Content uploaded by Holly M. Hutchins
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Holly M. Hutchins on Oct 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
PROBLEM? EXAMINING HOW
TRAINERS LEARN ABOUT TRAINING
TRANSFER
HOLLY M. HUTCHINS, LISA A. BURKE, AND
ALICE MAY BERTHELSEN
This study describes and reports the methods training professionals use to
learn about training transfer. Specifi cally, this study focused on trainers’ use
and perceived utility of the literature (research and practitioner-based) to de-
velop their knowledge of how to support training transfer in their organization.
Consistent with extant research conducted on human resource professionals,
our survey results suggest that training professionals seek knowledge most-
ly through informal learning (e.g., job experiences, discussions with internal
and external training professionals, books, searching the Web), but they pre-
fer to learn about training transfer in discussions with external trainers and
academics. As a follow-up to the survey, our interview results indicate that
trainers select learning methods based on source quality, motivation, and ac-
cessibility, but these differed based on which learning methods were chosen.
Ideas to guide future human resource researchers are presented within the
framework of information-seeking theory. This paper concludes by discuss-
ing practical implications for increasing trainer competencies that support
training transfer in organizations. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: workplace learning, training transfer, information-seeking,
research-practice gap
Mo re than ever, organizations are
looking for ways to endure and
thrive in challenging economic
times through effective human
resource development strategies.
Keeping sharp and retaining their most valued
asset, human capital, firms have used various
training and development interventions to
leverage knowledge into competitive business
results. To ensure these interventions become
documented successes, researchers and practi-
tioners have pursued the study of training
transfer—applying knowledge and skills from
training to the work setting—for decades.
Beginning with Baldwin and Ford’s (1988)
seminal work in identifying individual trainee,
training design, and work-related factors
that influence training transfer, subsequent
Correspondence to: Holly M. Hutchins, University of Houston, 110 Cameron Building, Houston, TX 77204,
Phone: 713-743-4059, Fax: 713-743-4110, E-mail: hmhutchins@uh.edu.
Human Resource Management,
Human Resource Management, July–August 2010, Vol. 49, No. 4, Pp. 599– 618
© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20371
A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSFER
600 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
research has increased our understanding of
how knowledge learned (through training) can
become knowledge applied on the job. Current
research has expanded these areas and identi-
fied the role of transfer climate, technological
support, and using self-management methods
that influence trainees to use new learning on
the job (cf. Blume, Ford, Baldwin,
& Huang, 2010, for a meta-analy-
sis on transfer, and Burke &
Hutchins, 2007, for an integrative
literature review on training trans-
fer). Despite these advances in un-
derstanding how to support and
assess transfer, training profession-
als continue to struggle with real-
izing performance improvements
resulting from training events.
Although the extant research
continues to focus almost exclu-
sively on Baldwin and Ford’s (1988)
tripartite transfer model, the role of
trainers and specifically their
knowledge and skills related to
training transfer has been largely
overlooked. Training professionals
often point to insufficient time
and support, lack of accountability,
and low priority placed on measur-
ing learning outcomes as to why
transfer support is not a major ini-
tiative within their organizations
(Longnecker, 2004; Zenger, Folkman, & Sher-
win, 2005). One unexamined link in the trans-
fer problem, however, may center on the train-
ers’ knowledge of evidence-based transfer
practices, which would directly influence their
ability to enable the learner to apply (from
training) new knowledge on the job. Specifi-
cally, we suggest that a possible reason organi-
zations continue to struggle with the inveter-
ate transfer problem may be attributable to
how training professionals learn about training
transfer and what methods they choose to em-
ploy. Indeed, there is a paucity of research ex-
amining trainers’ role in bolstering transfer
(Burke & Saks, 2009; Kopp, 2006), particularly
regarding how trainers develop their knowl-
edge of transfer via formal and informal learn-
ing methods. Put simply, what trainers know
(and do not know) about transfer, and how
they come to know it, may be contributing to
the root cause of low transfer rates.
Lackluster training transfer rates present a
challenge for HR departments, which are in-
creasingly held accountable for practices that
support organizational learning and perfor-
mance (Baldwin, Ford, & Blume, 2009; Ber-
sin, 2006). As HR expands its role in creating
a strategic learning culture, both training and
non-training interventions (e.g., talent man-
agement, coaching, mentoring, communities
of practice) are falling under the purview of
training and HR professionals (Paradise &
Patel, 2009). Toward this end, training profes-
sionals will be expected to demonstrate much
more than effective intervention design and
delivery skills. They will also be required to
show the firm’s grasp of what factors influ-
ence learner intentions to transfer skills to
their work, which support aids are most use-
ful to begin applying new knowledge, and
how technology might be leveraged to aid
trainees in applying skills on the job. Thus,
the extent to which trainers can effectively
support training transfer will be largely con-
tingent on how they develop their knowl-
edge about evidence-based transfer practices.
To explore how trainers develop their
knowledge of training transfer, we describe
and report two studies exploring trainer work-
place learning methods. Trainers engage in
workplace learning when they seek informa-
tion and guidance through formal or informal
learning sources. Our specific concern, there-
fore, is how trainers learn about an important
area of training (training transfer), whether
they perceive these learning methods to be
particularly useful, and which determinants
influence method choice. To guide our study,
we review workplace learning in general, with
a specific focus on using formal versus infor-
mal learning methods. We then examine
trainer perceived utility of learning methods
and factors that influence method choice.
Workplace Learning Methods
Workplace learning is often described as ac-
quiring, using, and critically reflecting knowl-
edge to achieve organizational goals (Beattie,
2006; Clarke, 2005; Elkjaer, 2004; Smith,
Although the extant
research continues
to focus almost
exclusively on
Baldwin and Ford’s
(1988) tripartite
transfer model, the
role of trainers and
specifically their
knowledge and skills
related to training
transfer has been
largely overlooked.
A MISSING LINK IN THE T RANSFER PROBLEM? 601
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
2003). This learning occurs as a process of in-
dividuals developing propositional (knowl-
edge about), procedural (knowledge of how),
and dispositional (development of values and
attitudes) knowledge through their workplace
experiences. For example, training profession-
als may engage in learning about instructional
design (propositional) by participating in
train-the-trainer sessions, designing training
through small projects or apprenticeships
(procedural), and developing attitudes about
how training should be designed from other
trainers (dispositional). Trainers then share
this knowledge with others in the organiza-
tion, adding to the collective understanding
of the topic, practice, or process under study.
According to Billet (2002), robust vocational
practice includes engaging in novel work
practices that extend individuals’ proficiency,
securing guidance from experienced cowork-
ers, and being able to access practice on
“prized” (p. 29) or important tasks. Embedded
in this context are formal and informal learn-
ing methods that identify how both the indi-
vidual and the organization create, share, and
reflect upon learning. To consider how learn-
ing methods support trainers’ workplace
learning, we situate our study in Billet’s (2002)
theoretical perspective of developing voca-
tional practice and Marsick and Watkins’s
(1992) theory of informal learning. We next
present these perspectives and a literature re-
view on formal and informal methods.
Formal Learning Methods
Billet (1992) based his theory of vocational
practice on the idea that experiences in the
workplace are the primary source of individu-
als’ initial and continued professional devel-
opment. In surveying workers across multiple
industries, Billet (1992, 1993, 2001) found
that being involved in everyday work tasks,
direct guidance from experts, and indirect
experience that emerged in the workplace
contribute to how workers learn and develop
their professional knowledge. Although Billet
(1992) recognized that situated learning could
occur indirectly through observation and
trial and error, he also suggested that devel-
oping expertise through guided learning in-
teractions between learner and expert
(through formal mentoring and on-the-job
training) is critical for developing conceptual
knowledge that might not be so
salient if accessed through seren-
dipitous (informal) learning.
