Training Diagnostics to Improve Learner and Class Outcomes
Sponsored by: Special Operations Forces Language Office, USSOCOM; Prepared by: ALPS Insights Raleigh, NC
Since 2007, ALPS Solutions has worked closely with training programs within the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community to evaluate training effectiveness and identify areas where interventions by program administrators and instructors can have a positive impact on learner- and class-level outcomes. While much of that effort has focused on evaluation of instructor behaviors (see Evaluating Instructional Behaviors for Improved Training Outcomes), many other components and characteristics of the training process and environment have been shown to influence outcomes. The ultimate goal of our research related to training diagnostics was to provide program managers with an evidence-based, easy-to-use tool to monitor learner and instructor issues during training and initiate results-focused interventions during training – as it is too late to help current learners and maximize the training investment after the class is completed. … Read more by downloading the PDF.
Training evaluation should provide insights not only about the effectiveness of training but also about how it can be improved for learners and organizations. In this context, the term “insights” implies a deep understanding of learning, the training process and its outcomes as well as evaluation procedures – designing, measuring, collecting, integrating and analyzing data from both a formative and summative perspective.
For many learning and development (L&D) professionals, training evaluation practices remain mired in the muck. What ends up being evaluated hasn’t changed much over the past two or three decades. We almost universally measure whether trainees liked the training, most of us measure if they learned something, and beyond that, evaluation is a mix of “We’d like to do that” and, “We’re not sure of what to make of the data we get.” Perhaps more critically, in one recent national survey, nearly two-thirds of L&D professionals did not see their learning evaluation efforts as effective in meeting their organization’s business goals.
Anyone who has participated in a training event is familiar with open-ended survey items like this one: “Please provide any additional comments you have about the training program you just completed.” After getting into the rhythm of clicking bubble after bubble in response to closed-ended survey items, many trainees come to a roadblock when provided with a blank box of space and asked to provide feedback in their own words.
ALPS Solutions engaged in a series of studies to understand why instructors were having such a large impact on student outcomes in the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community. If training is supposed to be a standardized experience, then the instructor to which a student is assigned should not cause a variable experience for students across classes. The goal of this research was to identify and reduce variability to create a more standardized and a positive experience.
This document highlights findings and recommendations from the Establish Best Practices for the Supervision of Instructors Technical Report, which compares the instructional supervisory behaviors and practices used in Special Operations Forces (SOF) Initial Acquisition Training (IAT) schools to best practices described in the literature, as well as to practices used in language schools external to the SOF IAT community.
This document summarizes trends and predictive relationships among instructor and student during-training speaking in the target language (TL) and student proficiency outcomes (e.g., end-of-training OPI results), using data collected from the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community.