Reflective Analysis of a Delivered Training Session MMP-5-LTD

Assignment Brief

Module Title: Learning & Talent Development

Module Code: MMP-5-LTD

Assignment No/Title: Coursework 2 Assessment

Weighting: 50%

Submission Date: Monday 18th May 2023, by 16.00 hours GMT.

Feedback Target Date: Monday 8th June 2023

Module Co-ordinator/

Tutor: Fiona Wheeler/Graeme Connelly Word count

1,500

Submission Instructions:

This assignment is to be submitted electronically

This assignment must be submitted electronically by 5.00 pm on the submission date.

To submit electronically you must upload your work to the e-submission area within the respective module on Moodle.

Multiple drafts can be submitted up to the submission date.

Please remember you must leave at least 24 hours between submissions if you make changes to your work. Each submission will overwrite the previous one until the due date and time has passed.

You are reminded of the Universitys regulations on cheating and plagiarism. In submitting your assignment, you are acknowledging that you have read and understood these regulations.

You are reminded that it is your responsibility to keep an electronic copy of your assignment for future reference.

Your citation needs to follow the Harvard style referencing.

The Assignment Task(s)

This Assignment was developed to assess the following Learning Outcomes:

Apply key learning theories and identify the impact on the design and delivery of learning and development interventions in organisations.

Discuss the role that learning and development professionals play in an organisation.

Research, design and deliver a section of a learning intervention.

Deliver and receive appropriate and sensitive feedback to individuals and groups.

The brief for this assessment is as follows:

Coursework 1 A 1,500-word reflective writeup of an individual studentled learning or training session (50% of the total weighting). These sessions will take place during Week 12 on 4th May 2023 with final submission deadline due Monday 18th May 2023, by 16.00 hours GMT.

Your learning or training session: For this you will be required to deliver a ten minute session to your fellow students and then gain feedback from the trainees and tutor, who will observe the session but will not be marking it. To repeat although there are no marks for delivering this session, you will obviously not be able to gain marks in the subsequent written submitted assignment without delivering the learning or training session. The tutor will give you a copy of the feedback but you should take notes of the feedback from your trainees; ideally you would also make immediate notes of how you felt your session went as well.

In order to choose the subject and level of the ten-minute learning or training session, you need to go back to your first assignment and decide which of the suggested sessions in your training plan there you wish to take up. You will then need to choose a segment of that one session suitable for delivery in no more than ten minutes.

You should then write the aim and learning outcomes for the ten-minute session and then design the session, breaking it down using the following template as a guide to the specifics of your session:

You should consider and discuss the group of learners (what level) that this has been designed for, their specific learning needs and the options for delivery. You then need to design the materials that best deliver each of the sections in your plan, considering the practicalities of your delivering it on campus and your own strengths and skills as a presenter.

Once you have delivered your training session you will need to produce a piece of personal reflection using a recognised model such as Gibbs or Kolb, where you can consider the learning that you have gained from the event.

Your reflection will need to include:

How you planned your event and the theory that you took into consideration when designing your learning activities.

What happened in practice on the day and what you have learnt from this experience (reflection on feedback gained)

An action plan to include at least 2 recommendations for improvement following the CMI template given.

There is a word count maximum of 1,500 words (with a 10% leeway) and you need to include the following documents in your appendices (not included in the wordcount):

Your completed session plan of your ten-minute session, including the session aim and learning outcomes.

The materials you used on the day.

The feedback from your tutor.

Assessment Criteria:

The submitted work should clearly show how you planned and designed your session using relevant learning theory and how you carried out the practical session along with detailed reflection. The final submission will be assessed using the criteria below. Please include a word-count on the front cover.

Evidence of linking learning and development theory to practice 30%

Final reflection including recommendations 45%

Structure, writing, referencing and presentation 25%

The grading criteria for this assignment is as follows:

70% and over An excellent effort with clear links to theory with evidence of extensive further reading apparent. There is a thorough understanding of the subject which is demonstrated by originality of thought when planning the session. In depth reflection on own performance and shows ability to consider areas for development. Work is well presented and has clear evidence of referencing throughout. All additional paperwork is correctly attached and labelled correctly.

