Transfer of Learning in German Companies

Chapter

Abstract

Without specific measures to promote transfer of learning, only 10 % of what has been learned is transferred to everyday work. As a result, employees’ continuing education can only be sustainably effective for a company when continuing education is developed systematically and tailored for the target group to ensure application of what was learned. The present study analyzes methods being used to plan and evaluate continuing education in German companies, and how the transfer of learning is secured. The online survey of 107 listed and family-owned German companies with at least 1,000 employees evidenced a lack of a comprehensive understanding of transfer-promoting measures and the influencing factors. The most commonly used methods are ineffective, irrespective of the company’s size. Of the sampled companies, only higher revenue companies appropriate a higher degree of usefulness to transfer of learning security. Overall, targeted consulting with regard to theoretical background and individual, practical implementation is needed.

Keywords

Learning Objective Family Business German Company Usefulness Perception Open Answer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alliger, G., & Janak, E. (1989). Kirpatrick’s levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axtell, C., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. (1997). Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training. Personnel Review, 26(3), 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, T.T., & Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duller, C. (2007). Einführung in die Statistik mit Excel und SPSS. Ein anwendungsorientiertes Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Ehrenberg, L. (1983). How to ensure better transfer of learning. Training and Development Journal, 37(2), 81–83.Google Scholar
  6. Heinsen, J., & Vollmer, M. (2007). Bildungscontrolling und Transfersicherung. Überblick, Einordnung und Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung von Erwachsenenbildung und Wirtschaft. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
  7. Holton, E. (2005). Holton’s evaluation model: New evidence and construct elaborations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Industry Report (2007). Training magazine’s exclusive analysis of the U.S. training industry. Training, 44(10/11), 8–24.Google Scholar
  9. Jahn, R., & Hofstetter, K. (2008). Lerntransfermessung im Rahmen betrieblicher Weiterbildung. Jenaer Arbeiten zur Wirtschaftspädagogik. Reihe A, Heft 37. Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität.Google Scholar
  10. Käpplinger, B. (2009). Bildungscontrolling: Vor allem in Großbetrieben ein Thema. BIBB-Umfragen von 1997 und 2008 im Vergleich. BIBB-Report, 13, 1–8.Google Scholar
  11. Karg, U. (2006). Betriebliche Weiterbildung und Transfer. Einflussfaktoren auf den Lerntransfer im organisationalen Kontext. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  12. Kirkpatrick, D. (1967). Evaluation of training. In R. Craig & L. Biltel (Eds.), Training and development handbook (pp. 87–112). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Kurtz, H.-J., & Janikowski, A. (2008). Evaluation zum Lerntransfer anhand eines EU-Projektes. Der schwierige Schritt über den Rubikon. Personalführung, 41(5), 64–69.Google Scholar
  14. Leifer, S., & Newstrom, J. (1980). Solving the transfer of training problems. Training and Development Journal, 34(8), 42–46.Google Scholar
  15. Leitl, J., & Zempel-Dohmen, J. (2006). Die Bedeutung des Arbeitsumfelds für die Veränderung der Transfermotivation. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 50(2), 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lenske, W., & Werner, D. (2009). Umfang, Kosten und Trends der betrieblichen Weiterbildung—Ergebnisse der IW-Weiterbildungserhebung 2008. IW-Trends—Vierteljahresschrift zur empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung, 36(1), 51–66.Google Scholar
  17. McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy, S., Barker, L., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001). Maximizing the impact of executive coaching: Behavioral change, organizational outcomes, and return on investment. The Manchester Review, 6(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  18. Noe, R., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39(3), 497–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scriven, M. (1996). Types of evaluation and types of evaluator. American Journal of Evaluation, 17(2), 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Solga, M. (2011). Förderung von Lerntransfer. In J. Ryschka, M. Solga, & A. Mattenklott (Eds.), Praxishandbuch Personalentwicklung. Instrumente, Konzepte, Beispiele (2nd ed., pp. 339–368). Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  21. Stiftung Familienunternehmen (2009). Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Familienunternehmen. http://www.familienunternehmen.de/media/public/pdf/studien/Die_volkswirtschaftliche_Bedeutung_der_Familienunternehmen.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2010
  22. Tracey, J., Tannenbaum, S., & Kavanagh, M. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tredop, D. (2008). Weiterbildungs-Controlling. Pädagogische und ökonomische Erkundungen aus konstruktivistisch-systemischer Sicht. Schriften zur Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, Bd. 1. München: Rainer Hampp.Google Scholar
  24. Trost, A. (1985). They may love it but will they use it? Training and Development Journal, 39(1), 78–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Käthe Schneider
    • 1
  • Maria Pältz
    • 1
  • Helmut Stauche
    • 1
  1. 1.Friedrich-Schiller-UniversityJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations