A Study of the Influences of Structured On-the-Job Training and E-Learning Training Approaches on Trainees’ Perceptions of Self-Efficacy to Achieve Training Outcomes among Bankers in Taiwan

Wen-Rou Huang*

Assistant Professor

Department of Business Administration

Feng Chia University

No. 100 Wenhwa Rd., Seatwen, Taichung, Taiwan 40724, R.O.C.

Yi-Fang Lee

Associate Professor

Department of Industrial Education

National Taiwan Normal University

162, He-ping East Road, Section 1, Taipei Taiwan 10610, R.O.C

*Corresponding author. Email:

Stream: 7 - HRD, Evaluation, and Learning

Submission type: poster

A Study of the Influences of Structured On-the-Job Training and E-Learning Training Approaches on Trainees’ Perceptions of Self-Efficacy to Achieve Training Outcomes among Bankers in Taiwan

Wen-Rou Huang*, Feng Chia University

Yi-Fang Lee, National Taiwan Normal University

While the literature supported the effectiveness and efficiency of structured on-the-job training (S-OJT) and compared its learning performance with that of e-learning, this study explored the influences of these two training approaches on trainees’ perceptions of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes among bankers in Taiwan. In addition, this study explored the relationships among the variables of trainees’ general self-efficacy, self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes and two training approaches. This study was conducted by survey in the Training and Development Center of the Taiwan Academy of Banking and Finance (TABF). In order to answer the research questions, survey research design will be used in this study. Two questionnaires describing two different training approaches were randomly distributed to 300 trainees who received training in TABF from August 1 to August 31, 2011. The findings indicated both training approaches had similar influence on the trainees’ self-efficacy. There was no difference in the assessment of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes for the participants with low general self-efficacy who received different training methods. In addition, the study found that there is a low relation between the trainees’ general self-efficacy and their self-efficacy to achieve the training outcomes.

Keywords: e-learning, structured on-the-job training, self-efficacy, general self-efficacy

The need for effective training is increasing for organizations in recent years. Facing the increased competition, decreased performance, high unemployment rate and more demand for efficient services, a lot of organizations utilize training as a strategy to resolve these issues. Through effective training, organizations are able to gain competitive advantages and their employees can enhance their job related competencies. Although both organizations and individual employees generally seem to benefit from training, not all training programs are effectiveness (Karsten & Loomba, 2002). Thus, there is continuing concern about the issue of training effectiveness (Karsten and Loomba, 2002).

Research has indicated that self-efficacy is an important variable for understanding training effectiveness (Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Mathieu, 1995; Saks, 1995). Emerging from a rich theoretical background in social learning and social cognition, self-efficacy was defined by Bandura “as people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance.” (Karsten and Loomba, 2002). It also refers to one’s belief in one’s capability to perform a specific task (Gist, 1987). Yet many researchers have conceptualized the self-efficacy as a situation-specific belief and have claimed that self-efficacy can be developed through training, some researchers like Bandura and Sherer et al. have argued that the conceptualization of self-efficacy can be generalized to actions other than the target task, skill or behavior, which is general self-efficacy (GSE) (Bandura, 1977; Sherer et al., 1982). Simply put, GSE refers to a general belief in one’s ability to succeed (Sherer et al., 1982), which is different from the self-efficacy focusing on specific behavior or task.

Many scholars now have argued that self-efficacy can be developed through training. In other words, self-efficacy can be changed through training and should be included as a post-training measure of learning along with verbal knowledge, skills, attitudes and behavior transfer (Gist, 1989; Kraiger, Ford & Salas, 1993; Luthans, 2002; Noe, 2010). A positive relationship between trainee self-efficacy and training effectiveness has been acknowledged in the literature (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, Tannenbaum & Mathieu, 1995). It is said that what a person believes in his/her capabilities influences his/her motivation and, as a result, determines the instigation, direction, effort and persistence of his/her future actions. Thus, an individual with high self-efficacy believe that he/she can master (or have mastered) some specific task and they will put considerable effort into doing so. In contrast, a person with low self-efficacy will withdraw from the learning quickly both psychologically and physically and will also have a tendency to doubt that he/she can master the content of a training program to learn the new knowledge and skills (Gist et al., 1989, 1991; Noe, 2010; Saks, 1994; Tracey, Hinkin, Tannenbaum and Mathieu, 2001).

