Learning, Training and Development
Assignment brief: Training programme report
Contents
Welcome and Introduction…………………………………… 2
Coursework: Training programme report (3,500 words)……………. 2
Presentation of your submissions…………………. 5
Specific Help Available and Further Assistance………… 6
Welcome and Introduction
Welcome to 7000BOP, Learning, Training and Development. You may already have experienced learning, training and development in the workplace. This module aims to promote and in-dept and applied understanding of these vital processes within organisations. Seminars will be highly participative and with a focus on best practice and contemporary theory.
Learning Outcomes
The intended learning outcomes are that on completion of this module the student should be able to:
- Evidence a critical understanding and application of training needs, training design, training methods and training evaluation;
- Evaluate and critically analyse factors which influence effective training design and delivery;
Evidence working within ethical guidelines with sensitivity and integrity.
Assignment instructions
The assessment in this module consists of one assignment:
| Component | % of module mark | Learning outcomes assessed | Submission Date |
| A training programme report (3,500 words) | 100% | 1, 2, and 3 | Monday 28th March 2022 at 18:00 (6pm) |
Going above or below the word counting by 10% or more will be considered when providing feedback and grades. The reference list is not included in the word count.
Please note that this module is part of the course accredited by the Association for Business
Psychology ABP. To gain ABP accreditation your overall grades for the course must be above 50%.
Coursework: Training programme report (3,500 words)
The assessment for this module comprises of a training programme report. The word count is 3500 words (+/- 10%) plus relevant appendices and assess learning outcomes 1-3 above.
The deadline for online submission of your research report will be 28th March 2022 at 18:00 (6pm).
You will be required to submit your coursework via the Turnitin link in Aula. Further details of how to do this will be provided during the module.
Please note that you are only able to upload one document via Turnitin. Therefore, your coursework must be collated into one document.
Please note that by submitting your coursework you are declaring that your coursework is entirely your own work – if you are in any doubt regarding the correct referencing of sources or what constitutes plagiarism or collusion, please consult your course handbook. If you still have any queries or doubts regarding plagiarism or collusion please speak to the module leader or your course director. Students found guilty of plagiarism or collusion face severe penalties, so it is essential that you understand and follow standard procedures for referencing other people’s work.
Instructions and Marking Scheme
The assessment outline (training report)
You are required to produce a training programme report based on the design of a training programme. A word count for each section is shown to help you but this is only provided as a guide and you may differ in where the words are spread across your own report. The overall word count guide for the report is 3500 words.
INTRODUCTION (Guide 500 words)
You should identify a task that can be related to a training programme. This can be workrelated, for example the implementation of a new IT system for a financial team, or it can be related to a task, such as helping students to cook a meal, or perhaps showing a group of elderly people how to operate a microwave. What is important here is that those who will be carrying out the task are clearly identified as this may have an effect on the design of the training programme. You should set the scene clearly, so provide a description of the contextual basis (work, home, school etc.) and give specific details of the sample (age, gender, levels of existing knowledge for the task and any known abilities or difficulties). Please give the report a title and provide a short summary.
TASK ANALYSIS (Guide 800 words)
This next section of the report should include a Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) of the task identified in the introduction. You should systematically analyse the task using the HTA process. The HTA process is described in the relevant lecture and associated materials. The HTA should be presented as a table as shown in the lecture notes, you may also include the task level diagram. Note, you will not be able to complete the whole analysis as this would take you too long, so please stop at levels 2 or 3. The main aim of this process is to break down the tasks so that you then identify how and where training needs to take place. You may have to select just one or two areas of the task if it is a large one, for example, if teaching students to cook, you may want to focus on utilising the equipment safely and cooking a very simple recipe (e.g. an omelette). As a guide there should be no more than 3-4 pages for the table. With regards to performance of this task, indicate whether there any standards required or conditions under which it needs to be performed.
IDENTIFICATION OF TRAINING ISSUES (Guide 600 words)
In this section you should use your analysis to identify and record any issues associated with training this task; this will be based on your HTA. You should cover: the types of training methods or principles, give a brief explanation of the principle and use relevant literature and cross reference back to your analysis. For example, you may have identified that older/younger people may have difficulty using certain equipment, how will this be addressed through a training method? You can use a table to record this information, a suggested format and example is given below:
| Issue identified in HTA | Cross reference to HTA | Type of training method or principle | Explanation of why method or approach chosen | Relevant citations | Any other comments |
| Information required about health and safety when using a cooker. | Task 1: using oven gloves to remove items from the oven. | Computer based learning (e.g., e- learning) | Presenting materials online so that individuals can access the information in their own time. | Dolezalek, (2004, cited in Arnold, 2011). | E-learning is a good way to gain knowledge without the direct aid of face-to-face teaching. |
TRAINING PROGRAMME DESIGN (Guide 900 words)
This section should set out very clearly the training programme that you have devised for the task and the training method selected. The training objectives both for the overall task and for the separate parts should be provided. The order and content of the training programme should be made clear. You should provide justification (using relevant literature) for the methods chosen. You should address how you have considered different learning styles required by your sample of learners. Give some consideration to the practicalities, scheduling and timescale of the training programme too.
