Transferring Learning to the Job and Reverification

Why it matters

A task done correctly in the training area may not be carried out in the same way on the real job. Next to the instructor, the tools may be in order, the material ready and the work uninterrupted. In production, a different product, a shift handover, a missing tool or time pressure may arise. Transfer of learning is the taught behavior's being usable under these defined real job conditions. For this reason a successful trial at the end of instruction is initial evidence; it does not remove the need to monitor later practice. Monitoring is not done to catch the employee unaware. It should be clear which behavior will be assessed under which condition and how support will be provided; this way, reporting a problem stays a natural part of the instruction process.

Sustainment adds the time dimension. A person's doing the task correctly on day one does not by itself show that they keep the same knowledge and skill later. The job may not have been done for a long time, the instruction may have changed or the support arrangement may have broken down. Reverification is collecting the evidence of independent practice again under the current task and acceptance conditions. The arrival of a certain date in the calendar can start this process; but it is not the only trigger. A critical error, a tool change, a change of task version or a long gap in practice may also call for a review. The day-30 check in this lesson is a training example; it is not presented as a universal reverification interval for every task.

The transfer result can be monitored with the total correct ratio, but the total alone is not enough. The same ratio can hide very different distributions of problems. If errors are concentrated in a certain person, task or condition, the target of support changes. Also, counting a critical error and a small deviation with the same weight may mislead the skill decision. Besides the ratio, it is checked which point was wrong and whether the independent working condition was met. Training attendance is not added to the denominator of the later success ratio. The denominator consists of comparable observed practices. Even if a helped trial yields an acceptable product, it is not carried over as a success into the unhelped practice ratio; the types of evidence are kept apart.

The purpose of reverification is not to make everyone repeat the same training. First the source of the deviation is examined. If learning is lacking, the relevant key point is retaught; if the tool or layout is wrong, the job condition is corrected. Both may be found together. An employee's stopping the job under an unsuitable condition should not be written as an error; stopping may be the right decision. After the correction a new independent assessment is made and the old result is kept. In the next follow-up it is seen whether the improvement continues. In this way training stops being an activity closed by the number of attendees and becomes a process managed by the result observed on the job and the support need.

Formula