A STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SELF-PERCEIVED NEEDS FOR CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AMONG SELECTED TRAINING SPECIALISTS.

Abstract

Sorry, the full text of this article is not available in Huskie Commons. Please click on the alternative location to access it.

161 p.

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the self-perceived needs for continuing professional development among selected training specialists. The study determined an overall level of need, as well as rank order of needs, using the 14 items of a Professional Development Needs Assessment (PDNA). A Professional Development Inventory (PDI) consisting of eight demographic items was also administered and analyzed. The two-page questionnaire was mailed to 224 randomly selected trainers who were members of the American Society for Training and Development and the Illinois Training and Development Association in the greater Chicago area. The study reached a 66% response rate.The data revealed an overall mean score of 2.367, a moderate level on a range of 0 (no need) to 5 (high need) with a median of 2.5. Further analysis of the PDNA items using a Friedman two-way analysis of variance showed highly significant (p < .0001) differences among the importance of items (null hypothesis one). Mean ranks were converted to rank order for each of the 14 PDNA items, and are reported here from highest to lowest level of need for continuing professional development as perceived by training specialists: (1) professional self-development; (2) training research; (3) group and organizational development; (4) manage training and development function; (5) needs analysis and diagnosis; (6) job-related training; (7) individual development and planning and counseling; (8) program design and development; (9) manage relationships with managers; (10) determining training procedures; (11) manage internal resources; (12) developing material resources; (13) manage external resources; (14) conduct classroom training.Analysis of the PDI, using the Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit test, revealed there were highly significant (p < .0001) differences between the predicted and observed responses to demographic items (null hypothesis two). Further analysis of the PDI revealed a demographic "profile" of the typical trainer.When items from the PDNA were analyzed in relation to items from the PDI (null hypotheses three and four), there were no significant relationships beyond chance using Kendall's tau correlation coefficient for six items, and the Kruskall-Wallis one-way analysis of variance for two items. Results indicated that levels of need for continuing professional development were not significantly related to demographic items, and consequently using demographic descriptors to predict need among trainers would seem to have little usefulness.A factor analysis indicated three factors which emerged from the 14 items of the PDNA after rotation to terminal factors. The first factor fit very well with the construct of "learning specialist" competencies. The second factor fit very well with the construct of "administrator" competencies. The third factor somewhat fit the construct of "consultant" competencies, but the fit was less conclusive. These competencies as reflected in the three factors substantiate an earlier trainer model proposed by Nadler (1962).By determining the overall mean for each factor it was found that the need for continuing professional development was highest in the consultant items, next highest in administrator items, and lowest in learning specialist items. For those who would train the trainer, this ordering may suggest placement of emphasis in program development.Recommendations from the study include the development of programs of professional development carefully targeted to the training specialist. This program development should be of concern to the university, the professional organization, and the consultant. Such programs might appropriately be designed around the three apparent roles of the trainer: learning specialist, administrator, and consultant.