TRAINING EVALUATION (Guide 700 words)
This part of the report should detail how you will assess the learner’s progress through the task and their attainment at the end. You should draw on academic and applied materials to show your understanding of how training is effectively evaluated.
Specific help available
- During the module students will receive information on how to complete the hierarchical task analysis; a practice will be given as part of the lecture activities.
- The reading lists provided in lectures will help in starting to find appropriate material in preparation for the assignment.
- On-line material to support this assignment can be found on Moodle.
Presentation of your submissions
Your submissions should be presented in a formal script e.g. Arial, or Times New Roman, size 11. Your writing must be 1.5. line spacing. there should be a line space between each paragraph.
Heading and sub-headings should be in an emphasised font (bold or underlined and larger size).
Margins should be at least 2cm, preferably ‘normal’ 2.54cm top, bottom, left and right. Pages should be numbered.
Cover pages provided when requested, with your student identification number but not your name.
Reference List
Following the APA (7th edition) all citations should be double line spaced and have a hanging indent in a Reference List.
A “hanging indent” means that each subsequent line after the first line of your citation should be indented by 0.5 inches. You can find a sample here ld.php (up.edu)
Specific Help Available and Further Assistance
Coursework Submission
The Submission Date for the coursework is –. An electronic copy ONLY is required to be submitted via Aula Turnitin by – on the date indicated.
You have a 24hour ‘grace period’ in which to submit your assignment to account for any technical difficulty you may encounter. If, however, you fail to submit within this grace period (up to 18.00hrs) your submission will receive a grade of 0.
Please be aware that any submission that has been granted an extension (5 days) there is no 24 hour grace period.
The electronic version needs to be submitted through Turnitin to guarantee against plagiarism and collusion. Please note, failure to submit your report through Turnitin will result in failure of the coursework. Please note that if you are unable to submit coursework assessment you may be eligible to apply for an extension or a deferral. Please refer to the Extenuating Circumstances guidance for students at the following link: registry
IMPORTANT – You can submit copies of your coursework to a ‘similarity check link’ to check your similarity scores – but please make sure your final submission is submitted to the ‘final’ submission link as this is the one that is marked.
Academic Dishonesty
Academic dishonesty covers any attempt by a student to gain an unfair advantage (e.g. extra marks) for her/himself, or for another student, by unauthorised means. Examples of such dishonesty include collusion, falsification, deceit, plagiarism and cheating in examinations.
It is strongly recommended that students refer to the University’s guidelines regarding academic dishonesty, which are displayed on the module page of CU online. Any assessment you submit must be your own work: plagiarism will be severely penalised.
The University takes very seriously any attempt to cheat in coursework or examinations by any student and if a case is proven there are a range of penalties, which include expulsion from the University.
You should refer to your student handbook for information on cheating, but generally speaking, cheating includes acts of plagiarism (extracting information from other sources without referencing the source), collusion (the unauthorised action of working with another student to produce coursework) or taking unauthorised materials into an examination.
Turnitin
All coursework is submitted via Turnitin, which detects plagiarism and collusion by checking for any unoriginal content by comparing submitted papers to several databases. It scans its own databases here at the University, as well as other institutions. Turnitin also scans commercial pages from books, newspapers, journals and the information publicly accessible on the Internet.
This means Turnitin will detect similarities between a student’s submission and:
· any previous submissions from the student (this can reveal potential acts of selfplagiarism)
· submissions from other students for this cohort or previous cohorts (this can reveal potential acts of collusion)
· most information available either through a hard copy or via the Internet (this can reveal potential acts of plagiarism)
Any cases of suspected plagiarism or collusion are referred to an Academic Conduct Officer, who will then investigate the case to see whether there is a case to answer to. If a case of plagiarism or collusion is proven, there are a range of outcomes, from a warning to expulsion from the University.
Collusion is straight-forward to avoid, by ensuring that you work independently to produce your coursework. However, you should consider it a good academic practice to invite a fellow student to provide any useful feedback on your written work.
