在职培训毕业论文中英文资料对照外文翻译文献综述

1、中英文资料对照外文翻译文献综述 附件附件 1 1：外文资料翻译译文：外文资料翻译译文 在职培训在职培训 在职培训一般是在正常工作条件下对工作技能的培训。通过在职培训，工人可 以掌握一般技能，是可以从一个工作转移到另一个工作的技能。关于在职训练，通 常包括口头和书面指示，示范和观察，动手实践和模仿。此外，对在职员工的培训 过程涉及一个通常是主管或有经验的员工传递知识和技能到一个新手。 在职培训是最古老的培训形式之一。此前，异地培训教室的出现，唯一的任务 是一起学习某一行业或专业，是学徒的做法，在中世纪时，有经验的工匠和新手一 起工作教授新员工实用的方法和知识。 在职培训是一种职业培训，在美国它是

2、一种对非管理雇员培训的主要形式。许 多研究表明，它是最有效的职业培训形式。在职培训大部分是由私营部门提供，但 最广泛的研究培训计划由联邦立法的赞助。 在职培训程序从公司监事正规培训到观察学习。从这个意义上说，在职培训最 正式的类型是课堂培训，他们主要在企业内部不同的部门进行。在国际竞争更广泛 的电脑生产过程中使用，更正式更复杂的在职培训的落实已成为在美国公司的关键 问题。 在职培训的类型在职培训的类型 两个不同类型的关于在职培训的频繁杰出的专业文献：结构（计划）和非结构 化（计划外）。非结构是最常见的一种，泛指在职培训主要涉及一个新手与经验丰 富的员工的工作，新手在导师的观察下模仿训练的过程。

3、新工人主要通过试验和学 习的方法向经验丰富的工人或者监事学习。非结构化培训的工作（如产品制造）的 要求很低，并不像传授工作技能（如生产产品所需的特定技能）的新工人培训。因 此，非结构化的在职培训往往不能完全按需要的技能传授或持续，因为有经验的员 工，有时无法清楚表达执行工作的正确方法，他们每次训练新工人时会使用不同的 训练方法。 与此相反，结构化的在职培训，涉及教新工人，他们必须知道怎样做，才能成 功地完成其任务的程序。在职培训是一种重要的投资考虑到大约 30%的新工人的时 间花在在职训练的时间 90 天,即在培训期间导师的生产力可能会减少，根据J. Rothwell 和 Kazanas 在改

4、善在职培训里新工人可能犯不必要的错误。因此，结构化 培训理应实施公司设计的系统的培训方案。 在造船业第一个实施在职培训计划之一的是查尔斯“船长”阿伦河，在第一次世界 大战期间他根据心理学家赫尔巴特的思想程序。艾伦力求使学员通过四个步骤实施 更有效地培训： 1.制备方法：向工人展示他们的要求。 2.演示：告诉工人他们需要做什么，以及为什么要求他们这么做。 3.应用：让工人执行所需的任务。 4.检查：提供反馈信息，告诉他们怎么做是正确的怎么做事错误的。 第二次世界大战期间在职培训有了新的进展，艾伦的计划已扩大到包括七个步 骤： 1.演示了如何完成任务。 2.审查要点。 3.再次演示任务。 4.让员

5、工执行任务的简单的部分。 5.帮助工人完成整个任务。 6.让工人完成整个任务，而被监视。 7.让工人自己来执行任务。 此在职培训的七步骤被称为“就业指导培训”，研究表明，该方法导致二战期 间提高生产力。 现在的在职培训强调了不仅具有必要工作的技能也需要学习的技能，经验丰富 的工人教练新手工人的培训，通过选择这样的培训，企业可以实现在训练内容，方 法和结果的一致性。此外，结构化的在职培训是作为一个过程，从一个培训方案来 看其中包括培训投入（员工新手，经验丰富的员工，需要学习任务），培训输出（新 手员工的工作业绩和发展）。 这个过程开始于合格教员和学员的选择：培训者必须知道培训的任务，并知道 如何

6、沟通如何执行任务。此外，必须明白培养目标。基于这些信息，企业可以建立 一个培训方案。其次，实施培训计划：有经验的工人准备训练新手，并采取措施， 以确保学员理解学习任务，然后学员实际学习来执行这些任务。该培训计划的实施 也应遵循具体的时间表，因此它应帮助新员工更快地学习所需的技能和非结构化的 程序。最后，培训输出的结果是培训投入和培训方案。如果一切顺利的话，培训产 出应包括学员能够完成规定的培训目标分配的任务。培训方案已经完成，新员工开 始对自己的工作，训练过程的投入，培训方案，并输出，必须进行评估，以方便他 们的导师让他们作出必要的修改。 国际影响国际影响 日本的生产和管理技术曾在 20 世纪