Grounded in the perspectives
of behaviorism and cognitivism,
research has recognized formal
learning opportunities as institu-
tionally sponsored and highly
structured learning events (Mer-
riam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner,
2007). Formal learning is often the
primary method of instruction in
professional development or com-
petency-based learning programs
and includes interventions such
as training sessions, academic
courses, or continuing education
programs (e.g., offered at colleges
and professional conferences). De-
spite organizations’ heavy reliance
on formal learning (Rivera & Para-
dise, 2006), the opportunity to
engage in these experiences is
sometimes limited (particularly in
tough economic times). Drawing
upon Billet’s (2002) description of
workplace learning as a participa-
tive process of individual agency
and work norms and practices,
Fenwick (2005) further suggested
that an organization’s division of
labor, social relationships, rules,
practices, and cultural norms and
the perspectives of the individuals
within the organization often
shaped learning. Limited opportu-
nities to participate in formal
learning opportunities may influ-
ence individuals (e.g., trainers) to
seek informal methods to acquire
and develop their professional
competencies. Similarly, the train-
ers’ role or status in the organiza-
tion may prevent them from par-
ticipating in formal learning
opportunities. That is, organiza-
tions may provide higher status or
valued employees (e.g., managers)
Limited opportunities
to participate in
formal learning
opportunities
may influence
individuals (e.g.,
trainers) to seek
informal methods to
acquire and develop
their professional
competencies.
Similarly, the
trainers’ role
or status in the
organization may
prevent them from
participating in
formal learning
opportunities. That
is, organizations
may provide higher
status or valued
employees (e.g.,
managers) with
formal learning
opportunities rather
than trainers.
602 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
with formal learning opportunities rather
than trainers.
Informal Learning Methods
Informal learning focuses on the non struc-
tured learning opportunities that can occur
from both intentional actions and seren-
dipitous discoveries (Marsick & Watkins,
1992). Informal learning is based in the con-
structivist learning perspective, which fo-
cuses on the learner’s experience in creating
knowledge. From this perspective, learning
becomes socially situated and occurs through
the learner’s role in the collective sense-
making and sense-sharing of organizational
experience (Gherardi, Nicolini, & Odella,
1998). Examples of informal learning in-
clude self-directed learning (e.g., reading,
browsing Web sites), networking, coaching,
mentoring, observing others, and trial-error
experiences (Marsick & Watkins, 2001). In-
formal learning is considered an unstruc-
tured but mostly intentional method of learn-
ing and has been found to comprise the
majority of learning experiences in organi-
zational settings (Eddy, D’Abate, Tannen-
baum, Givens-Skeaton, & Robinson, 2006;
Noe & Ford, 1992).
While research concerning workplace
learning has steadily increased in the last
decade, its focus has centered primarily on
how informal learning supports professional
knowledge and developing skills. In a study
exploring the self-directed learning behav-
iors of experienced public school teachers,
Lohman (2000) found that teachers more
often engaged in exchanging knowledge
(talking with teachers and students, sharing
resources, observing others’ classes, collab-
orative projects), experimenting (trial-error
using new knowledge, critically reflecting on
behavior), and environmental scanning
(seeking knowledge through external sources)
in their learning. In terms of the private sec-
tor, Enos, Kehrkahn, and Bell (2003) explored
the role of informal learning in developing
managerial proficiency in a Fortune 100
company. Enos et al. (2003) found that
among the 247 learning activities managers
used to develop 20 core managerial skills,
70% were identified as informal learning ac-
tivities. The most frequently reported activi-
ties were interacting with others, challenging
job assignments, and observing others (re-
spectively). Similarly, Beattie (2006) found
line managers working at two organizations
(recognized for their workplace learning) re-
ported coaching, sharing task-specific knowl-
edge, reflective thinking on performance,
discussion, and guided activities were the
primary learning methods. Overall, these
studies have suggested that informal learn-
ing methods consist mostly of interactional
forms of learning and serve as a major source
of creating and sharing knowledge at work.
Given the social interaction trainers expe-
rience as a natural part of their job, and per-
haps their limited opportunities to engage in
formal learning (cf. Ellinger, 2005; Enos et al.,
2003; Fenwick, 2005), such informal learning
methods could be a convenient and inexpen-
sive method in addition to or in place of
formal learning. Thus, our first research ques-
tion is:
Research Question 1a: What methods (formal or
informal) do training practitioners use to learn
about training transfer?
Researchers have also studied human re-
source professionals concerning their pre-
ferred learning methods. Building on her
research on informal learning with teachers,
Lohman (2005) explored the learning pref-
erences of human resource development
(HRD) professionals. Interestingly, she found
these employees engaged in autonomous
informal learning activities that included
observing others, searching the Internet,
and scanning professional magazines and
journals to a (statistically) significant degree
more than did teachers. Human resource
development professionals reported that
they preferred independent forms of learn-
ing because they perceived their colleagues
and workplace did not support formal learn-
ing activities, a barrier also identified in
other learning studies (Ellinger, 2005; Enos
et al., 2003). Given our focus, we also exam-
ine trainers’ preferred methods of learning
about training transfer.
A MISSING LINK IN THE T RANSFER PROBLEM? 603
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Research Question 1b: What methods (formal or
informal) do training practitioners prefer to use
to learn about training transfer?
Literature Sources and Perceived
Utility
In a related study to those examining work-
place learning methods, Rynes, Colbert, and
Brown (2002) explored how HR professionals
sought information to solve job-related prob-
lems. Although their focus was not on learn-
ing methods per se, we suggest that the act of
seeking information to fill knowledge gaps is
commensurate with a learning activity. Spe-
cifically, Rynes et al. (2002) found that human
resource professionals more frequently con-
sulted other HR professionals, browsed Web
sites (such as shrm.org), and, to a lesser ex-
tent, reviewed discipline-relevant literature
to obtain information and solve job-related
problems. In terms of literature sources,
Rynes et al. (2002) sample reported rarely, if
ever, reading research publications (< 1%
“usually” read academic journals such as the
Academy of Management Journal), and the only
periodical respondents read more than “some-
times” was the practitioner-focused HR Maga-
zine. Replications of the Rynes et al. (2002)
study uncovered similar results. For example,
in a study of 626 Dutch HR practitioners
(Sanders, van Riemsdijk, & Groen, 2008),
professional HR (Dutch) journals were read
more frequently than academic journals.
Still, however, only three professional jour-
nals were read more than “sometimes.” Thus,
HR practitioners seldom seek out periodicals,
either academic or practical. As Cohen (2007)
suggested, scholars generally do not write in
a way that motivates practitioners to read
their published findings, and practitioners
are not trained to read research articles or
have little time or desire to spend reading
them. We therefore explore trainers’ use and
perceived utility of the literature, which may
help us glean insights into a contributor of
the enduring transfer problem:
Research Question 2: Which literature sources
(research vs. practitioner based), if any, do train-
ing practitioners (1) use to remain current in their
knowledge of training practices and (2) fi nd use-
ful in supporting their practice?
To explore how learning methods are
related to trainers’ accrued knowledge of
training transfer, we also examined the rela-
tionship between learning methods and
perceived utility and specific trainer charac-
teristics, including their transfer literacy. In a
study exploring trainers’ knowledge of the
extant transfer research, Hutchins and Burke
(2007) found training professionals were
more familiar with academic transfer research
when they occupied higher job positions
(manager or higher), had a college degree,
and possessed a professional certification.
These findings are consistent with Rynes et
al. (2002), who also found job level to be a
significant predictor of knowledge of
research-based findings, academic reading,
and discussions with consultants. As related
to our study, examining the relationships
among these factors may clarify the use of
learning methods to develop trainers’
knowledge of transfer findings.
Research Question 3: To what extent are training
practitioners’ utility perceptions of the literature,
their learning methods, and demographic attributes
related to their knowledge of research-based trans-
fer fi ndings?
Determinants of Method Choice
Finally, and in addition to knowing which
learning methods trainers use to learn about
transferring training, we also explored why
training professionals choose certain methods.