60 - 69% Very good effort and has used further reading to support reasons for design and delivery of the session. Clear reference to training theory and some sound ability to reflect on own performance. Work is laid out in an easy-to-follow manner and there is clear use of Harvard referencing throughout. Additional paperwork correctly attached and labelled.

50 - 59% A good effort with an adequate attempt to link reasons for design and delivery to current practice. Limited use of theory to support justification and it is not always clear why methods have been chosen. Layout is acceptable although would benefit from more structure and there may be some grammatical and spelling errors. Additionally, referencing may not be complete or have some omissions in places. Additional paperwork not all labelled correctly.

40 49% A weaker effort and struggles to link basic concepts to reasons for design and delivery. There is a limited use of research and ability to reflect on own performance is inadequate and vague. The work is not clearly structured and difficult to follow in places. Omissions in terms of spelling and grammar with limited use of referencing throughout. Additional paperwork not all labelled correctly and may be missing.

39% and less Very limited understanding of the main subject and unable to show links between theory and practice. Limited research carried out and general understanding is poor. Ability to determine key arguments has not been displayed and serious omissions around spelling and grammar. Referencing very poor or not attempted. Irrelevant information included.

29% or below Insufficient word count and/or lacks any clear attempt to link understanding of core subject to the assessment criteria. No evidence or lack of relevant subject knowledge and no attempt to answer question in appropriate academic manner.

Assignment Brief

Module Title: Learning & Talent Development

Module Code: MMP-5-LTD

Assignment No/Title: Coursework 1 Assessment

Weighting: 50%

Submission Date: Friday 27th March 2022, 16.00 hours GMT.

Feedback Target Date: Wednesday 19th April 2023

Module Co-ordinator/

Tutor: Fiona Wheeler/Graeme Connelly Word count

2,000

Submission Instructions:

This assignment is to be submitted electronically

This assignment must be submitted electronically by 4.00 pm on the submission date.

To submit electronically you must upload your work to the e-submission area within the respective module on Moodle.

Multiple drafts can be submitted up to the submission date.

Please remember you must leave at least 24 hours between submissions if you make changes to your work. Each submission will overwrite the previous one until the due date and time has passed.

You are reminded of the Universitys regulations on cheating and plagiarism. In submitting your assignment, you are acknowledging that you have read and understood these regulations.

You are reminded that it is your responsibility to keep an electronic copy of your assignment for future reference.

Your citation needs to follow the Harvard style referencing.

The Assignment Task(s)

This Assignment was developed to assess the following Learning Outcomes:

Apply key learning theories and identify the impact on the design and delivery of learning and development interventions in organisations.

Evaluate the role that learning and talent development plays in an organisational context from a strategic perspective.

Discuss the role that learning and development professionals play in an organisation.

The brief for this assessment is as follows:

The assignment consists of identifying training needs and producing a training plan with clear recommendations for the business. In answering the question it is important that a wide variety of sources are used to support the analysis and it is expected that current surveys and academic sources are referenced accordingly. The main aim of this essay is for students to consider not only the theory behind learning and development but to show how this is used in a practical manner in the workplace in the UK. The word count for the essay is 2,000 words and there is a 10% leeway either side without penalty.

Coursework 1 Essay (50% of the total weighting) Submission deadline Monday 27th March 2023, 16.00 hours GMT.

The assignment will be based on considering and analysing the case study Tele-com Ltd: The need for a common and more systematic approach to training and development in a SME.

BACKGROUND

Tele-com Ltd is a small company dealing in the supply of two way radio equipment, airtime and maintenance to such industries as construction, haulage, security, local government, banks and vehicle control. It was started nearly 30 years ago and has been run by its chairman and founder for most of that period. The chairman is still active in the firm, however, the three other directors are understood to carry out strategic planning of the company: the Managing, Technical and Finance Directors. The Managing Director and Finance Director joined the company roughly 18 months ago and had previously worked together for many years on the manufacturing side of the same industry.

