Trainer Ultilisation, trainer quality and learner outcomes

How many hours a week should a trainer deliver Face to face training?

What is a manageable, reasonable and maintainable number of hours a week in which a trainer can deliver face to face training, and does delivering very high hourly levels of face to face training have an adverse effect on the quality of the training and the learner outcomes?

So the old TAFE award in Queensland said 21 hours a week was the amount a time a trainer could be scheduled for face to face training, so in my book that is three days of training.  The rest of the time was for preparation, marking, administration, professional development and other related activities.  However and this I think is where the question gets interesting, what if the Trainer is a full-time staff member, so 38 Hours a week, and the training is all already developed, there is only a small percentage of marking/assessment involved and most of the administration is done by dedicated administration staff.  Is say 4 days of face to face a sustainable level, where the trainer wont burn out over a period of time and quality and learner outcomes wont suffer?

Before I continue I will say that I think 3 days of face to face a week (60%) of workload, is a good minimum standard.  I say this because I have over the years been involved in roles where the levels of face to face training were much higher and after a while (and really to be honest not all that long), the quality of the presentation and the outcomes for the learner decline.  In my single biggest year as a trainer I trained over 3000 people face to face and worked in excess of 190 days, which works out on average to be 4 days a week. (The fifth day of the week was more often than not taken up with travel)  This I can tell you from first hand experience is unsustainable in the long-term and perhaps even in the medium term.

The other part of this question then also relates to assessment.  Through our RTO we have a fairly large number of students, a lot of whom are doing, assessment only, RPL, distance learning for most of their learning, so for a number of our trainers rather than delivery of face to face training making up the bulk of what they do on a daily basis, assessment is the prime component and for others it is about s 50/50 split.  So therefore a follow-up question is, is it reasonable to expect a trainer might be fully utilised (100% 5 out of 5 days) doing only either face to face training plus assessment?  If that doesn’t seem unreasonable what then is a reasonable split between training and assessment or is it just a scheduling and workload issue at that point?

I have to admit that I have reservations however about suggesting that a trainer/assessor could be for all intents and purposes 100% utilised simply doing training and assessment, without there being a decline in the quality of both the training and the assessment activities and as a result a decline in the learner outcomes.

The final question then is should utilisation be made part of performance reviews, particularly in a situation where the trainer has no control over the amount of training or assessment that will be required on a week to week basis as it is really not about their performance, it is just a question of volume of work.

I would be really interested in hearing what everyone else thinks about this and how (if at all) they use trainer utilisation within their organisations.

About these ads

About pauldrasmussen
Paul is the winner of the 2013 Leadership in VET Quality Award and the 2013 LearnX Learning Manager of the year award. A Thought Leader and Speaker on Organisational Learning, Professional Development, Motivation, Leadership, Management and Professional Ethics, he speaks widely and has published work on the areas of Learning and Development, Learning ROI, Business, Management, Leadership and Ethics. With Qualifications in Ethics and Bioethics, Organisational Learning and Development, Training, and Business Management and Leadership, Paul has worked in and with a wide range of public, private, government and not for profit organisations. He is currently the National Training Manager for Spectrum Training and the principal consultant with Rasmussen Learning. Specialties: • Organisational Learning and Development • Ethics (Business, Professional and Theoretical) • Learning Management and ROI • Professional Speaking • RTO Management • E-Learning • Management • Leadership • Learning Management Systems

2 Responses to Trainer Ultilisation, trainer quality and learner outcomes

  1. Amy Boleszny says:

    Interesting points because my position as RTO chief wallah wallah (I can’t say CEO because that has a legal meaning) I have to balance out training, assessment, instructional design, business development and assessing. Compliance management has to fit into the cracks somehow but I am working on delegating that.
    At the moment I have about a 50% F2F training load as I am two trainers down and what started out as a webinar series for a medium size group splintered off into individuals all at difference stages of completion in the same course as participants tend to have lives that defy course programming.
    Firstly, this shows that quality flexible delivery takes a lot of logistics, and secondly that a 50% load is a lot to carry when we are talking one-on-one mentoring and monitoring with learners who are not classroom based.
    What makes my load unmanageable is not the training per se but the constant need to write and rewrite perfectly good curriculum because of minor changes in Training Packages plus keep them current with the latest Codes, legislation and industry trends. This has gone from an annual review to one conducted every six months, which is a lot when one is managing 15 qualifications, with over 200 resource packages. A lot of this I cannot delegate.
    About 75% of our work is in RPL with gap training, and I am fortunate to have an excellent team of trainers and assessors to carry most of it. However, this results in a one-on-one training scenario for them too because no two candidates are at the same stage or undertaking the same units at the same time.
    Why, might you ask, does someone who is an owner/manager keep so much hands on? It is not through ego, or because I feel I am the only person who could do the job, I assure you. It is partly because I think it is important for me to keep current in my VET skills and the interaction with learners leads to improvements in instructional design. I need to know personally what works and does not work for them in flexible delivery so I can repackage my products for e-learning without losing the essential quality of on-job learning. Secondly, it helps me allocate training and assessment across the team, because I know what is ‘too much’ to expect, particularly if a trainer is in a regional area and it involves a lot of travel.
    I would suggest that a 30% load would be less likely to lead to burnout and loss of quality for trainers and assessors with a range of duties, especially if they are delivering TAE qualifications and AQF 5 and above in other Training Packages. I would consider this a constant across all our qualifications.

  2. I think the experience level of the trainer impacts on this issue to a huge degree. The more knowledge and expertise the facilitator has in relation to the content, the better able they are to deliver multiple sessions per week without burning out.

    Passion for your subject matter – and indeed for the art of training and facilitation – will also impact on how many sessions a facilitator is able to deliver successfully in any timeframe. Creativity, flexibility and quality of delivery are all boosted by the practitioner’s mindset. And we rarely discuss self-care for trainers – but those of us who maintain healthy lifestyles and engage in regular professional supervision seem to have an extra ‘energy’ about them.

Let me Know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

LearnKotch

L&D from a different perspective

C2C Consulting & Training blog

Learning & Organizational Development

Spectrum Training - Registered Training Organisation

Learning, Development and Training from an Organisation and Enterprise Perspective

South Metro Education Region VET Network

VET Information and Updates for the South Metro Region

North Metro VET Network

News and updates on all things VET in the North Metro Region

Learning

Leadership, Confidence, Success, Value

Learning Rebels

Fighting the Good Fight for More Engaging and Innovative Learning in the Workplace

Gen Y Girl

Twentysomething. Annoyed with corporate BS. Obsessed with Gen Y. Not bratty. Just opinionated.

VET Sector News from Velg Training

Australia's leading provider of Vocational Education and Training (VET) professional development and consulting services

Learning to Fly

Musings from an HR practitioner working things out as she goes along.

NIIT Managed Training Services

Helping Clients Run Training like a Business

Effective Intercultural Business

Learning from each other, leveraging the differences, doing better business.

It's time to tell a story...

Alex Holderness for IQPC

Total Learning

Ideas on training and development for businesses

kotch2010

Just another WordPress.com site

E-Learning 24/7 Blog

The Truth and Realities of E-Learning

Thoughts on management

Management now and tomorrow

Saul Carliner

Linking to My Many Sites

E-Learning Provocateur

A blog by Ryan Tracey

Legal Resources for RTOs

VET Regulation under ASQA

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 214 other followers

%d bloggers like this: