1、 外文翻译 原文 Trainees reactions to training Material Source: The International Journal of Human Resource Management Author: Antonio Sebastiano The literature on training evaluation is highly consistent with respect to two basic conclusions. First, companies are not generally capable of fully evaluating
2、training programmes ,thereby highlighting a major gap between theoretical recommendations in the academic literature and real application in industry and business . As noted by Plant and Ryan within the industrial or commercial setting, time and financial resources severely limit the possibility of
3、evaluating benefit beyond level 1.Second, as emphasised by Olsen , participant reaction is still the most commonly evaluated dimension of training in organisations The transfer component did not appear to have received as much attention since most organisations were (apparently) looking primarily at
4、 reaction. Estimates of the proportion of companies doing full training evaluations vary considerably from one study to the next but tend, on the whole, to be rather low: 31% according to Olsen (1998) 20% ,according to Shelton and Alliger (1993), 7% as estimated by Van Buren and Erskine, only 2% as
5、indicated by Lee and Pershing (2002), and none according to Plant and Ryan . Indeed, the field of training evaluation shows an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand,academics tend to emphasise the need to examine all four of Kirkpatricks (1967) evaluation levels, while organisations, on the other,
6、seldom try to apply the full training evaluation model in practice. However, because of the emphasis on full training evaluation, research in this area has tended to downgrade the importance of level 1 evaluation. Thus, in their broad literature review of training evaluation results, Alliger and Jan
7、ak (1989) noted that only three out of 203 empirical studies examined all four levels. On the other hand, the number of studies dealing explicitly with level 1 was also very limited: 11 out of 203 focused on level 1 only, and a further 41 looked at level 1 as well as at one other level (Alliger and
8、Janak 1989). In other words, although reaction evaluation is very often the only aspect considered by most companies, the importance attached by academics to full evaluation and, hence, the reluctance of journals to publish studies focusing purely or primarily on reaction evaluation, has resulted in
9、 a paucity of published research on this particular area of training evaluation (Arthur et al. 2003). In this respect, reaction evaluation is to be viewed in the same way as any other kind of feedback related to a specific aim (Tannenbaum and Woods 1992; Mann and Robertson 1996;Blanchard et al. 2000
10、), without overestimating its significance. Indeed, Kirkpatrick (1967, p. 88) was the first to highlight the intrinsic limitations of a level 1 evaluation stating that reaction may best be defined as how well trainees liked a particular training programme. Evaluating in terms of reaction is the same
11、 as measuring the feelings of the conferees. It is important to emphasise that it does not include a measurement of any learning that takes place, since it is essential that the four dimensions are isolated and treated one by one. At the same time, though, the importance of reaction evaluation shoul
12、d not be underestimated for two reasons. First, although there is no systematic evidence that positive reactions to training are necessarily associated with more positive level 2 or level 3 outcomes,such as better learning and/or more effective transfer of learning to the job (Clement 1982; Alliger
13、and Janak 1989; Arthur et al. 2003), it would be rash to assume that positive training experiences have absolutely no beneficial effect on trainees. Thus, as suggested by Meyer and Allen (1997) and by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), positive training experiences may well have a beneficial impact on