Information-seeking theory provides a useful
lens to explore this question, drawing upon
decades of studies on how professionals seek
and use information. Choo (2006) defined in-
formation-seeking as “the process in which the
individual purposefully searches for informa-
tion that can change his or her state of knowl-
edge or understanding” (p. 29). Choo (2006)
suggested that individuals seek certain meth-
ods based on source accessibility (proximity,
cost, clarity, ease of access/lack of barriers),
source quality (perceived source relevance, reli-
ability, and helpfulness), and individual
604 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
motivation and interest (individual motivation
and interest to use the source, whether exter-
nally or internally influenced). For example,
medical practitioners reported using face-to-
face communication predominantly to avoid
the barriers of using other sources such as time
constraints (Reddy & Spence, 2008), knowl-
edge of where and how to find relevant infor-
mation (Nail-Chiwetalu & Ratner,
2007), information overload, and
too little specific information (Case-
beer, Bennett, Kristofco, Carillo, &
Centor, 2002). Elucidating why
trainers seek certain learning meth-
ods can help HR researchers and
practitioners understand how to
provide useful learning opportuni-
ties about transfer and identify ad-
ditional factors that may contribute
to the research-practitioner gap.
Research Question 4: Why do train-
ing professionals prefer certain learn-
ing methods?
Study Overview
Our research questions were a part
of a larger survey of experienced
training professionals and training
transfer. In the present paper, we
describe and report on two studies
exploring how training profession-
als learn about training transfer
practices. In the first study, train-
ing professionals were surveyed re-
garding their current and preferred methods of
gathering knowledge about training transfer
and the extent to which they found the train-
ing literature (i.e., discipline-relevant research
journals and practitioner magazines) useful for
supporting transfer in their organizations. We
then conducted follow-up interviews with a
selected group of trainers to explore why train-
ers preferred certain learning methods.
Survey Sample
Our sample of voluntary survey respondents
included members of a regional American
Society of Training and Development (ASTD)
chapter located in a south-central urban area.
The survey invitation included a description
of our research questions, how subjects were
identified, incentives to participate, data se-
curity measures, researcher contact informa-
tion, and the Web site for our survey. The
survey was created and administered online
for convenient participant access and data
control (Ilieva, Baron, & Healey, 2002). In-
centives included four small Amazon.com
gift certificates, randomly awarded from the
pool of participants. The use of initial branch-
ing questions ensured subjects were currently
working practitioners in the training, human
resource development, or workplace learning
field. Of approximately 413 surveys distrib-
uted to valid e-mail addresses, 172 surveys
were returned (41.6%), of which 139 pro-
vided usable data (i.e., passed our filter ques-
tions and included complete data), yielding a
response rate of 33.7% (139 of 413).
Participants were mostly female (69%)
with an average of 15 years of professional
experience (SD = 7.68) in training or work-
place learning. Significantly more than half
of the participants (72%) were employed in a
training-related position for a private (32%)
or public sector (40%) organization, while
the remaining respondents identified them-
selves as independent consultants (25%) or
by another title (4%). Participants were
diverse in their job level, serving as analyst/
associate (40%), manager (26%), director
(11%), vice president (5%), or president of
the firm (14%). The majority of participants
(90%) had a college degree, with 58% of
those also having an advanced degree. Of
respondents with a college degree, more
than half (55%) completed a degree of study
in training or workplace learning. Few par-
ticipants held a professional certification
from either the Society of Human Resource
Management (SHRM) or ASTD (9% and 17%,
respectively).
Survey Measures
Learning Methods
To investigate RQ1a and RQ1b, respondents
were asked about their current and preferred
Elucidating why
trainers seek
certain learning
methods can help
HR researchers
and practitioners
understand
how to provide
useful learning
opportunities about
transfer and identify
additional factors
that may contribute
to the research-
practitioner gap.
A MISSING LINK IN THE T RANSFER PROBLEM? 605
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
methods for learning about training transfer.
Two items were presented: “What methods
do you CURRENTLY use to learn about re-
search findings as related to training trans-
fer?” and “What methods do you PREFER to
use to learn about research findings as related
to training transfer? Check any box that ap-
plies.” Participants were then presented with
various formal and informal learning meth-
ods either captured in the literature (e.g.,
Lohman, 2005; Rynes et al., 2002) or identi-
fied by the authors.
Literature Sources Used and
Perceived Utility
To assess the specific literature sources trainers
use to stay current on training transfer find-
ings (RQ2), we asked: “Please examine the list
of sources below and rate with what frequency
you use or consult them to remain current in
your knowledge of research-supported train-
ing practices.” The response scale was an-
chored as never, a few times a year, about once a
month, several times a month, every week, and
almost daily. Respondents were then provided
with a list of academic and practitioner jour-
nals and magazines that publish training and
HR research (discussed and presented later in
this paper). The list was based on reviewing
HR journals used in similar research on pro-
fessional use of research (e.g., Rynes et al.,
2002) and reviewing training and human re-
source development academic and profes-
sional association Web sites.
Participants were also presented with
four items asking whether they perceived
the training literature and research to be
useful for helping them learn about transfer
for executing their job responsibilities. The
authors developed the items to tap whether
participants perceived research and practi-
tioner outlets were useful in developing
knowledge about training. Sample items
included “I believe research findings pre-
sented in discipline-relevant journals and
magazines are useful in my current training
role” and “I believe reading the training
literature is useful in helping me to increase
the transfer success of learners in my organi-
zation.” The 6-point Likert scale ranged
from strongly disagree to strongly agree; the
alpha was .89.
Knowledge of Transfer Research
In examining RQ3, a 32-item true/false
measure was created to capture key findings
in the training transfer research. Major re-
search databases were consulted to generate
the items, and a pilot study using trainers
and researchers was conducted to ensure
item clarity and content validity. We also
conducted a pilot study of undergraduate
and graduate training and development stu-
dents to ensure reasonable survey comple-
tion time, an aesthetically appealing survey
format, and appropriate response validation
parameters. To establish test-retest reliabil-
ity, we administered the online survey to
senior-level undergraduate students (n = 33)
enrolled in management courses at two
U.S.-based universities. Time 1 and time 2
measures were gathered using a 4-week in-
terval; the correlation between the two sets
of responses was .79 (p < .01). In the present
sample of trainers, the average participant
correctly answered 25 of the 32 (78%) trans-
fer of training survey items on the true/false
measure; however, there was a notable array
of total correct answers logged, ranging
from a low of 18 (56.3%) to a high of
31 (96.9%).
Survey Results
Learning Methods
In terms of RQ1a, trainers reported that they
currently use more informal learning methods
than formal methods to learn about training
transfer (Table I). Of the most frequently re-
ported informal learning practices, learning
through job experiences (80%), discussions
with internal and external training profession-
als (72% each), and searching the Web (64%)
garnered top spots. These informal methods
are “close” to trainers; that is, learning while
working, talking to other internal trainers, and
searching the Web are easily accessible. In
terms of (current) formal methods, the most
frequently reported was attending practitioner
606 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
conferences (66%), followed by participating
in an external training program (54%).
Examining trainer responses to their pre-
ferred methods (RQ1b) of learning about train-
ing transfer revealed that their most preferred
method of learning is via formal external train-
ing programs (54%), followed by attending
practitioner conferences and talking infor-
mally with external trainers (51% each).
Trainers also reported that they prefer to at-
tend more academic programs and academic
conferences and talk more with academics
than they do now, and they prefer to attend
fewer internal training programs than they do
currently. This finding is consistent with Rynes
et al. (2002) and Sanders et al. (2008), who re-
ported that HR professionals would prefer to
talk to academics about HR problems. As such,
trainers’ preferred learning methods revealed
less desire to learn on the job (e.g., perhaps via
trial-and-error learning), less desire to interact
with internal trainers, less reliance on Web
searches, and less use of the training literature.
