Understanding the Important Difference Between Classroom, Online and On-The-Job Training

Understanding the Important Difference Between Classroom, Online and On-The-Job Training

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

In a past issue of Proactive Technologies Report article entitled, “Thirteen Good Reasons Why Structured On-The-Job Training Should Be Part of Your Business Strategy” I laid out 13 very important reasons employers should seriously consider adding structured on-the-job training to their business strategy. This is based on the supposition that the difference between “structured” and “unstructured” on-the-job training is clear and recognized, and the vast difference between true structured on-the-job training and “classroom” or “online” learning is unquestioned. It also needs to be understood that structured on-the-job training is not interchangeable with classroom and online learning, but rather the “capstone” of applying core skills developed from the latter into mastering units of work for which an employer is willing to pay wages.

There are not many jobs available for which employers are recruiting people who have taken classes, or a lot of classes, as if that is where value lies. If one finds a job like this it is because the employer believes, legitimately or mistakenly, it has a strategy to cultivate those core skills into the performance of work tasks. A task is recognizable by a beginning point, and ending point and a series of steps that, when performed in the right order to the right specification, result in a recognizable and desired outcome. No employer hires people and pays them wages for “being good at math,” “reading exceptionally well,” being aware of safety rules.” Rather they are hoping those skills are current enough, and apply directly enough, to tasks that need to be mastered and work the needs to be done.

To understand the importance of structured on-the-job training, it is important to differentiate between the three main types of learning in the workplace: classroom, online and on-the-job training. Classroom and online learning are pretty well understood as useful delivery methods in developing core skills that will be utilized later in mastering tasks they will be taught on-the-job and required to perform as the main reason for employment. However that is in no way a guarantee that either online learning and classroom learning – alone or combined – leads to mastery performance of a task without proper task training on how to apply those core skills in the performance of a unit of work; the task. If fact, if not correctly selected for job relevance (as opposed to industry acceptance), online and classroom content may have little impact on task performance and these core skills usually dissipate quickly without immediate and repetitive usage.

Still, if the collective content of all of the classes offered were effective alone in developing the workforce, why after 30 years do we skill have a “growing skill gap?” Ask any graduate what percentage of their 2 or 4-year education they use in the job and you will hear 10%, 20%…maybe more in highly structured disciplines such as law, medicine and engineering. Obviously something more is needed. For most, education is a foundation upon which to build (through training received on the job) higher order skills and master tasks that need to be done…if that training is available and deliberate.

Job relevance is an important consideration in selecting any type of learning, training and testing. For example, to set-up a job order for a NC machine operation, I may need to have mastered the core skills of trigonometry, addition, subtraction (among others) to complete the “establish offsets” portion of the tasks. A remedial course in math means nothing, if I am not shown how to apply those math functions to the procedural steps of establishing offsets, which comes through on-the-job training. Yes, some may intuitively make the connection, but most need a little guidance.

An employer’s natural reaction to the need for worker training is to replicate educational institutions and their methods; scheduling classes, documenting attendance in a spreadsheet.  In most cases tests are not given, just attendance noted. Most employers still seem to rely on it because it seems familiar and there is some comfort in that.

Classroom delivered learning is meant develop core skills or enhance existing core skills and its impact on worker performance is hard to determine. What makes the difference is the quality of the content. Still, if the collective content of all of the classes offered were effective alone in developing the workforce, why after 30 years do we skill have a “growing skill gap?” Ask any graduate what percentage of their 2 or 4-year education they use in the job and you will hear 10%, 20%…maybe more in highly structured disciplines such as law, medicine and engineering. Obviously something more is needed. For most, education is a foundation upon which to build higher order skills and master tasks that need to be done.

Unfortunately, the term “on-the-job training” has been hijacked – mostly by institutions and organizations that do not significantly impact on-the-job training with their products and services, but market their products and services as such so that everyone might think so. One way to market a better product than you have is to make claims beyond your product’s capabilities to hopefully fool others who do not understand the important distinction between the three forms. Classroom learning taught to someone while employed is not on-the-job training, it is onsite or offsite classroom learning. Online learning taught to someone while employed is not on-the-job training, it is online learning. If they are both forms of on-the-job training, why do we need the term? This differentiation doesn’t diminish the value of any of the forms, it just puts each in perspective. Not understanding the difference has caused employers to misapply training dollars in the hopes of bigger outcomes, and employees to come to expect very little from attending classes provided at the employer’s expense or out of their own pocket.