14、a number of important employee attitudes and behaviours including,for example, their level of job motivation, organisational commitment and perceived organisational support. Second, gaining a better understanding of reaction evaluations can help organisations identify particular problems or weakness
15、es with their current training and, hence, become a basis for improving their future training provision (Goldstein 1993; Mann and Robertson 1996; Tannenbaum and Woods 1992). In other words, trainees reactions to training, and the factors that affect these reactions, are important to examine in their
16、 own right,quite apart from the impact that such reactions may or may not have on subsequent levels in the Kirkpatrick (1967) model. Central to the evaluation of trainees immediate reactions to training is an analysis of the extent of their overall satisfaction with the training they received and of
17、 the factors that help to shape their assessment of the training. More specifically, following Alliger and Janak (1989),overall satisfaction with training can be viewed as a global attitudinal construct that captures individuals general attitude towards and evaluation of the training they received.I
18、n turn, there are a number of possible determinants of training satisfaction that have been identified in the literature. Particularly important from the present point of view are a number of situational factors related to the training itself that are under the direct control of the organisation. Ac
19、cording to Kidder and Rouiller (1997) these include, for example, the content of the training, the materials used, and instructor performance.Other esearchers emphasise slightly different and/or additional antecedents, such as the actual organisation of the training (Lee and Pershing 2002). Here we
20、focus on three key factors that most researchers consider to be central to an understanding of overall trainee satisfaction with training. These include trainees perceptions of the usefulness and efficiency of the training, as well as their perceptions of trainer performance. These three factors are
21、 described more fully below. The first factor perceived efficiency of training relates primarily to the organisation and the mode of operation of the course. In particular, it refers to an evaluation on the part of trainees of various aspects regarding the physical location and administration of the
22、 course (Lee andPershing 2002). These may include, for example, elements of comfort and practicality, such as whether the training venue can be easily reached, whether it has suitable areas equipped for coffee-breaks, whether the classroom is of a suitable size, whether it is adequately lit andprope
23、rly heated or air-conditioned, whether the sound-system is working, the furniture is comfortable, and the teaching aids (white board, computer, projector, flip chart) are adequate for the purpose of the training being carried out (Lee and Pershing 2002). Furthermore,course planning in terms of the n
24、umber of sessions provided and their scheduling in relation to the topics dealt with in the classroom and trainees work commitments are also important here (Amietta 2000), as are the resources made available to trainees including, for example, the quantity and quality of the teaching materials used
25、(Kidder and Rouiller 1997). As often noted by practitioners, although some of these elements may, at first sight, appear to be of only secondary importance, in practice, their impact on trainee reactions may be quite substantial (Kidder and Rouiller 1997). Inadequate facilities, poor teaching materi
26、als or overlyfrequent lessons may, for example, have a profound negative impact on trainees overall evaluation of the course. This is in line with existing research in the area that suggests that training administration and delivery can influence reactions (North, Strain and Abbott2000; Towler and D
27、ipboye 2001). Having an effectively managed and organised course, however, by no means guarantees high levels of trainee satisfaction. Trainee reactions are also importantly influenced by the perceived usefulness of the training (Warr and Bunce 1995; Warr et al. 1999). There are two main elements in