Overall, these findings indicate trainers may
see downsides to relying on proximate infor-
mal sources (as we explore later) and instead
favor more interaction with external sources.
The results also suggest, surprisingly, that prac-
titioners see value in interfacing with academ-
ics to learn about training transfer and other
training practices. This is not a natural conclu-
sion one would derive from current research-
practice gap discussions in the literature (e.g.,
Keefer & Stone, 2009; Short, 2006). Perhaps
trainers merely prefer a different communica-
tion medium than what is now predominantly
used; that is, they seem to value and prefer
talking with academics rather than passively
reading their esoteric writings.
Literature Sources and Perceived
Utility
For RQ2a and RQ2b, trainers reported they
used specific training journals (both practi-
tioner and research-based) to seek knowl-
edge about training practices. We intention-
ally asked about “training practices” and
TABLE I Frequencies of Survey Respondents’ Current and Preferred Learning Methods About Training
Method of Learning
Formal/Informal
Currently Use
Count (%)
Prefer to Use
Count (%)
Formal
Practitioner conferences 92 (66%) 71 (51%)
Training program (external) 76 (54%) 75 (54%)
Training program (internal) 67 (48%) 38 (27%)
Academic program 31 (22%) 54 (39%)
Formal mentoring 31 (22%) 53 (38%)
Academic conferences 18 (13%) 31 (22%)
Informal
Learning through job experiences 112 (80%) 61 (44%)
Talking with other training/workplace professionals (internal) 101 (72%) 56 (40%)
Talking with other training/workplace learning professionals (external) 101 (72%) 72 (51%)
Searching training or workplace learning Web sites 90 (64%) 54 (39%)
Observing other training or workplace learning professionals 70 (50%) 59 (42%)
Reviewing the training research literature 63 (45%) 45 (32%)
Informal mentoring with workplace learning professionals 55 (39%) 52 (37%)
Talking with training or workplace learning academics 40 (29%) 49 (35%)
Participating in training or workplace learning listservs 29 (21%) 30 (21%)
Participating in training or workplace learning chat groups 11 (8%) 28 (20%)
Note: n = 139.
A MISSING LINK IN THE T RANSFER PROBLEM? 607
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
not “training transfer” in an effort to gauge
trainers’ overall use of the training litera-
ture. As expected, trainers read practitioner
journals (e.g., Training, T+D) significantly
more often than research journals (t(138) =
17.70, p < .05); however, even trainers read
practitioner-oriented publications only a
few times a year (Table II). Although 45% of
respondents reported currently using the
literature to learn about transfer, they clearly
do so rarely (similar to Rynes et al., 2002,
findings), at least with respect to the publi-
TABLE II Means and Standard Deviations for the Frequency of Journal Use (Survey)
Journal Mean Standard Deviation
Practitioner-oriented
Training 2.56 1.23
Training and Development (T
⫹
D) 2.54 1.03
Human Resource Magazine 1.81 .99
Workforce 1.69 1.12
Chief Learning Offi cer 1.62 1.01
Human Resource Executive 1.33 .84
Performance Improvement Journal 1.29 .60
Human Resource Focus Magazine 1.25 .74
Research-oriented
Human Resource Development Quarterly 1.18 .61
Personnel Psychology 1.16 .63
Performance Improvement Quarterly 1.14 .37
Human Resource Development Review 1.13 .55
Human Resource Management (Wiley) 1.13 .41
Academy of Management Journal 1.12 .44
International Journal of Training
and Development
1.11 .36
Journal of Workplace Learning 1.10 .37
Academy of Management Learning
and Education Journal
1.09 .40
Human Resource Planning Journal 1.08 .32
Academy of Management Perspectives 1.04 .24
Note: 1–6 scale, where 1 = never; 2 = a few times a year; 3 = about once a month; 4 = several times a month; 5 = every week; 6 = almost daily
TABLE III Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived Utility of Training Literature (Survey)
Items Mean Standard Deviation
Training literature is useful in helping me perform my current
training role.
2.21 1.04
Research fi ndings in journals and magazines are useful in my
current training role.
2.30 1.09
Reading the training literature is useful in helping me to in-
crease the transfer success.
2.33 1.07
Research fi ndings presented in journals and magazines can help
achieve greater training transfer to the job.
2.25 1.05
Note: 1–6 scale, where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = moderately disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = slightly agree; 5 = moderately agree;
6 = strongly agree.
608 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
cations listed in Table II. We also queried
trainers concerning their attitudes about
the utility of the training literature (Table
III). Not surprisingly and consistent with
the research-practice gap literature (Lawler,
2007), the data suggest trainers perceive the
training literature to be of little use to them
in remaining current on training practices.
Correlates of Transfer Knowledge
For RQ3, we examined to what extent train-
ing practitioners’ utility perceptions of the
literature, their use of formal/informal learn-
ing methods, and demographics were corre-
lated to their knowledge of transfer (Table
IV). The only positive correlate our study
revealed of transfer knowledge (i.e., score on
the transfer survey of research-based find-
ings) was education level. As such, trainers
who have higher levels of education tend to
demonstrate more knowledge of transfer
research, presumably given their exposure to
this type of research in their academic
programs.
Surprisingly, respondents who scored
higher on the transfer knowledge measure
actually perceived the training literature as
less useful. This result may indicate that the
practitioner training literature is perceived by
knowledgeable consumers to be somewhat
deficient in providing valuable research-based
findings on transfer, an observation also ad-
vanced in related research (Rynes, Giluk, &
Brown, 2007). This result may also help us
interpret the negative correlation between
trainers’ utility perceptions of the training
literature and their use of informal learning
methods (r = ⫺.19); that is, one possible ex-
planation may be that trainers who think
little of the training literature might be more
likely to seek other informal learning meth-
ods (e.g., people) to learn about training
transfer. While trainers’ overall attitude to-
ward the training literature was unfavorable,
trainers with a Society of Human Resource
Management (SHRM) certification were more
likely to perceive the literature as useful for
providing knowledge about training prac-
tices. This might be because SHRM supports
TABLE IV Correlations and Reliabilities (Survey)
Variables MSD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Utility perceptions
(training lit.)
2.27 .92 (.89)
2. Use of formal
learning methods
.34 .26 ⫺.05 (.60)
3. Use of informal
learning methods
.48 .26 ⫺.19* .53** (.78)
4. Training/workplace
learning cert.
1.85 .36 .13 ⫺.30** ⫺.21**
5. SHRM certifi cation 1.91 .28 .18* ⫺.07 ⫺.05 .01
6. Education 3.40 .91 ⫺.02 ⫺.10 .00 ⫺.02 .05
7 . Work experience 14.64 7.68 .08 .04 .03 ⫺.12 .07 .23**
8. Job Level 2.42 1.74 .05 ⫺.02 .08 ⫺.03 ⫺.01 .22* .37**
9. Transfer knowl-
edge score
25.10 2.79 ⫺.23** ⫺.04 .10 ⫺.12 ⫺.07 .17* .07 .14 (.79)
Note: N = 107.
Job level coded: 1 = analyst, 2 = manager, 3 = director, 4 = chief learning offi cer, 5 = vp, 6 = president.
Education coded: 1 = high school, 2 = associate’s degree, 3 = bachelor’s degree, 4 = master’s degree, 5 = doctorate degree, 6 =
juris doctor.
Work experience coded: Number of years in training.
Training certifi cation coded: 1 = no, 2 = yes.
SHRM certifi cation coded: 1 = no, 2 = yes.
Reliability reported for transfer knowledge score is a test-retest correlation (n = 32 survey items).
Reliability coeffi cients are in parentheses ( ).
*p < .05, ** p < .01.
A MISSING LINK IN THE T RANSFER PROBLEM? 609
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
its members with a multitude of user-friendly
resources, templates, white papers, toolkits,
and benchmarking surveys. This might also
be because trainers with a broader HR per-
spective seek a more expansive literature base
to stay current on training practices.