The company has thirty-five employees but until recently no dedicated sales staff (up to 80% of its business is either repeat business or referrals) and the Managing and Technical Directors and the technical support staff carry out this function. The company has seven repair technicians, either with qualifications and experience to City & Guilds level 2 and fourteen mobile installation technicians who have attended evening classes during a three-month course in installation and radio theory. This was organised about 4 years ago with a local FE college and specifically tailored and run for the company. (All technicians have been with the company between 4 and 11 years).

The Finance Director is backed by three accounts assistants, one of whom has been with the company for over six years, the others for less. The longest serving assistant attempted AAT (Association of Accounting Technicians) three years ago, financially assisted by the company, on a part-time evening basis but eventually dropped out, as she did not feel that much of the training was relevant to her job.

The company promotes itself on the quality of its technical knowledge and back up and was recently registered for its Quality Management against the kite mark and, while the technical and administrative aspects of working at the company are therefore documented and adhered to, the focus of the company is on knowing the customers and on flexibility within the workforce. Given the size of the organisation, there is little likelihood of promotion and the flexibility demanded of the workforce is supposed to motivate and enrich employees workload and contribution.

Quality Management demands that a training plan is drawn up and, in part as a result, a performance appraisal system has recently been installed and carried out. The main focus of the first year has been the identification of training needs.

INTERVIEW WITH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

The Managing Director states that training is allocated by need, rather than by budget, although a certain amount is set aside for training, if necessary. Training must be for the sake of the business, not for all those people in training who are busy creating jobs for themselves.

The expansion at this stage is in the recruitment of dedicated salespeople, who need to be recruited from within the industry, as the technical basis of communication product is an issue. The Managing Director nevertheless states: Anyway, its dangerous for salespeople to have too much technical knowledge. What might stand them in good stead at recruitment is a degree, not necessarily in business. They would also have to be self-motivated, in which case he might not insist on a degree: actually, sometimes it could go against them.

Accounting, marketing and administrative staff do not need industry specific knowledge, except what can be taught in-house. Nevertheless, they do need training, particularly in customer service/interpersonal skills, which may be taught in-house of externally (for example telephone skills for our credit control).

As to there being a match of knowledge and skills development between what is needed in the industry and what is provided, the answer is emphatically no. This particularly affects the training of technicians, who should have access to a nationally recognised qualification (at level 1 or 2) in radio repair, which should have courses supporting it. People (e.g. amateur radio enthusiasts, from whom many technicians in the industry are drawn) could just take the exam if they were proficient enough and, provided they had passed, would be likely to be recruited. This is no different from the Managing Directors expectations of employing an accountant, who applies already having qualified.

He believes that this must be an external course, rather than Apprenticeships, which involve too much administration in a small company, much of which is spent proving externally what you know they are capable of. It is through supervision that you know whether someone is able to do the job properly, and this would be a part of taking on someone who was not qualified a sort of probationer who would be coached at work and complete such a course at nights and weekends. Admittedly, the supervisory aspect might not be much: they have work to do too.

Installers, who have often been motor mechanics, need only a limited knowledge of radio principles, he says, but again an external, college-taught course and examination over say three months needs to be set up. This would cover the principles of radio, installation practice according to government guidelines and customer care.

INTERVIEW WITH THE TECHNICAL SERVICES MANAGER

When training is mentioned, the Technical Services Manager (TSM) becomes quite animated: Training: were always talking about it and never doing anything about it. He has been sent on a one-day training course during the five years he has been with the company, which was concerned with field customer service. Useless: its what all the field technicians should go on but, honestly, I keep being told that I have to manage them better and that yes, Ill get training. That was last year and still nothing. I suspect that paying out 2000 for a course for me is too much but then, paying out anything for a course is too much here.

He is especially concerned that, as a result of rapid technical innovation within the industry, the company is willing to market new product with no lead time and that there is never any plan to train the technicians before new equipment is sold. This leads to problems in delivering on time as technicians have to learn new programming and testing routines on the go.

The whole is supposed to fit into an appraisal system, which, frankly, does not work: there is a regular, yearly pep talk for those who carry out the appraisals and they follow what is suggested every time. As it is focused on development, with training needs as a separate section in the appraisal, these are agreed. Nothing then seems to happen after that, which makes the TSM look either incompetent or sly.

