Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

In The Changing Nature of Organizations, Work, and Workplace, Judith Heerwagen of JH Heerwagen & Associates and Kevin Kelly and Kevin Kampschroer of the US General Service Administration note that…

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

The content focuses on theory rather than practical application.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

Overly general unit examples that are difficult for participants to translate and apply to their own work situations.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

Ineffective training methods, such as B. Dominance of lectures with PowerPoint.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

Lack of useful work aids.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

The wrong people were given the training, in part due to the need to ensure a sufficient number of butts in the seats.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

Inconvenient scheduling.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

The time required and the high registration and travel costs for external courses.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

Bad content, either outdated or irrelevant to actual job needs.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

Poor trainers who lack effective presentation skills and/or classroom management skills.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

No follow-up by supervisors to reinforce learning.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

A lack of support for the implementation of new learning.

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

As I design and deliver classroom training, I would like to believe that it is not the classroom training itself that respondents rate so negatively - just poor curriculum design,…

Why was the face-to-face training rated so poorly?

Thanks to Deborah Laurel | #facetoface #training #rated #poorly