Other findings in Table IV reveal a strong
positive correlation between informal and
formal learning methods (r = .53), suggesting
that trainers who learn informally will also
seek formal methods to learn about transfer.
Curiously, trainers with a training certifica-
tion were less likely to use informal or formal
learning methods; it may be they feel less of
a need to stay current on research because
they have demonstrated a grasp of central
training concepts via their certification.
In summary, our results suggest that
training professionals seek knowledge mostly
through informal learning activities (e.g., job
experiences, discussions with internal and
external training professionals, searching the
Web, as examined with RQ1a). Trainers also
reported, however, that they preferred to
learn about training transfer through formal
methods and discussions with external train-
ers and academics (RQ1b). While trainers
consult the practitioner literature to learn
about training transfer significantly more
than they consult the research literature,
they do so sparingly and find the training
literature to be of little value in helping them
support training transfer (RQ2). Finally,
trainer education level proved to have the
only significant relationship with transfer
knowledge (RQ3).
Interview Sample
For the follow-up interviews to address RQ4,
eight training professionals from seven differ-
ent organizations were selected based on
their experience in a recent training project
within the three to four months prior to the
interview. Their titles included curriculum
designer, consultant, director of global learn-
ing and development, manager of best prac-
tices, and human resource manager for talent
development. Participants reported working
in these positions for an average of four years
and averaged 17 years of total training expe-
rience. Job responsibilities included design-
ing, facilitating, and evaluating training; best
practices research; conducting needs assess-
ments; and managing training budgets. Par-
ticipants represented a variety of industries
including oil and gas, energy, finance, utili-
ties, engineering, and high-tech consulting.
Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with each participant
using an interview protocol. Two
of the authors and a trained un-
dergraduate student transcribed
the data. In addition to demo-
graphic questions, participants re-
flected on a specific training proj-
ect in which they participated in
the prior three to four months.
Specific to this scenario, partici-
pants were asked to share (1) what
methods were used to learn about
transfer and (2) why these learn-
ing methods were used.
A priori categories, derived
from sources in our literature re-
view and survey, were used to
code the responses (see Table I for
the complete learning methods
code list), based on Choo’s (2006)
work on information-seeking.
Specifically, participant responses
to RQ4 were coded based on source
quality (perceived credibility or
quality of the source), personal
motivation or interest (personal in-
terest in or familiarity/experience
with the learning method), and source acces-
sibility (the relative proximity or ease of ac-
cess to the method). To ensure validity and
reliability of the coding process, a code sheet
was created to ensure reliability among the
three coders (Creswell, 2005). Coders used
the code sheet to categorize the data inde-
pendently and then had face-to-face meet-
ings to review and discuss the codes. Consen-
sus among raters was estimated at 88% for
each question; however, disagreements on
coding were discussed and resolved based on
consensus among the raters. The code sheet
was then expanded to clarify existing codes
and to add emergent codes. After each revi-
sion to the codebook, the research team en-
Curiously, trainers
with a training
certification were
less likely to
use informal or
formal learning
methods; it may
be they feel less
of a need to stay
current on research
because they have
demonstrated a
grasp of central
training concepts via
their certification.
610 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2 010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
gaged in an iterative review to identify any
new codes and consider existing codes in the
data (Ruona, 2005). In addition, the research
team followed up with some participants to
clarify and confirm various data interpreta-
tions. Through member-checking, one of the
participants’ interview data was eliminated
because her answers were not specific to
training transfer. This resulted in seven par-
ticipants’ responses being used in this por-
tion of the study.
Interview Results
To address RQ4 regarding why certain meth-
ods were used to learn about training trans-
fer, participants were first asked to reflect on
a training project in which they actively
sought information about training transfer.
Participants were then asked which learning
methods they used to satisfy their need for
knowledge. Consistent with our survey find-
ings, our interview participants reported
using informal methods more frequently
than formal methods (i.e., 22 instances of
informal learning methods versus 10 in-
stances of formal learning; see Table V) for
learning about training transfer. Notably, al-
though a priori codes were used to categorize
the learning methods the trainers reported
using, emergent themes in the data indicated
that trainers also consult books and Webi-
nars, suggesting potentially fruitful avenues
for reaching practitioners.
TABLE V Interview Data: Learning Methods and Selection Rationale
Method of Learning
Formal/Informal
Method Count Selected Rationale
Perceived
Quality
Personal
Motivation Accessibility
Formal
Practitioner conferences 4 3 2 1
Professional meetings/Seminars 3 1 1 1
Training program (external) 1 - 1 -
Academic conferences 2 1 - -
Total 10 5 4 2
Informal
Books 7 2 2 1
Talking with other training/work-
place professionals (internal)
4-22
Reviewing the training research
literature
31-1
Talking with other training/work-
place professionals (external)
21--
Talking with training or work-
place learning academics
2-1-
Learning through job experiences 1 1 1 -
Searching training or workplace
learning Web sites
1-11
Participating in Webinars 1 - 1 2
Professional magazines 1 1 - -
Total 22 6 8 7
Note: n = 7. Some participants either cited multiple selection rationale for a single method or did not provide any reason for selecting
a method, thus resulting in unequal totals for the Method and Selection Rationale counts.
A MISSING LINK IN THE T RANSFER PROBLEM? 611
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
why she consistently uses Bob Mager’s book
to learn about transfer:
The reason why I like him
[Bob Mager] so much is be-
cause he talks about people
that have already learned
something and how come
they aren’t performing any-
more. That ties into on-the-
job training as well because
you have to find out why
they’re cutting corners and
why extinction is setting in,
when they first, you know,
used to know how to do it
and they’re still not doing
it. … Bob’s got some great
flow charts and things that
are really logical, something
quick that the client will see
as very useful and practical.
Although learning through
work experiences was the most
frequently reported informal
learning method in the survey re-
sults, only one participant men-
tioned this method in the inter-
view. This interviewee’s excerpt is
included here, however, because it
aligns well with Billet’s (2002) dis-
cussion of learning as situated
within the work context:
I spend a lot of time talking
to people about the extent to
which they practice what
they learned in the class-
room in the real world. In
the training sessions that I
do, they are divided in two
parts and there is a week or
two, or three in between the
two parts. At the end of the
first part of the training, I give
them work to do. Then, at the
beginning of the next session,
which could be another couple
weeks away, I ask them to give me
an example of how they practiced
Specific to RQ4, participants were asked
why they chose their reported learning meth-
ods to learn about training transfer. Results
indicated that trainers selected formal sources
based primarily on source quality and per-
sonal motivation/interest. This result sug-
gests that trainers choose formal sources of
learning (e.g., conferences, courses, meet-
ings) because they perceive these as credible
or prefer them based on positive past experi-
ences or familiarity with the method, but do
not necessarily choose formal methods based
on accessibility. One participant, for example,
spoke candidly about using practitioner con-
ferences as a primary formal method for
learning about transfer:
I like the conferences so that I
can see what hot trends are com-
ing up and what problems com-
panies across industries are hav-
ing. So, I continue discussions
about what people find to be the
most difficult, how they get
around it, and how they con-
vince the client that they need
to perpetuate the learning over
and over again. [I also talk to
people about] what kind of in-
centives they would use to insure
that it [transfer] happens.
In contrast, participants reported that
they choose informal learning methods based
on the three rationale criteria almost equally
(Table V), indicating that accessibility is
somewhat more important in driving the use
of informal versus formal methods. Partici-
pants reported using informal sources that
were familiar based on past use or for which
they experienced a particular preference.
These results suggest that trainers remain
loyal to specific sources, and their continued
use reflects a positive past experience in
using the source. This is consistent with
Choo’s (2006) discussion of the affective role
in information-seeking; that is, information
sources that increase user efficacy in resolv-
ing learning needs motivate continued use,
making them “go-to” sources for informa-
tion. For example, one participant discussed
These results
suggest that
trainers remain
loyal to specific
sources, and their
continued use
reflects a positive
past experience in
using the source.