Understanding the difference between classroom, online and structured on-the-job training may save an organization a bundle – in resources and disappointment… One wouldn’t build a foundation for a house and hope the roof and walls fall into place, would they? If they had, should they be surprised by the results?

Informal on-the-job training is the task-specific training that occurs when a subject matter expert currently in a job classification teaches the proper technique (i.e. “best practice”) to performing a task required of the job classification without a schedule, structure and often without documentation of mastery. The trainee masters the task through accurate repetition, supervised by the subject matter expert until enough anecdotal evidence exists that the trainee has mastered the task. This process is repeated until a comfort level has been reached by the subject matter expert(s) that enough of the tasks have been mastered to allow the trainee to work independently; that a significant amount of the job has been mastered. The records of development are locked in the subject matter expert’s brains and subject to loss through time, job transfer or termination. Clearly not auditable, this informal approach does little to support ISO/AS/IATF compliance, process improvement and revision control. However, more often than not (mostly inexplicably) this informal approach works and people do things that add value to the organization. It is just difficult to explain, control, revise, improve and audit.

If an employer has little or no resources for classroom or online learning, but makes sure informal on-the-job training occurs, they are less likely to be disappointed than if they had focused on classroom and online learning and neglected the informal on-the-job training. The former two are no guarantee that trainee will be able to apply the core skills and, through osmosis, learn to perform the task’s best practices.

Still, the drawbacks of informal on-the-job training are many. Some additional considerations include:
• It works, but it is hard to explain what was mastered, which employees mastered which tasks, how well it worked or know when it isn’t working;
• Without a plan, it is easy to incorrectly and incompletely train a trainee;
• Subject matter experts for the same subject matter may differ on “best practices” between themselves and between shifts;
• The only real measure of task mastery is malperformance, which can be costly;
• The tasks are under constant change due to advances in technology, improvements in processes, rearrangement due to LEAN and similar efforts. Informally updating all subject matter experts and their trainees seldom happens effectively;
• Human Resources, Human Resource Development, Engineering, Quality Control, Technical Writing, EHS – all have different understandings of how a task should be performed, which may cultivate an environment of confusion and a barrier to mastering a task and revisions;

The simple, fastest, most inexpensive, most reliable solution to make informal, unstructured on-the-job training more effective and certain is to structure it. Structured on-the-job training includes a training infrastructure for the every critical job classification based on a thorough job/task analysis. Subject matters define and validate the “best practice” for each task based on their expert point of view and management’s concurrence. Both work to manage the data for change.

Data by itself is useless if not usable. That is why Proactive Technologies utilizes its PROTECH© system of managed human resource development to automatically develop all of the tools of the human resource development process. Structured on-the-job training plans and checklists, qualification/certification plans and checklists, technical documents (job performance aids), job descriptions, employee-specific performance appraisals and much more. One revision updates all reports. What used to take months, even years to develop and tens of thousands of dollars for just one job classification and one set of not easily revised materials, and therefore much more in additional costs to revise if changes in the job occur, can be generated in minutes and at fraction of a fraction of the cost.

PROTECH tracks each trainee’s – incumbents and new-hires – progress toward job mastery and reports monthly. PROTECH manages cross-training no matter how many tasks of how many jobs are mastered. Each task mastered has value to the company and the employee and should be documented as such. This infrastructure supports ISO/TS/AS and safety compliance.

Understanding the difference between classroom, online and structured on-the-job training may save an organization a bundle – in resources and disappointment. This is not to disparage classroom and online learning. Quite the contrary. Both can be very useful in developing or remediating core skills necessary to building a foundation upon which to mastering the tasks required of the job. But without structured on-the-job training to ensure the core skills are present and properly applied in mastery of a task, the core skills may be lost before the trainee has a chance to use and build on them. It is all about the proper order of things to achieving a desired outcome. … One wouldn’t build a foundation for a house and hope the roof and walls fall into place, would they? If they had, should they be surprised by the results?

Learn more by watching a 13 minute presentation preview. Then, if interested, sign yourself up for one of Proactive Technologies live online presentations or schedule your own date and time.