Besides self-efficacy, the training approach which is a general way to deliver the training content to trainees (Jacobs, 2003) is another factor to influence training effectiveness. The issue of training approach has been studied extensively by one line of HRD scholars. At present, over ten training approaches based on different learning theories have been developed and can be used in the design of training programs. These approaches include instructor-led classrooms (lecture), on-the-job training (OJT), structured on-the-job training (S-OJT), electronic learning, simulation, role play, behavior modeling, self-directed learning, apprenticeship, case studies, business games, group building methods, advance learning, team training, action learning and so on (Jacobs, 2003; Noe, 2010).

Among all these training approaches, structured on-the-job training (S-OJT) and e-learning training approaches are two training approaches frequently used by companies now (Jacobs, 2003; Noe, 2010). S-OJT, which was proposed by Jacobs around 1990s, was defined as “the planned process of developing competence on units of work by having an experienced employee train a novice employee at the work setting or a location that closely resembles the work setting” (p.28). In other words, the training delivered with S-OJT approach is to let new or inexperienced employees learn by observing peers or managers performing the job and then trying to imitate their behavior (Noe, 2010). Basically, S-OJT is derived from on-the-job training (OJT) but differs from OJT in making use of a planned process. The structured approach used by Jacobs can be characterized as professional didactical, as it stresses the importance of systematic instruction of “new employees” by trained experienced experts at or near the work site (Versloot, De Jong & Thijssen, 2001). In other words, Jacobs applied the system theory to S-OJT so that S-OJT can be viewed as a system which consists of training inputs, training process and training outcomes, and is affected by organizational context.

E-learning refers to instruction and delivery of training by computer online through the Internet or the web (Brown, 2001; Noe, 2002). Simply put, e-learning is web-based learning or learning that takes place over the Internet (Jun, 2002). The definition by NCSA e-learning group is as follows (Esch, 2003):

E-learning is the acquisition and use of knowledge distributed and facilitated primarily by electronic means. This form of learning currently depends on networks and computers but will likely evolve into systems consisting of a variety of channels, and technologies as they developed and adopted. E-learning can take the form of courses as well as modules and smaller learning objects. E-learning may incorporate synchronous or asynchronous access and may be distributed geographically with varied limits of time.

Comparing the characteristics of S-OJT with those of e-learning, it is found that both training methods are planned by the trainers to achieve training objectives and the purpose is to instruct workers the competencies required in performing their jobs. However, several elements of these two training approaches are different (Jun, 2002; Noe, 2010; Jacobs, 2003). For example, internet/intranet and computers are required for e-learning while, for S-OJT, a live trainer with experience is much needed. Also, the location for e-learning can be anywhere as long as internet/intranet and computers are provided while that for S-OJT is actual or similar to work setting. Table 1 summarizes the comparison between E-learning and S-OJT (Noe, 2010; Jacobs, 2003; Jun, 2002).

E-learning / Structured on-the-job Training
Medium / Internet/Intranet, web-based , Distance learning, CD-ROM / Live trainer such as experienced personnel (e.g. employees, managers, or supervisors)
Principle of Design / Self-paced, interactive, networking / Based on social learning theory; trainees observing and modeling the trainer’s skill or behaviors
Content / Knowledge-based; attitude-based / Skill-based; behavior-based
Style / One-on-many / One-on-one
Location / Geographically dispersed employees at their own locations / Actual or similar to work setting
Practice / Low / High
Feedback / Low / High
Observation and interaction with others / Low / High

Table 1. Comparison between E-learning and S-OJT.

Problem Statement

There are distinctive features on how to deliver the training and help trainees to learn the content for S-OJT and e-learning training approaches. Therefore, a number of research studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of S-OJT and compared the results with those of e-learning training. Most of these studies were conducted based on the Kikpatrick’s evaluation criteria. Both research and company experiences suggest that e-learning is effective for a wide range of outcomes, especially for knowledge, skills, and behaviors (Noe, 2010; Craig, 2007). In addition, there are several benefits from e-learning such as lowered costs, enhanced business responsiveness, consistent messages, timely content, and 24/7 learning (Jun, 2002). As to S-OJT, studies suggested that it is an effective method for training job-related skills and behaviors (Jacobs, 2003 & Noe, 2010). The trainees who receive S-OJT achieve training objectives faster than those who receive training based on other training approaches.