This is consistent
with Choo’s (2006)
discussion of the
affective role
in information-
seeking; that is,
information sources
that increase user
efficacy in resolving
learning needs
motivate continued
use, making them
“go-to” sources for
information.
612 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
it in the workplace. That is how I
learn about how knowledge-trans-
fer, or the extent to which they
can do what they learned during
the training session and the ex-
tent to which they can do it in
practice. So, that is how I learn it
… directly from the participants.
In reviewing the frequency of
learning methods chosen across
the three (rationale) categories,
participants chose three learning
methods (professional meetings/
seminars, practitioner conferences,
and books) due to their accessibil-
ity, personal interest, and quality.
The methods of learning through
job experiences, talking with (in-
ternal) colleagues, using Webinars,
and reviewing training-related
Web sites were chosen based on
two of the categories. These results
suggest that trainers select certain
learning methods based on a com-
bination of reasons, thus increas-
ing the attractiveness of a particular
approach. For example, two par-
ticipants described multiple crite-
ria when selecting their chosen
method to learn about transfer:
First, I read about it [the
Learning Transfer System
Inventory] in HRDQ [Human
Resource Development Quar-
terly]. Second, I attended a
presentation by Ed Holton
about it at the conference
and therefore felt a certain
amount of comfort as a result of
that. I think the third thing was
the fact that they made available
a beta or free version of the in-
strument that I could use myself.
So, those three things combined.
I get a lot of emails and webinars and so
I listen to a lot of webinars on transfer
and what we need to do to make learn-
ing stick. The emails were easy because
they came to me and if the topic is inter-
esting, I will go through the webinars. It
was convenient. I didn’t go out looking
for them; they came to me. They were
interesting and we sat through it. That’s
the main one. They were reliable, I
guess. I look to see how reliable the ven-
dor is that is putting out the topic.
In summary, our interview data suggest
that trainers attribute multiple reasons for
selecting methods to learn about transfer,
and their selection criteria differ, depending
on whether they engage in formal or infor-
mal learning methods.
Discussion
Understanding how trainers learn about key
areas of the training process is an important
contribution to the HR literature. To have the
greatest impact on firm performance, trainers
can no longer prevail with basic training de-
sign knowledge; their grasp of the entire
training and performance improvement pro-
cess must be comprehensive and focused on
how to help learners apply (transfer) their
learning on the job (Baldwin et al., 2009). As
such, the results of the current study present
a useful picture of how trainers perceive and
seek the knowledge they gather about train-
ing transfer as they enact HR’s role in creating
a learning organization.
In response to this study’s research ques-
tions, our results suggest trainers currently use
informal more than formal methods to learn
about transfer, such as seeking information
from other internal trainers, learning through
work experiences, reading books (not periodi-
cals), or searching the Web. Trainers also re-
ported learning about transfer through formal
methods, such as attending practitioner con-
ferences, but to a lesser extent. While trainers
reported a preference for using formal meth-
ods more frequently to learn about training
transfer, we learned from our interviews that
they select these based on perceived quality
and prior experience in using the learning
methods. Notably, trainers were less selective
when choosing informal learning methods,
reporting that accessibility was as important as
Trainers can no
longer prevail
with basic training
design knowledge;
their grasp of the
entire training
and performance
improvement
process must be
comprehensive and
focused on how
to help learners
apply (transfer)
their learning on the
job (Baldwin et al.,
2009).
A MISSING LINK IN THE T RANSFER PROBLEM? 613
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
perceived quality or familiarity with the learn-
ing method. Taking this finding to its logical
end, we suggest that trainers’ use of less scruti-
nized, proximate methods to learn about best
practice transfer strategies could contribute, in
fact, to the enduring transfer problem. Thus, to
revisit our introductory assertion, what train-
ers know (and do not know) about transfer and
how they come to know it may in part contrib-
ute to the root cause of low transfer rates.
It is promising that trainers reported pre-
ferring more interaction with external sources,
including academics, perhaps indicating a
need for more verifiable information on trans-
fer. This finding is also consistent with other
studies exploring HR workplace learning meth-
ods. For example, Sanders et al. (2008) found
that Dutch HR professionals expressed more
desire (M: 3.38 vs. 2.86) than U.S. HR profes-
sionals (cf. Rynes et al., 2002) to interact with
academics concerning specific professional
areas. Interactions with others outside one’s
typical routine can inject different perspec-
tives, expand one’s knowledge base, and pres-
ent ideas of tested interventions to enhance
transfer. A clear and present theme in the re-
search-practice literature is that practitioners
want to know about evidence-based practices
(Cohen, 2007), especially when they are com-
municated so that the results and application
to practice are understandable (Latham, 2007).
We were encouraged to find that trainers
shared information about transfer, suggesting
that (at least in our limited interview sample)
they perceived the information important
enough to their role as trainers to develop a
collective understanding through discussions.
Training professionals within an organization
may have a wealth of tacit knowledge on sup-
porting transfer, but unless this knowledge
becomes explicit and shared, organizational
learning exists only in silos rather than within
the communal dialogue on learning and per-
formance. Taken together, our results suggest
that trainers have an interest in learning more
about training transfer through other formal
means in addition to or as a proxy for infor-
mal sources that may not be perceived as cred-
ible or familiar.
Consistent with other studies on practi-
tioners’ use of the literature (cf. Rynes et al.,
2002; Sanders et al., 2008), our survey results
suggest that training practitioners seldom
consult either the research or practitioner
literature and find it of little value in support-
ing their workplace learning role. Reading
the published literature may be emotionally,
practically, and cognitively “unreachable” to
most training laypersons. Instead, as based
on our findings, trainers rely on learning
about transfer from sources closest to them
(other trainers, books, Webinars). That is,
when an individual reads information that is
not easy to understand or interpret, cognitive
dissonance likely ensues, resulting in de-
creased motivation to continue using that
source (Kuhlthau, 2004). Such a reaction is
consistent with our finding that motivation/
interest was the most cited reason for choos-
ing a learning method (formal and informal).
As our interviews showed, trainers rely on
books, practitioner conferences, and profes-
sional meetings/seminars where presenters
typically share research results in a way that
is easy to understand and apply for practitio-
ners. Whether books and other cited learning
methods in the current study all follow the
academy’s recognized research guidelines is
unknown; however, these outlets do appear
to be where trainers seek their information
and where progress toward plugging the re-
search-practice gap could be targeted.
Regarding this study’s other findings, we
were not surprised by the positive association
between trainers’ transfer knowledge and
their educational attainment. This is because
professional certification exams seem to re-
ward “book knowledge” as much as if not
more than work experience. Regarding train-
ers with higher transfer knowledge scores
being less positive on the value of the train-
ing literature, perhaps the content in current
training publications is not advanced enough
for them, leaving them disappointed. This is
an issue that calls for further study. It is not
surprising that professionals who employ in-
formal methods also use formal methods of
learning about transfer and training prac-
tices. Uncovering that trainers with training/
workplace learning certifications avoid both
informal and formal learning methods, how-
ever, was unexpected. Do trainers with this
614 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
particular certification feel they have ade-
quately mastered all they need to know? Per-
haps moderating variables are at work here
such as their firm’s learning culture, access to
resources, actual or perceived usability of the
literature, and/or other situational
determinants. More research on
these areas is clearly needed.
As with all research, our study
has limitations. A high profes-
sional certification mean suggests
that our (survey) results may be
limited to a certain professional
segment (those with certifica-
tions), thus limiting our study’s
generalizability. Including items
in future research that have been
found to tap non response bias
would help clarify how the results
might apply to certain popula-
tions. In addition, a low reliability
estimate on the formal methods
instrument (Table IV) suggests ir-
regularities in participant re-
sponses on this measure, which
may be attributable to the reliabil-
ity measure used (i.e., we used
alpha rather than a test-retest
measure). Finally, increasing the
number of interviews would help
in generalizing findings from our
final research questions.
