1 / 5

Evaluation Practices of Training Providers in Malaysia: An Insight Since 1992

Since the HRD Act's implementation in 1992, companies in Malaysia have been mandated to allocate 1% of their monthly payroll to the Human Resource Development Fund for employee training by registered training providers. Despite 300 providers registered by 1999, evaluation practices remain largely informal and ad hoc. Common evaluation methods include trainee feedback, interviews, and performance analysis. Although there is some level of commitment to evaluation, the approach lacks systematization. This study addresses key questions regarding the seriousness of providers towards evaluation and the rationality behind their methods.

jaafar
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation Practices of Training Providers in Malaysia: An Insight Since 1992

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation Practices • Training providers flourish starting 1992 with the passing of HRD Act • The Act requires companies to contribute 1% of monthly payroll to HRDF to be used for employees training by registered training providers • In 1999 there were 300 registered training providers with Ministry of Human Resource

  2. Evaluation practices found to be unsystematic, informal and ad hoc • It included all form of evaluation approaches (methods of data collection) • The most commonly used approaches were: Trainee feedback, Interview, Performance analysis, Reaction form, Survey, Document Review, Supervisor, Competency test, and Site visit

  3. Majority of the training providers: Evaluated their training immediately after the training programs completed • The findings show some form of formal, but not systematic, and comprehensive evaluation • Clients (companies) to some extent did require formal evaluation • The training providers’ commitment towards evaluation was moderate

  4. Conclusions • Did the providers serious about evaluation? • Did they understand the importance of evaluation? • What was the important consideration to embark on evaluation • Did the evaluation approaches appropriate?

  5. What were the reasons for the immediate increase in the numbers of training providers? • Who are the training providers in Malaysia? • Why companies employed outside training providers?

More Related