How training can add real value to the business: part 2

Abstract

In his first article the author argued that a number of myths have emerged due to an over‐reliance by the training community on the Kirkpatrick levels of evaluation. This included: beliefs that learning is the responsibility of the trainer; that statistics prove learning; that good course evaluations prove learning. The author proposed that learning should be seen as the responsibility of the learner and that proving learning is integral to the process of learning. He went so far as to say the role of the training officer and training manager will not exist in five years’ time and that we should be seeing the emergence of effective facilitators who accept that learning is inextricably linked to action and the job. Here the author extends the argument first by adding to the myths with myths four and five which lead to the argument that there are two main areas for future focus, mentoring and the accreditation of work‐based action learning as the new form of evaluation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.