Directions for Future HR
Research
Extant HR research on informal and work-
place learning has primarily answered the
question of what methods professionals use
to learn; however, this study extends the lit-
erature by examining why trainers choose
certain learning methods. Although infor-
mation-seeking studies have been conducted
across many professions (i.e., medical profes-
sionals, lawyers, information technology
workers), our study extended this focus to
include HR professionals, specifically train-
ing practitioners. Information-seeking theory
provided a useful lens for exploring why in-
dividuals chose certain sources to learn about
training transfer, a focus that has yet to be
considered in research on HR professional
learning methods. To guide future research,
we suggest additional inquiry into trainers’
learning methods and expanded work in the
area of information seeking for training and
HR professionals.
As this study reported, trainers learn about
transfer mostly through methods other than
reading the academic literature. These meth-
ods, while reported as accessible and familiar,
may lack evidence-based or empirical research
findings about training transfer. Thus, a logi-
cal extension of the current study would be to
examine the prevalence of research findings
in the learning methods trainers reported.
Although some methods may be more diffi-
cult to assess given the spontaneity of infor-
mal learning (e.g., learning through work ex-
periences, conversing with other trainers),
specific inquiry could be directed at practitio-
ner conferences, books about training transfer
or evaluation, and professional meetings and
seminars. Understanding these outlets would
be especially relevant because our study re-
vealed that trainers choose these learning
sources based on multiple criteria. Similarly,
professional certification and certificate pro-
grams (e.g., SHRM, International Society of
Performance Improvement, American Society
of Training & Development, to name a few)
could also be examined for their inclusion of
evidence-based findings on transfer (or any
HR-related topic).
Implications for HR Practice
Linking our results to suggestions for prac-
tice, we suggest HR executives consider how
their training professionals receive and are
held accountable for developing knowledge
on evidence-based training transfer practices.
Organizations can support opportunities for
trainers to converse with recognized training
transfer experts, involve trainers in sponsored
research on assessing transfer interventions,
and enable trainers to seek formal and infor-
mal opportunities to learn about proven
transfer practices. Moreover, trainers need to
understand clearly both the enablers and bar-
riers to training transfer that are unique to
their organization. Although robust support
These methods,
while reported as
accessible and
familiar, may lack
evidence-based or
empirical research
findings about
training transfer.
Thus, a logical
extension of the
current study would
be to examine
the prevalence of
research findings
in the learning
methods trainers
reported.
A MISSING LINK IN THE T RANSFER PROBLEM? 615
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
is offered for enabling strategies such as as-
sessing learner and transfer climate needs
(including transfer strategies such as goal-set-
ting in the training design, engaging manag-
ers, and using technology to integrate learn-
ing with work [Baldwin et al., 2009]), these
interventions may vary based on organiza-
tional structure, training content, and work
environment support. For example, manager
support may be less important for partici-
pants working in teams where peer collabora-
tion is common (and influential on overall
performance). Lise Saari, Ph.D., and Global
Director of Workforce Research at IBM, cap-
tured the importance of leveraging research-
informed practice to develop HR practitio-
ners’ knowledge of relevant topics:
I am a very firm believer in re-
search-based practice. My col-
leagues and I strive to incorporate
the vast research-based knowl-
edge of our field into the work
that we do in our company for
HR practitioners and managers.
We try to concisely state what the
research says, without heavy
wording and long explanations.
We focus on topics that are rele-
vant to our organization. Recent
examples include the relation-
ships between employee attitudes
and business measures, and use
of goal setting and feedback when
a 360-degree survey shows man-
agers are not providing enough
direction and feedback. We don’t
seek to educate HR practitioners
in our organization on the topics
researchers study most. We focus
on a defined need or a need that
we think the organization has.
Therefore, at any one time we are
highlighting for our HR practitio-
ners only a very small portion of
the topics that researchers actu-
ally investigate. (Saari, 2007,
p. 1043)
Saari observes that trainers, like other
adult learners, prefer to learn when they have
a “need to know.” Consequently, authors,
publishers, editors, and professional organi-
zations should (1) reconsider how to best
package their research findings so that train-
ers can easily access specific topics when they
need to know about them and (2) position
findings in a medium trainers prefer to use
(e.g., “chat with the expert” sessions at semi-
nars and conferences or interactive Webinars
with experienced professionals).
Another implication for HR practitioners
is that they should revisit the value placed on
trainers’ professional development efforts.
Trainers’ desire to seek out sources of learning
on transfer will be tied to the importance
they and others (e.g., managers, professional
organizations) place on that information and
how they (and others) perceive their role in
the organization (Fenwick, 2005). As sug-
gested by Zenger et al. (2005), firms unfortu-
nately place more emphasis on designing and
facilitating training courses than measuring
transfer or the impact (results) of training
investments. This emphasis misdirects efforts
of trainers, who subsequently rely on train-
ing design knowledge while neglecting evalu-
ation and other performance metrics. In ad-
dition, when trainers disproportionately
focus efforts on training design rather than
helping trainees apply and maintain new
learning on the job, it inaccurately reinforces
the assumption that learning is a sufficient
condition for transfer to occur. HR execu-
tives, therefore, must hold trainers account-
able for knowing how to support transfer ef-
fectively by using interventions before,
during, and after training interventions
(Broad, 2005; Burke & Hutchins, 2008; Burke
& Saks, 2009). Similarly, professional organi-
zations can better signal to trainers the im-
portance of transfer in their certification ef-
forts. Our findings that trainers prefer more
formal sources to learn about transfer may
indicate that organizations are not providing
enough learning opportunities for trainers or
that the methods provided are not perceived
as credible or lack a comprehensive treat-
ment of training transfer. A prominent ex-
ample appeared in ASTD’s professional certi-
fication (Certified Professional of Learning
and Performance) study materials, where
616 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
training transfer was discussed only in the
context of Kirkpatrick’s (1976) evaluation
levels. Unfortunately, discussing transfer in
terms of evaluation only suggests that certi-
fied trainers are not required to have a thor-
ough knowledge of how to support and assess
training transfer (Hutchins & Burke, 2007).
Human resource departments, therefore,
must examine how they support trainers in
developing their capabilities regarding train-
ing transfer if they expect trainers to focus on
transfer initiatives (Kopp, 2006).
Developing trainers’ knowledge and capa-
bilities to support transfer has implications
for business results as well. As HR expands its
role in developing a learning culture, the
training function must be viewed as a human
capital investment (rather than a cost) that
can produce business results (such as increases
in productivity or customer satisfaction). A
major contributor to the “training as a cost”
perspective is the disparate ratio between
training investments and business perfor-
mance: the current training expenditures of
U.S. organizations exceed $130 billion (Para-
dise & Patel, 2009), yet estimates of training
transfer hover around 30%, resulting in a sub-
stantial waste of learning investments. Firms
that align learning initiatives with business
strategy; provide resources to their trainers to
receive continuing education, coaching, or
mentoring; and expect and require trainers to
apply this learning will more likely see train-
ers develop knowledge of training transfer
and, consequently, greater returns from their
firm’s training investments. Each year, ASTD
recognizes organizations based on how well
they align their learning interventions with
strategy and demonstrate a clear impact on
business results (cf. ASTD, 2009). Reviews of
the selected organizations might provide use-
ful suggestions for linking learning with de-
monstrable results. Because learning and de-
velopment expenditures are predicted to
increase as organizations begin competing to
retain high potential employees (Paradise &
Patel, 2009), organizations will rely more on
training professionals to create learning op-
portunities that translate into on-the-job
performance. This will make trainer knowl-
edge of evidence-based transfer practices a key
professional competency.
Summary
Training transfer research has historically
limited its purview to examining the role of
learner characteristics, training design, and
work support factors on training outcomes.
