Use It or Lose It? Predicting Learning Transfer of Relationship and Marriage Education Among Child Welfare Professionals

• Date: 01 February 2019
• Author: Ted G. Futris,David G. Schramm,Jeremy B. Kanter,Adam Galovan
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12351
• Published date: 01 February 2019

D G. S Utah State University

A G University of Alberta

T G. F University of Georgia

J B. K University of Missouri–Columbia

Use It or Lose It? Predicting Learning Transfer of

Relationship and Marriage Education Among Child

Welfare Professionals

Objective: Following a training in relation-

ship and marriage education (RME), examine

whether applying information at 2 months is

associated with application at 6 months and how

participants’ condence, utility,and self-efcacy

is associated with learning transfer and appli-

cation at 2 months posttraining.

Background: Child welfare professionals are

requiredto receive numerous trainings each year

with the expectation of understanding, retaining,

and transferring this learning into practice.

Method: With a sample of 324 child welfare

professionals across 5 states who completed

a 1-day training in RME, we used structural

equation modeling with participant self-efcacy,

utility, and condence as predictors of applica-

tion of RME concepts at 2 months posttraining.

We also assessed how application of RME con-

cepts at 2 months predicted self-efcacy, con-

dence, and application at 6 months.

Department of Human Development and Family Studies,

2705 Old Main Hill, Utah State University,Logan, UT 84341

(david.schramm@usu.edu).

Key Words: Child welfare, family life education, learn-

ing transfer, marriage education, relationship education,

training.

Results: Only the combined effect of both higher

self-efcacy and higher utility was related

to applying concepts at 2 months. Those who

apply the concepts at 2 months are more likely

both to report higher condence at 6 months

and to apply the concepts at 6 months.

Conclusions: Evaluations of trainings should

move beyond measurement of immediate learn-

ing outcomes to better understanding how

to motivate immediate learning transfer.

Implications: If participants do not feel like

they have actually learned new skills and,

more importantly, do not implement the skills

with individuals or clients soon after a training,

they will be much less likely to use them in the

future. A combination of learning concrete

principles and skills with condence they can

implement the materials may result in future

implementation.

Child-welfare professionals (CWPs) are trained

to work with families to promote the safety,

stability, and overall well-being of children

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-

vices, 2000). In the past few decades, extensive

resources have been developed and deliv-

ered to aid CWPs in ensuring a well-rounded

Family Relations 68 (February 2019): 5–21 5

DOI:10.1111/fare.12351

6Family Relations

approach in their interactions with suscepti-

ble individuals and families (Child Welfare

Information Gateway, 2012). For instance,

numerous research-based trainings have been

implemented to educate CWPs on a variety of

topics relevant to the clients they serve (Collins,

Amodeo, & Clay, 2007; Futris, Schramm,

Richardson, & Lee 2015), both with an empha-

sis on intervening during a crisis and, more

recently, preventive efforts to equip clients

with the best tools to avert a crisis (Mitchell

et al., 2012). Moving beyond assessing simple

affective measures related to how well partic-

ipants liked the trainer and the training (see

Schramm, Galovan, & Goddard, 2017), and as

trainings have increased in frequency, evalua-

tions have been conducted to understand what

factors contribute to the facilitation or imped-

iment of training materials and skills being

applied within the given population CWPs serve

(Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, & Shot-

land, 1997; Antle, Barbee, & van Zyl, 2008).

This application from training to client-delivery

has been referred to as learning transfer (Antle

et al., 2008).

However, understanding this learning trans-

fer is not a simple task (Leake, Holt, Potter, &

Ortega, 2010); it is a complex process with many

constructs simultaneously inuencing applica-

tion (Antle et al., 2008). As such, numerous

casework evaluationmodels have been presented

and adopted by states to ensure training ini-

tiatives are reaching the children and families

CWPs serve. A commonly used model is Kirk-

patrick’s (1959) taxonomy, which presents four

levels in evaluating training: reactions, learning,

transfer/behavior, and results. However, many

have argued that learning transfer is not as linear

as Kirkpatrick postulated. Indeed, Alliger et al.

(1997) conducted a meta-analysis of the training

literature and found that increases in knowledge

alone did not predict transfer. As such, Alliger

et al. built on Kirkpatrick’s work by making an

addition and a clarication. First, they differ-

entiated between affective reactions (i.e., how

much the trainees liked the training) and utility

reactions (i.e., how relevant the training was to

the clients CWPs serve). Second, Kirkpatrick’s

notion of learning was conceptualized and spec-

ied as immediate recall and long-term retention

of knowledge. In their meta-analysis, they found

that utility reaction was more strongly associ-

ated with transfer than was affective reaction or

immediate learning. Although some have since

found gains in knowledge to be more predictive

of a learning transfer (Antle et al., 2008), oth-

ers have found support for Alliger and col-

leagues’ ndings in that utility reaction more

strongly predicted learning transfer in training

for CWPs (Futris, Schramm, Lee, Thurston, &

Barton, 2014). These mixed results may not be

surprising in light of Futris et al.’s nding that

approximately one third of the CWPs in their

study were not applying principles or skills from

the training to the populations they served at a

6-month follow-up, which suggests that other

variables inuence transfer of learning, particu-

larly transfer well after the initial training. For

example, previous research provides evidence

that condence and self-efcacy may contribute

to learning transfer (Burke & Hutchins, 2007;

Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008). Thus, to ensure

stability and well-being of children and fami-

lies CWPs serve, further exploration is needed

to distinguish the variables and processes that

differentiate those who use training materials

and ideas following training from those who

do not.

The purpose of the present study is to address

this gap in the literature. Focusing beyond

immediate learning outcomes, we build on

previous research conducted on a relationship

and marriage education training for CWPs by

exploring whether CWPs’ usage 2 months post-

training can be predicted by their condence

and self-efcacy with training materials, and if,

in turn, this is associated with their likelihood

of applying materials at a 6-month follow up.

Using data from 324 CWPs and other helping

professionals, we utilized structural equation

modeling to illustrate how utility, self-efcacy,

and condence may be associated with the

transfer of learning.

T F

There are two models of learning and appli-

cation considered in the present study. First,

sociocognitive theory assumes that a large share

of knowledge is gained by observing others’

behaviors, interactions, and experiences. Ban-

dura (1997) expanded social learning theory

from observing, modeling, and imitating to also

include attention, motivation, condence, and

self-efcacy, and renamed it social cognitive

theory. Prior to understanding how condence

and self-efcacy inuence learning transfer, it

is imperative to distinguish between these two