Plagiarism can also easily be avoided because it is usually the result of poor scholarly practice. If you engage appropriately with sources of information in the production of academic writing, you should never have any concerns about the risk of plagiarism. Here are some good scholarly practice tips to follow:
Good scholarly practice
- DO NOT COPY AND PASTE INFORMATION FROM ANOTHER SOURCE. Even if you do this with the intention of adapting the information later, there is a risk that you may not do so sufficiently. Instead
- MAKE NOTES ON WHAT YOU HAVE READ, and always note down the source of information (title, author, page numbers, publisher name and location, date) so that you can provide a correctly formatted citation and full reference later on.
- PARAPHRASE so that what you write is in your own words.
- PROVIDE A CITATION RIGHT NEXT TO THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE OBTAINED FROM YOUR SOURCES. Good paraphrasing and injecting your own arguments result in a combination of information from your sources and from you! Therefore, you should insert a citation next to the information that is from your sources (even if it is in the middle of a sentence) so that the reader can clearly distinguish between what other authors have said (your sources) and what YOU are saying.
- USE DIRECT QUOTATIONS SPARINGLY. This should only be when there is no better way of expressing the point/argument. Always use quotation marks (“) and cite the source directly afterwards including the page number – e.g. (Smith and Jones 2015:
8).
- DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PRIMARY SOURCES AND SECONDARY SOURCES. Always ensure that you make it clear whether you have read the original source (primary) or read about the information elsewhere (secondary) and cite the source accordingly.
- FORMAT CITATIONS AND REFERENCES ACCORDING TO APA (7th edition), unless instructed otherwise by the module leader.
If you have any concerns about plagiarism please speak to the module leader or the Centre for
Academic writing CAW
ASSESSMENT MARKING GUIDELINES
Marking Rubric for Learning, Training and Development
| Criterion | >70 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | <39 |
| Understanding of training needs and tasks suitable for training with critical analysis of context (LO1 and LO2) – 10% | Detailed description of the context for the training programme with an excellent critical analysis of the training needs and why they have arisen. Clear and detailed outline of the task/goal for training suitable to meet the training need. Detailed description of potential trainees with clear sample demographics presented. At the higher end there should be no omissions and data may be presented to support analysis. | Detailed description of the context for the training programme with a good critical analysis of the training needs and why they have arisen. Clear outline of the task/goal for training suitable to meet the training need. Detailed description of potential trainees with clear sample demographics presented although there may be minor omissions. | Description of the context for the training programme is presented with an acceptable critical analysis of the training needs and why they have arisen. Outline of the task/goal for training suitable to meet the training need but may lack clarity. Description of potential trainees with sample demographics presented although there may be omissions or a lack of clarity. | Simple description of the context for the training programme is presented with a limited critical analysis of the training needs and why they have arisen. Outline of the task/goal for training but lacks clarity or relevance to training need. Description of potential trainees is brief with limited sample demographics presented. | Description of context is very limited or missing, and no critical analysis presented. Task or goal for training is not presented or unsuitable for the training need. Description of potential trainees is missing or very limited. |
9
| Criterion | >70 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | <39 |
| Presentation of hierarchical training analysis and training issues (LO1 and LO2) – 40% | Clear, logical, and fully complete hierarchical task analysis table presented as outlined in brief with all tasks and sub-tasks described and redescribed where necessary. Appropriate use of stop rule. Input, Action and Feedback correctly applied to all tasks and subtasks. Notes section outline clear and detailed issues for training. Conditions for task completion are clearly outlined. Training issues table is clearly cross-referenced to HTA table and structure completely follows the template provided in brief. Suitable and insightful training methods presented with strong use of literature to justify use. At the higher end there will be no errors/omissions and appendices may be used to present flowcharts and supporting information. | Clear, and logical hierarchical task analysis table presented as outlined in brief with main tasks and sub-tasks described and redescribed where necessary. Use of stop rule mostly applied appropriately. Input, Action and Feedback correctly applied to all or most tasks and subtasks. Notes section outline issues training and conditions for task completion are mostly clearly outlined. Training issues table is cross referenced to HTA table and follows the template outlined in the brief. Suitable training methods presented with good use of literature to justify use. Appendices may have been used to provide alternative presentation of HTA. | Hierarchical task analysis table presented as outlined in brief but there may be a lack of clarity or omissions of main tasks and sub- tasks. Use of stop rule mostly applied appropriately. Input, Action and Feedback applied to all or most tasks and subtasks but there may be some errors in application. Notes section has been used to outline issues for training or conditions for task competition but there may be some omissions or errors. There is some attempt to cross referenced training issues table to HTA table. Structure of table follows the template outlined in the brief. Mostly suitable training methods presented with literature presented to justify use. | Hierarchical task analysis table presented but structure may not follow the template and there is a lack of clarity or omissions of main tasks and sub-tasks. Use of stop rule may not be applied appropriately. Errors in the application of Input, Action, Feedback. Notes section is brief and/or lacks depth of understanding of the training issues or conditions under which the task is performed. There is some attempt to cross referenced training issues table to HTA table but may feel confused. Structure of table follows the template outlined in the brief and training methods are presented but literature may only weakly justify use. | No Hierarchical task analysis table presented or structure is confusing and lacks logical flow. Input, Action and Feedback inappropriately applied or not applied at all. Notes section fails to identify training issues or the conditions under which the task is to be performed. No cross-reference between HTA and training issues table. No training methods presented or are unsuitable. Little or no use of literature to justify methods. |