Although these issues are useful for examin-
ing trainee-related issues, a missing link in
our understanding of training transfer factors
lies in how knowledgeable, and in turn, how
actionable, trainers are in their understand-
ing of proven methods for supporting trans-
fer of training. Trainers play a key role in
supporting transfer by preparing individuals
for training, designing training materials and
settings, and consulting with managers and
other stakeholders to support trainee post-
training performance. Our study extends the
practical and theoretical discourse around
the recognized factors that influence trainee
learning and performance by focusing on
how trainers develop their knowledge of
training transfer.
HOLLY M. HUTCHINS is an assistant professor of human resource development at the
University of Houston. Her research emphases include training transfer, organizational
crisis management, and e-learning design and assessment.
LISA A. BURKE is a professor of human resource management at the University of Ten-
nessee at Chattanooga. Her research interests include management training, develop-
ment, and education.
ALICE MAY BERTHELSEN is a recent graduate of the human resource development mas-
ter’s program at the University of Houston. She is currently doing instructional design
work and continuing her research on work-school confl ict and social support.
A MISSING LINK IN THE T RANSFER PROBLEM? 617
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
References
ASTD. (2009). BEST organization winners. Retrieved
December 28, 2009, from http://www.astd.org/TD/
Archives/2009/TOC/0910_TOC.htm
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training:
A review and directions for future research. Person-
nel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105.
Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Trans-
fer of training 1988–2008: An updated review and
new agenda for future research. In G. P. Hodgkin-
son & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 24,
pp. 41–70). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Beattie, R. (2006). Line managers and workplace learn-
ing: Learning from the voluntary sector. Human
Resource Development International, 9(1), 99–119.
Bersin, J. (2006). High-impact learning measurement.
Oakland, CA: Bersin and Associates, Bersin and As-
sociates Industry Report.
Billet, S. (1992). Developing vocational skills in the
workplace. Australian Journal of TAFE Research
and Development, 8(1), 1–12.
Billet, S. (1993). What’s in a setting—learning in the
workplace. Australian Journal of Adult and Com-
munity Education, 33(1), 4–14.
Billet, S. (2001). Knowing in practice: Re-conceptualis-
ing vocational expertise. Learning and Instruction,
11(6), 431–452.
Billet, S. (2002). Toward a workplace pedagogy: Guid-
ance, participation, and engagement. Adult Educa-
tion Quarterly, 53(1), 27–43.
Blume, B. D., Ford, J.K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L.
(2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105.
Broad, M. L. (2005). Beyond transfer of training:
Engaging systems to improve performance. San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer:
An integrative literature review. Human Resource
Development Review, 6(3), 263–296.
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2008). A study of best
practices in training transfer and proposed model
of transfer. Human Resource Development Quar-
terly, 19(2), 107–128.
Burke, L. A., & Saks, A. (2009). Accountability in train-
ing transfer: Adapting Schlenker’s model of respon-
sibility. Human Resource Development Review,
8(3), 382–402.
Casebeer, L., Bennett, N., Kristofco, R., Carillo, A., &
Centor, R. (2002). Physician Internet medical infor-
mation seeking and on-line continuing education
use patterns. Journal of Continuing Education in
the Health Professions, 22, 33–42.
Choo, C. W. (2006). The knowing organization: How
organizations use information to construct mean-
ing, create knowledge, and make decisions. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, N. (2005). Workplace learning environment and
its relationship with learning outcomes in health-
care organizations. Human Resource Development
International, 8(2), 185–205.
Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of
academic and practitioner publications in human
resource management: Reasons for the divide and
concrete solutions for bridging the gap. Academy
of Management Journal, 50(5), 1013–1019.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Research design. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eddy, E. R., D’Abate, C. P., Tannenbaum, S. I., Givens-
Skeaton, S., & Robinson, G. (2006). Key character-
istics of effective and ineffective developmental
interactions. Human Resource Development Quar-
terly, 17(1), 59–84.
Elkjaer, B. (2004). Organizational learning: The “Third
Way.” Management Learning, 35(4), 419–434.
Ellinger, A. D. (2005). Contextual factors infl uencing
informal learning in a workplace setting: The case
of “reinventing itself company.” Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 16(3), 389–415.
Enos, M. D., Kehrkahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal
learning and the transfer of learning: How manag-
ers develop profi ciency. Human Resource Develop-
ment Quarterly, 14(4), 369–387.
Fenwick, T. (2005). Conceptions of critical HRD: Dilem-
mas for theory and practice. Human Resource
Development International, 8(2), 225–238.
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward
a social understanding of how people learn in or-
ganizations. Management Learning, 29(3), 273–297.
Hutchins, H., & Burke, L. A. (2007). Identifying trainers’
knowledge of training transfer research fi ndings—
closing the gap between research and practice.
International Journal of Training and Development,
11(4), 236–267.
Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. (2002). Online sur-
veys in marketing research: Pros and cons. Interna-
tional Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 361–375.
Keefer, J. M., & Stone, S. (2009). Practitioner perspec-
tives on the gap between research and practice:
What gap? Advances in Developing Human Re-
sources, 11(4), 454–471.
618 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2010
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R. L.
Craig (Ed.), Training and development handbook:
A guide to human resource development (2nd ed.,
pp. 301–319).
Kopp, D. M. (2006). Trainer self-loathing. Human Re-
source Development Quarterly, 17(3), 351–357.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process
approach to library and information services (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Greenwood.
Latham, G. P. (2007). A speculative perspective on
the transfer of behavioral science fi ndings to the
workplace: The times they are a-changin’. Academy
of Management Journal, 50(5), 1027–1032.
Lawler, E. E. (2007). Why HR practices are not evi-
dence-based. Academy of Management Journal,
50(5), 1033–1036.
Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitors to
informal learning in the workplace: A case study of
public school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly,
50(2), 83–101.
Lohman, M. C. (2005). A survey of factors infl uenc-
ing the engagement of two professional groups
in informal workplace learning activities. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 16(4), 501–527.
Longnecker, C. O. (2004). Maximizing transfer of learn-
ing from management education programs: Best
practices for retention and application. Develop-
ment and Learning in Organizations, 18(4), 4–6.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1992). Towards a theory
of informal and incidental learning in organiza-
tions. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
11(4): 287–300.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and
incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 89, 25–34.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M.
(2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive
guide. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Nail-Chiwetalu, B., & Ratner, N. B. (2007). An assess-
ment of the information-seeking abilities and needs
of practicing speech-language pathologists. Journal
of the Medical Library Association, 95(2), 182–188.
Noe, R. A., & Ford, J. K. (1992). Emerging issues and
new directions for training research. In G. Ferris
& K. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and
human resources management (pp. 345–384).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Paradise, A., and Patel, L. (2009). ASTD State of the
Industry Report. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Reddy, M. C., & Spence, P. R. (2008). Collaborative
information seeking: A fi eld study of a multidiscipli-
nary patient care team. Information Processing and
Management, 44(1), 242–255.
Rivera, R. J., & Paradise, A. (2006). State of the in-
dustry in leading enterprise. Alexandria, VA: ASTD
Press.
Ruona, W. A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R.
A. Swanson & E. Holton (Eds.), Research in organi-
zations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002).
HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human
resource practices: Correspondence between
research and practice. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 41(2), 149–174.
Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (20 07). The
very separate worlds of academic and practitioner
periodicals in human resource management: Impli-
cations for evidence-based management. Academy
of Management Journal, 50(5), 987–1008.
Saari, L. (2007). Bridging the worlds. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(5), 1043–1045.
Sanders, K., van Riemsdijk, M., & Groen, B. (2008). The
gap between research and practice: A replication
study on the HR professionals’ beliefs about effective
human resource practices. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 19(10), 1976–1988.
Short, D. (2006). Closing the research and practice gap
in HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
17(3), 343–350.
Smith, P. J. (2003). Workplace learning and fl exible
delivery. Review of Educational Research, 73(1),
53–88.
Zenger, J., Folkman, J., & Sherwin, R. (2005). The
promise of phase 3. T+D, January, 30–34.