Since there is growing evidence which indicates that trainee self-efficacy can serve as one of training criteria and may be important when examining the relationship between training method and training outcome (Gist, Stevens & Baretta, 1991), the researchers such as Gist and Schwoerer have conducted several experimental studies to compare the effects of different training approaches on trainees’ posttraining self-efficacy. It showed that the behavioral modeling training approach (BMT) yielded higher self-efficacy scores and higher performance on an objective measure of computer software mastery and in addition, a training method composed of cognitive modeling with practice and reinforcement generated significantly higher participant self-efficacy than a method involving either lecture or practice alone (Gist, 1989; Gist, Schwoerer & Rosen, 1989; Taylor, Russ-Eft & Chan, 2005). Huang and Jacobs (2009) had also compared the influence of two training approaches, structured on-the-job training and classroom training, on trainees’ self-efficacy. The results showed that the S-OJT approach generated higher self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes compared to the classroom training approach among trainees in banking (Huang & Jacobs, 2009).

From the literature about training evaluation and training effectiveness, one conspicuous gap is the inattention to examine the influences of the e-learning approach on trainees’ self-efficacy and compares the results with the structured on-the-job training approach (Noe, 2010). Although several studies had been conducted to examine the effectiveness for many types of learning outcomes on trainees, currently there is insufficient understanding about the influences of e-learning on trainees’ self-efficacy and there is no published research work comparing such results with those by the structured on-the-job training. In addition, from literature, another conspicuous gap in the literature is lacking the study regarding the influences of the trainee’s general self-efficacy on the effectiveness of training approaches. Although the scholars such as Huang and Jacobs (2009) have examined the relationship between general self-efficacy and specific self-efficacy, more studies should be conducted to further explore this issue. Therefore, it is our intention to conduct research on how S-OJT influences trainees’ self-efficacy and compare such results with e-learning. In addition, the relationships among the variables of trainees’ general self-efficacy, self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes, and training approaches will be further explored.

Consequently, the purpose of this study aims to compare the influence of two training approaches, structured on-the-job training and e-learning training, on trainees’ self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes. In addition, this study explores the relationships among the variables of trainees’ general self-efficacy, self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes, and training approaches.

Research Questions

The research questions that will be examined in this study are as follows:

(1)  Do trainees receiving training with the e-learning approach and with the structured on-the-job training approach differ in their self-assessment of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes?

(2)  Do trainees with different levels of general self-efficacy differ in their assessment of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes after being trained by different approaches, i.e. the e-learning and the structured on-the-job training approaches?

(3)  Do trainees with the e-learning training approach and with the structured on-the-job training approach show different relationships between their general self-efficacy and their levels of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes?

(4)  Do trainees with high levels of general self-efficacy differ in their assessment of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes after training using e-learning and structured on-the-job training approaches?

(5)  Do trainees with low levels of general self-efficacy differ in their assessment of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes after training using e-learning and structured on-the-job training approaches?

Method

This study was conducted by survey in the Training and Development Center of the Taiwan Academy of Banking and Finance (TABF). The bankers who enrolled for the classes in the Taiwan Academy of Banking and Finance (TABF) from August 01 to August 31, 2011, were selected as participants and randomly assigned into two groups to answer the questionnaires; the total number in the sample frame was 300.

Specifically, two questionnaires describing the two different training approaches, structured on-the-job training and e-learning training approaches, were randomly delivered to trainees. The questionnaires were divided into three parts. The first part was the participant information sheet, which collected data on the trainees’ demographic information and previous training experiences. The second part, adapted from a measure developed by Scherer and Colleagues (1982), measured the trainees’ scores in general self-efficacy (Luszczynska, Scholz & Schwarzer 2005). The third part included two sections; the first section described two training scenarios which were designed based on the characteristics of two training approaches (e-learning training approach and S-OJT approach) in each questionnaire and the second section measured the trainees’ scores in perceptions of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes. To obtain information about the trainees’ perceptions of self-efficacy to achieve the training outcomes, all sample subjects were asked to rate their level of confidence to achieve training outcomes on nine items after reading a training scenario.