People are paid reasonably well for their work and perhaps that is why they have stayed so long with the company. However, they always have to be pushed rather than taking initiative themselves and, in many cases, are seeing what they can get away with. They turn up late to work or to customers; they can be surly with some customers and aggressive to their colleagues; they will sometimes bodge a job in order to get home quickly.

COMMERCIAL PROBLEMS

The company continues to rely on repeat business from existing customers and on referrals from customers. However, some customers are beginning to leave the company for other suppliers, based on commercial decisions such as price, quality of work and a reported lack of trust in individuals within the company. For example, a recent attempt to recruit salespeople gained one employee who stayed with the company for a month, introduced himself to the companys clients and left trying to take them with him to his next employer. Another, who was previously employed by the company and reengaged as a salesman, stayed for another year and was then dismissed on capability grounds: he was not actually generating sales. Many long-standing customers complain that they do not know who they should talk to and when they do speak to someone, that salesperson does not know their company or tries to sell them something they do not want. A third salesperson has been with the company for two months and is based at home in a different region of the country. He has not yet produced a sale.

The market is changing. Cellular and other communications systems are challenging the market base traditionally associated with two-way radio. This in turn means that those direct competitors in two-way radio are adopting a more aggressively competitive stance within their own field of operation. As a result, Tele-com Ltd is projecting a lower turnover than last year, despite increasing its sales potential through recruiting dedicated sales staff. Redundancies are being considered in the near future.

Your Task

You should consider the range of aspects presented in the case study (and the different attitudes to training from key personnel in the company) to carry out a training/learning needs analysis and present your arguments for this using material discussed in class and given in your recommended reading. From this you should then develop and present a training plan in the format given, providing a rationale for the choices made and how the success of the training would be evaluated, again from the materials discussed in class and given in your recommended reading.

Assessment Criteria:

The submitted work should show a balance between theory and current best practice in the UK and will be marked against the criteria below. Please include a word-count on the front cover.

The grading criteria for this assignment is as follows:

Understanding and use of the literature 25%

Linking theory to practice 30%

Evidence of analysis and critical evaluation 25%

Structure, writing, referencing and presentation 20%

70% and over An excellent use of further research and reading beyond the materials given in class. Evidence of clear links to current practice and use of relevant sources to illustrate examples. There will be excellent use of critical analysis of theory and practice to demonstrate understanding of application of knowledge. Thorough use of theory and research to support the justification of training plan and clear links to actual practice in the subject area. Clear, logical arguments given, and layout will flow naturally with no grammatical or spelling errors. Correct use of Harvard referencing throughout.

60 - 69% Very good use of research and supporting materials with a clear understanding of the main issues and theories around the subject. Good application of knowledge and most of the relevant issues covered in the analysis. A very good amount of relevant academic sources used with some extended knowledge of current issues. A very good attempt at recommending key justifications for the case study and effort has been displayed in linking the main theories that are relevant. Clear structure used and few grammatical or spelling errors evident. Clear use of Harvard referencing throughout.

50 - 59% Some evidence of extended reading although not all linked to the case study appropriately. Fair understanding of the topic subject and effort has been made to link general points to what takes place in practice. Somewhat limited attempt to analyse the main subject and links to theory may need further development. Layout is acceptable although would benefit from more structure and there may be some grammatical and spelling errors. Additionally, referencing may not be complete or have some omissions in places.

40 49% Limited use of core materials and little evidence of extra research and reading having taken place. Some understanding of the key subject area however this may require more development and the links between theory and practice have not been investigated. Limited application to practical examples and limited understanding of the subject knowledge in any great detail. The work is not clearly structured and difficult to follow in places. Omissions in terms of spelling and grammar with limited use of referencing throughout.

39% and less Very limited understanding of the main subject and unable to show links between theory and practice. Limited research carried out and general understanding is poor. Ability to determine key arguments has not been displayed and serious omissions around spelling and grammar. Referencing very poor or not attempted. Irrelevant information included.

29% or below Insufficient word count and/or lacks any clear attempt to link understanding of core subject to the assessment criteria. No evidence or lack of relevant subject knowledge and no attempt to answer question in appropriate academic manner.