28、volved here. The first concerns the extent to which participants perceive the training as providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary to perform well on their job and/or improve their general efficacy within the organisation (Webster and Martocchio 1995).The second element concerns indivi
29、duals personal growth and development and the extent to which participants perceive the training as contributing to their longer term career prospects and opportunities, both within and outside the organisation. In other words, the first element is more concerned with trainees present needs within t
30、heir current organisation, while the second concerns their longer term needs and skills that can also be transferable to other organisations (Lipari 2002). More generally, as noted by Noe (1986, p. 73), it is important that the trainees believe that program participation and mastery of content are r
31、elated to the attainment of desired outcomes such as prestige, horizontal and vertical career movement, enhancement of self confidence, or salary increases . Moreover, trainees evaluation of the usefulness of the course often is also based on an assessment of the balance between practical and theore
32、tical aspects of the training. Perceptions of an imbalance, such as when course content is thought to be too theoretically rather than practically oriented, can have a significant negative impact on overall perceptions of the usefulness of the training and, therefore, ultimately negatively affect tr
33、ainee overall satisfaction with the training (Sebastiano and Bellet 2005). On this basis, therefore, we propose the following hypothesis. 译文 培训学员的反应 资料来源 :国际人力资源 期刊 作者：安东尼 塞巴斯蒂亚 相关 培训评估的 研究与 两种基本结论 保持 高度一致的。首先 ， 公司一般不能够充分评估培训课程 ,从而 强调了 理论 上的措施在实际运用中会遇到些问题 。瑞恩 指出， 时间和财力资源严重限制的 培训评估效果 。第二 ,正如奥尔森 所言，参与
34、者反应是最常见的评估维度 大多数企业忽视了培训效果转移 ,因为大多数组织 只关注培训学员的 反应。 关于 公司做完整的培训评估的比例 ，不同学者的估计 相差 比较大，但总体 是相当低的 :1998 年 奥尔森 认为只有 31%， 1993年 张宁霞 认为只有 20%， 1994 年 欧斯金 认为只有 7%。 确实 ,在 培训评估 这个领域，学者有两种不同的看法 。一方面 ,学者倾向于强调需要检查所有四个 柯克帕特里克的 (1967)评价水平 ,同时另一方面 在实际培训中， 组织很少完整 地 去应用评价模型。不过 ,由于过分 强调培训评估 ,在这个领域的研究已经趋于 降低一级 评价等级 的 重要
35、性。因此 ,在他们的广泛的 研究中 中 ,Alliger 和 Janak(1989)指出 ,只有 203个 实证研究 全面覆盖 四个层次。另一方面 ,许多研究 结果确实存在些不足 :只有 11个研究 集中在一级 评价等级 ,另外还 有 41个研究集中在 一级 评价等级 以及 其他评价等级。 换句话说 ,虽然大多数公司经常 考虑 反应评价的 ,充分评估 培训学员的反应 受到 了 学术界的重视 ,因此 ,不愿期刊发表的研究主要集中在纯反应评价 ,导致哪怕一点点发表的学术研究上的特殊区域培训评估 。 在这方面 ,研究人员以同样的方式看待反应评价和与一个特定的目标相关的反馈 (曼和约翰布朗奇德罗伯逊学
36、组。 1996年 ,2000年 ),并没有过高估计了它的重要性。的确 ,余国汉 (1967年 ,p。 88)是第一个指出评级等级固有的局限性 ,他认为 :“对反应最好的定义是学员如何喜欢一个特别的 培训课程”。从一定程度上来说，评价反应与测量参加会议者的感觉一样。为了强调这一点的重要性。它不包括测量任何一个培训点点 ,因为四个维度必须一个个区别对待。 同时 ,反应评价的重要性不应该被低估的原因有两个。首先 ,虽然没有系统的证据显示正反应是与二级或三级结果有某种必然的联系，如更好的学习和 /或更多的有效转移的工作 (1982 年克莱门特， 1989 年的亚瑟孙俐 ),那么武断地假设丰富的培训经验
37、完全不影响培训学员。因此 ,迈耶和雷 -阿伦 (1997)提出，丰富的培训经营很可能对员工态度与行为产生若干重要的影响的包括 ,例如 ,其工作动机、组织承诺和知觉组织支持。第二，更好的理解反应评价可以帮助组织识别现在的训练项中特定的问题或弱点。因此，在基础上可以提高其未来的培训项目。换句话说 ,学员对培训的反应 ,而且影响这些反应的因素对来检查在他们的责任自是至关重要的权力。 培训学员对培训的快速反应的程度是分析他们对培训整体满意度的重要因素 ,并且这些因素有助于改善他们的评估培训工作。更具体地说， Alliger 和Janak(1989)证明， ,整体满意度与培训 ,可以看作是员工对培训的整
38、体态度。反过来 ,大量的文献已经证实的影响培训满意度的因素。目前 比较流行的观点是很多环境因素与培训本身相关，培训受组织的直接控制。根据 Kidder Rouiller(1997年 ),包括，培训的内容，培训资源和培训者的水平。其他的研究者的观点稍微有点不同，如培训的组织。在这里我们专注于三个关键因素 ,大多数研究人员认为是理解他们对培训整体满意度的关键。这些包括学员对培训的实用性，培训效率和培训者水平的理解。这三个因素是更完整地描述如下。 第一个因素 对培训效率的理解 ,主要是培训课程的组织和运作模式。特别是 ,它指的是评价学员对培训地点和培训课程管理的一部分，这些可能包括 ,例 如 ,培训
39、器材的舒适和实用性 ,如是否可以很容易地达到培训地点 ,是否设有咖啡厅，培训教室是否合适 ,是否装有空调，音效系统是否正常运行，桌椅是否舒适 ,器材 (白板、电脑、投影仪、白板 )是否足以满足培训目的和培训计划。此外，课程规划的数量，培训时间和工作时间不冲突也是很重要，提供给学员的资源，包括，例如，教学材料的数量和质量。作为经常提到的参加者 ,尽管乍一看，这些因素似乎不是很重要 ,在实践中 ,设施不足 ,落后的教学材料和或过多的培训次数可能会影响学员，给员工带来深远的负面影响，影响学员评价课程。 有一个有效的管理和组织 的课程，然而，不一定能保证学员高的满意度。培训的实用性也会影响员工对培训的
40、反应。培训有两个重要的组成部分。第一要素，在一定程度上，参与者中认为培训给他们提供更新知识和技能的机会，使他们的工作表现更加出色，改善工作绩效和工作效率。第二要素，在一定程度上，员工比较关注个人成长和发展，作为参与者他们认为培训促使延长职业生涯，同时为提供好的发展机会。换句话说，第一要素更关心学员他们在组织中目前的需要 ,而第二要素担忧他们的长期需求和工作技能。更普遍的是 ,学员相信自己参与计划制定和掌握的内容的程度与达到预期效果有关，例 如威信，职业发展，增强职业生涯的自信心 ,或工资的增长”。此外，学员的有效性评价的过程往往也是一种基于评估的实践和理论之间的平衡。一个不平衡的看法 ,比如当课程内容被认为太理论而不是实际上的，可以产生显著的负面影响。因此，最终带来负面影响，降低员工的总体满意度。
