Evaluating training and development in UK universities: staff perceptions

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to analyse individual experiences of learning evaluation in UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and identify areas for improvement as part of an HEFCE LGM funded project. Design/methodology/approach – Eight focus groups were included in two universities with staff in similar roles. After transcription, the data were analysed using template analysis to identify and compare key themes from across both universities. Findings – The context of UK higher education is clearly important due to the diverse job roles and on-going sectoral changes. Three key themes emerged; first was a lack of clarity from the learners on learning evaluation. The second key theme centres on the format, method and timing of capturing evaluation data and the perception that a “one size fits all” approach is not appropriate. The third finding suggests that line managers do not currently fulfil their critical roles in the process. Research limitations/implications – Small number of research participants and a focus on two universities. In addition, participants were relying on their memories of past evaluation experiences. Practical implications – Ensuring learners understand reasons for evaluating their learning is important. HEIs should utilise a more diverse range of tools at the design stage to collect evaluation data. All stakeholder roles need to be clarified, and line managers require additional support. Originality/value – First, we address a gap in the existing sector-specific literature identified by Burgoyne et al. (2009) who contend that there is a lack of research in this area. Second, we contribute to the development of research in the journal by analysing evaluation from the perspective of the participants, and third, we offer recommendations for practice.

Evaluation of training programs in Russian manufacturing companies

“…Noninvolvement of managers can be a serious obstruction to effective training program evaluation, as line managers play an important role in formulating the evaluation criteria and the training success itself (Holton, 1996; Brinkerhoff, 2005; Robson and Sharon, 2014). Without managerial participation, all efforts may be of no effect, as they will not reflect the results that actually matter.…”

Review on Training and Development in Human Management

“…The effectiveness of training and development is one of the themes that are also the focus of researchers. Among the researchers who focused their research on the effectiveness of training and development are Suzuki (1986); Ab Rahim (1993); Bagshaw (1996); Adamson (1996); Abdul Kadir & Ismail (1997); Burden & Proctor (2000); Wan Sulaiman (2001); Ismail, Omar, & Yahya (2003); Olufemi (2009); Ghosh, Joshi, Satyawadi, Mukherjee, & Ranjan (2011); Ghosh, Satyawadi, Joshi, Ranjan, & Singh (2012); Harris, Chung, Hutchins, & Chiaburu (2014);, Tai (2006); Ubeda-García, Marco-Lajara, Sabater-Sempere, & García-Lillo (2013); Ellström & Ellström (2014); Robson & Mavin (2014). This aspect of the effectiveness of training and development can be divided into several small themes.…”

Modify the Redefined: Strategic Human Resource Development Maturity at a Crossroads

“…Regardless of how employees act (e.g., for their employer’s interest or their own), working under the same objectives will favor everyone. Following relevant suggestions on the importance of “employees’ line of sight” (e.g., increased organizational performance, climate, and commitment—Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, & Ackers, 2004; Robson & Mavin, 2014; employee satisfaction and industrial citizenship and high performance work systems—Ivars & Martinez, 2015; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; contribution to decision-making processes and overall business success—Armstrong & Taylor, 2014; Bennett, 2010; Robson & Mavin, 2014), the modified SHRD framework argues that establishing a strategic partnership between HRD executives and employees could only have a positive impact on the business. Such strategic collaborations could allow HRD executives to ensure that both their department and each of their stakeholders act to the benefit of all and thus collectively contribute to organizational success (Chan, Chan, Fan, Lam, & Yeung, 2006; Holtbrugge, Berg, & Puck, 2007) which could further result in enhancing HRD’s credibility and maturity.…”