| Criterion | >70 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | <39 |
| Critical analysis of training design with reference to individual learning needs and application of evaluation methods for training programmes (LO1, LO2 and LO3) – 40% | Clear and detailed presentation of training programme with detailed training objectives. Practicalities such as scheduling and resourcing are fully considered. The methods used within the training design are fully justified through an excellent critical engagement with the literature. An excellent consideration of individual learning needs and participant characteristics supported by the literature. Fully detailed description of a valid evaluation method which addresses both process and outcomes with an excellent consideration of the stakeholder of the evaluation. Evidence of how evaluation methods will address learning outcomes is presented with an excellent use of academic and practical materials to justify their use. | Text describing what meets this scale for this criterion. Detailed presentation of training programme with training objectives. Practicalities such as scheduling and resourcing are considered. The methods used within the training design are mostly justified through a good critical engagement with the literature. A good consideration of individual learning needs and participant characteristics mostly supported by the literature. Detailed description of a valid evaluation method which addresses both process and outcomes with a good consideration of the stakeholder of the evaluation. Evidence of how evaluation methods will address learning outcomes is presented with a good use of | Presentation of training programme with training objectives but there may be a lack of clarity in places. Practicalities such as scheduling and resourcing are mostly considered but there may be some omissions. The methods used within the training design are somewhat justified through an acceptable critical engagement with the literature. An acceptable consideration of individual learning needs and participant characteristics somewhat supported by the literature. Description of evaluation method is presented but there may be omissions in the evaluation of process and outcomes. An acceptable consideration of the stakeholder within the evaluation. The | Simple presentation of training programme with training objectives but there is a lack of clarity in places. Practicalities such as scheduling and resourcing are somewhat considered but there are major omissions. There is some attempt to justify methods used through an adequate critical engagement with the literature. An adequate consideration of individual learning needs and participant characteristics but this may not always be supported by the literature. Simple description of evaluation method is presented but there are omissions in the evaluation of process and outcomes. An adequate consideration of the stakeholder of the evaluation but there may be some omissions. The evaluation methods may fail to adequately address | Presentation of training programme lacks detail or is missing. No consideration of the practicalities of the training. Little or no justification of the methods used. Little or no consideration of the individual learning needs of trainees. Poor or no presentation of the method of evaluation. |
| Criterion | >70 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | <39 |
| academic and/or practical materials to justify their use. | evaluation methods will address learning outcomes but there may be a lack of clarity in places. Use of academic and/or practical materials to justify methods is at an acceptable level. | the learning objectives in places. Use of academic and/or practical materials to justify methods is at an adequate level. | |||
| Completeness and Evidence of being able to work within ethical guidelines with sensitivity (LO3) – 10% | Ethical issues of training design fully considered with reference to appropriate guidelines (BPS, ABP, CIPD as an example). Sensitive and inclusive approach to all aspects of the training cycle presented within the report. Excellent writing style and all citations and references in the appropriate style. At the top higher the work is of publishable quality. | Ethical issues of training design largely considered with reference to appropriate guidelines (BPS, ABP, CIPD as an example). Sensitive and inclusive approach to all aspects of the training cycle presented within the report. Very good writing style and all citations and references in the appropriate style with only minor errors. | Ethical issues of training design have been considered with reference to appropriate guidelines (BPS, ABP, CIPD as an example), although there may some omissions. A mostly sensitive and inclusive approach to aspects of training cycle presented within the report. Good writing style and all citations and references in the appropriate style with only some errors. | Ethical issues of training design have been considered and there may be reference to appropriate guidelines (BPS, ABP, CIPD as an example), although there may some omissions. A mostly sensitive and inclusive approach to aspects of training cycle presented within the report. Adequate writing style and citations and references broadly follow the appropriate style but there may be errors. | Ethical issues have not been considered or inappropriately applied. No reference to appropriate guidelines. Lack of sensitivity and inclusivity within the report. Poor writing style and major errors in referencing |
