the course that is an assessment but actually is an assessment of people’s knowledge and skills they already have. It doesn’t have much to do with the actual key learning points in the course.

The actual ongoing assessment building up to the writing the letter towards the end of the course is a better indication of the course objectives being met by the learners. The spelling and grammar assessment could be used at the start of pre course work of the session to check levels on these areas and make adjustments along the day to fit the results accordingly. As stated above it doesn’t link in to anything else in the day and with most template letters only requiring minimal adjustment, usually a choice of options or snippet of information, this knowledge might not be needed in such detail.

The power point is too wordy and could use some visual aids to help the overall presentation and make it real. The learner guide has enough space in it for notes although could be condensed or be a project throughout the day for the learners to build themselves bringing in the Whole brain approach to learning (Herrmann-Nehdi, 1995) and the 10 Principles of Adult learning- DPG (c. 2009) to give a real sense of progress and practice skills and most importantly (as this is lost in this session) control over learning activities. These constructed learners guides could be checked and form the bases of best practice workbooks in any work area.

Conclusions

My conclusions for this learning session are:

• The objectives across the day although are equal for knowledge skills and understanding they do not have the required Standards actions etc to make them robust enough for what is actually covered. The session needs more different skills as two objectives are basically the same. Need to look at all areas to focus more on areas that can be transferred so the learning goes back to the working environment more effectively.

• There is a lack of participatory exercises. There needs to be more of a mix. This is not to say there isn’t opportunity for participation just there is much more potential there even for new starters who know nothing about house styles etc.

• Within the exercises there is not much consideration to the different learning styles. Most of the exercises lean towards the theorist and reflector.  I think this is because of the subject but with a few tweaks this would hit all four learning styles.

• The assessment methods, although there, need to be looked at in terms of do they add any value to the course. For example discussing/checking knowledge of where the spell check is then doing a spelling test. The session does not look at spelling in an in depth way it is simply mentioned in terms of layout and being professional.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Recommendations

My recommendations for the organisation for this one day session are that it is split into two half day sessions with one session having more focus on the template letter we use in both Single Payment Scheme and in BCMS operations. Before I get to that my recommendations for the sessions are that some of the objectives are re-written, to include actions, conditions and outcomes. For example:

Construct (action) letter and e-mails which use English that is accurate and conveys messages clearly and concisely

To

Construct (action) letter and e-mails which use English that is accurate and coveys messages clearly and concisely using the rule of thirds (standard) to gain consistency in your e-mail and letter writing (outcome)

Also the activities within the course changed to integrate different learning styles. For example instead of showing delegates where to find all the various house letters which are held online and within our network drives facilitate a session on the knowledge already in the group. Ask the delegates to show other people in the group where their work areas letters are and talk through the general aspects of the letters held within those areas and then for the other people in the group to feed this back If set up correctly this could hit all the learning styles areas. Using Honey and Mumfords variation (2000) David Kolbs experiential learning theory (1984) I thought about this in terms of what it does now and some potential in what it could dot he learning styles areas.

Thinking about the general layout of the course one big exercise with a long set up and detailed debrief could cover the same learning and save time. The overall debrief could be a facilitation session drawing out the knowledge a skills for the benefit of the group also a demonstration or work brought back to go through using the feedback model would allow “buy in” from the group and a stronger message about positives (confidence) and areas for development.

Splitting the day roughly in two would have a lot of advantages most delegates use template letters for the majority of the letters they send out and therefore the training could be tailored to this more effectively and have quality assessments within group work to check understanding of:

• Where the letters are
• Audience
• Editing the letters correctly
• Storing
• Troubleshooting

Various exercises and assessment methods could be used to allow this learning to be more whole brain approach (Herrmann-Nehdi, 1995) as it would allow the individuals in the group to be switched on opening up the group to real learning hitting all four quadrants of the brain and also allowing great facilitation of learning points as a debrief.

The time benefit in splitting the training would be great for the organisation as the time out for training on this area could be cut in half if the identification of the learning needs is done correctly. (Or cut to zero if not required) The full day course would still be there for anyone who required it. The splitting of the material and the re-write would allow this to be flexible for the business and benefit both learner and the RPA.

---

Appendix 1- Standards

Appendix 2

Dealing with official correspondence (3)

Appendix 2

The process of writing (4)

Appendix 2

Planning your writing (5)

Appendix 2

Letter writing Skills (6)

Appendix 2

Additional Rules for e-mails (7)

Appendix 2

Reviewing and revising a letter (8)

Appendix 2

Final writing activity (9)

Appendix 2

Action Planning and Close (10)

---

---

Appendix 4

Example of RPA’s Training Design Document

• Appendix 1- Standards set to use a base to critique the sessions
• Appendix 2- Session by session critique using the standards (10 separate pages)
• Appendix 3- 10 principles of adult learning
• Appendix 5 –  Example of RPA training design document

References

Bibliography

Training Practice – Penny Hackett (2003)

The Accelerated Learning Handbook- Dave Meier (2000)

Experiential Learning Styles- David Kolb (1984)

10 Principles of Adult learning- DPG (c. 2009)

Learning Styles Helpers Guide- Honey and Mumford (2000)

Blooms Taxonomy- Benjamin Bloom (1956)

Whole brain approach to learning (Herrmann-Nehdi, 1995)