美国论文代写：学校培训计划
美国论文代写：学校培训计划
培训动机在培训结束后认为“培训是培训”和“工作是工作”的培训动机并没有明确地转移到培训人员身上，这表明培训计划效果不佳（Rouse，2004，pp 323-338）。在学校的沟通渠道将被考虑。卡洛斯在训练中包括向上沟通，但是学员们抱怨上级只懂得下行沟通，如果上级没有将他们作为日常工作的内在组成部分，他们会考虑向上沟通（Henderson，2002）。卡洛斯至少也会为上级设计一天的会议，以便向他们传授向上和侧面交流的概念，或者说开放的交流。训练结束后，卡洛斯没有收到任何关于训练计划的任何反馈意见或评估两个月，这是他的错误，他将不断审查训练计划和转移（克拉克，2002年，第146页-162）。
美国论文代写：学校培训计划
卡洛斯在得到负责人关于训练计划的负面反馈之后，只和少数参与者进行了交谈，只是他会召集所有与会者的正式会议，并收到他们的反馈意见，以便他能够采取有效措施消除影响因素培训的转移。卡洛斯“也会打电话给家长参加培训，以便他们的问题也能够相应地被听到和纠正（Gegenfurtner，2009）。 2个月后，进行了关于培训计划的审查会议，这是错误的，学校董事会对培训计划的审查是每天进行的，应该是计划的一部分。
美国论文代写：学校培训计划
The motive of training was not clearly transferred to trainees as they thought ‘training was training’ and ‘work is work’ after the training was complete which showed the ineffectiveness of the training program (Rouse, 2004, pp 323-338). The channels of communication in school would have been considered. Carlos’ in his training included upward communication but the trainees complain that the superiors only understand downward communication, then what was the use of considering upward communication if it is not adopted by superiors as an inherent part in their daily jobs (Henderson,2002). Carlos’ would have designed at least one day session for superiors also so that the concept of upward and sideward communication or say open communication can be taught to them. After the training was over Carlos’ did not took any feedback or review about the training program for 2 months which was a mistake on his part, he would have taken a continuous review of the training program and its transfer (Clarke, 2002, pp 146-162).
美国论文代写：学校培训计划
Carlos’ after getting a negative feedback about the training program from the superintendent talked to few participants only he would have called a formal meeting for all the participants and took feedback from them so that he could have taken effective measures to remove the factors which are affecting the transfer of training. Carlos’ would have called the parents also to attend the training program so that their problems could also have been heard and rectified accordingly (Gegenfurtner, 2009). A review meeting about the training program was conducted 2 months later which is wrong the review of the training program by the school board would have been taken on daily basis and they should have been the part of the program.