7、 80 年代和 90 年代在美国的职场影响较大。 这方面的一个因素是统计控制技术和质量圈，这需要更先进的生产工人的在职培 训。如维克多产品部的企业达纳公司，第一芝加哥公司，雀巢食品公司，和摩托罗 拉公司提供的基本训练，在计算机和统计过程控制需要熟练工人。此外，这些企业 提供的在职基本技能，包括阅读和数学的培训。越来越多的公司来提供这种培训的 基本技能，为了应付生产技术，为此，这些技能是必要的戏剧性的变化。 与此同时，管理培训也改变了方向。美国公司更加重视与股东，客户和供应商 的互动。这就需要加强对他们公司的产品和生产过程的细节管理知识，通过在职培 训获得这方面的知识。 在职培训程序可以区分的集

8、中发生在一个层级。大多数美国的在职培训是分散 的， 在工作本身或附近发生的。 培训部门一般集中在大型企业发挥更加重要的作用， 但在这些估计，超过对在职培训的一半是在一个分散的情况下甚至一级进行。权力 下放的程度还取决于一般性的知识，公司对员工的欲望，这是由雇员之间的管理， 技术，营销或生产行业的决定。日本，影响了质量控制的重点是 70 年代以后它对 在职培训更大的重视。这是由于实施了质量圈，其中生产工人承担了质量控制更大 的作用。以前在美国，在很大程度上是质量控制管理的领域。 在日本的影响尽管如此，美国企业的在职培训比日本企业更普遍。工商管理硕 士（MBA）的学位，是在美国提供管理者的一个重要

9、凭据，而只有一个日本的大学 提供的 MBA 学位类似于日本的管理者往往开始做生产工作，并通过自己的事业正在 接受培训， 通过在广泛的范围内轮换一个企业的行动， 直到他们成为高层管理人员。 德国的职业培训体系，也是美国的就业培训政策辩论影响力的模型，德国的制 度在很大程度上依赖于在职培训，更正规的方式，但比在美国或日本。大约百分之 80 的德国职业教育课程已经完成，在职培训是他们的 400 职业之一。该系统同时支 持约 150 万学徒，估计每个学徒每年花费 8,400（美元）。虽然职业教育是由联邦 政府机构监督，培训主要发生在企业内部。这些公司对学员日常监督和对认证考试 管理负责任。 不同于日本

10、制，德国学员一般都不能在企业中接受培训。这种差异在于日本的 终身雇用制度，其中企业受益于入门的在职培训水平的直接反映。德国和日本都比 美国的员工周转率低，但是在这个意义上说，美国公司不能确保员工的在职培训因 为培训的投资回报率较高。 联合培训计划联合培训计划 在 80 年代和 90 年代，出现了一个联合工会管理培训方案，美国的这些方案在 汽车，通讯，钢铁领域最广泛和建筑行业以及公共部门的快速扩张。联合方案提供 对一般工人的教育以及包括实习训练，认证和许可的在职培训。联合训练方案的增 长是一个更加重视企业培训后的反映的表现。这是基于对技术变革的日新月异，往 往需要新的工作组织形式，如灵活的，即时

11、生产。在这些生产形式，工人一般都需 要比传统技术更多的任务。 联合培训计划也建立了工会与高等教育机构联合学徒培训的形式。在 1972 年 创业方案下设立了一个由美国劳工部资助的操作工程师国际联盟。这些程序通常在 提供大学学分的在职培训从事学徒，这些学徒在大学学习相关教育。课程主要采取 两年制，而且在大学劳工教育中心。对这些节目越来越多，而且强调对学徒的更多 新技术方面的教育。 附件附件 2 2：外文原文：外文原文 On-the-job TrainingOn-the-job Training 原文出处：Author：Rothwell, William J. and H.C. Kazanas. I

12、mprovingOn-the-Job Training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994. On-the-job trainingfocuses on the acquisitionof skills within the work environment generallyunder normal working conditions.Through on-the-job training, workers acquire both general skills that they can transfer from one job t

13、o another and specific skills that are unique to a particularjob.On-the-job training, typically includesverbal and writteninstruction, demonstration and observation,and hands-on practiceand imitation. In addition,the on-the-job training process involves one employeeusually a supervisor or an experie

14、nced employee passing knowledge and skills on to a novice employee. On-the-job trainingisthe oldestform of training. Prior to the advent of off-site training classrooms, the only practical way of learning a job was working along side an experienced worker in a particular trade or professionas evince

15、d by the practiceof apprenticeshipapprenticeshipduring the Middle Ages whenmaster craftsmen passed on skills and knowledge to novices whoworked along side them. On-the-job trainingis still the predominant form of job trainingin the United States,particularly for nonmanagerial employees. Numerousstud

16、ies indicatethatitisthe most effective form of job training. The largestshare of on-the-jobtrainingisprovided by the privatesector,though the most widely studied training programs are those sponsored by federal legislation. On-the-job training programs range from formal training with company supervi

17、sors to learning by watching. In this sense, the most formal types of on-the-job training are distinct from classroom training largely in that they take place within the firm. In the face of increased international competition and the more widespread use of computers in production processes, the imp

18、lementation of more formal and sophisticated kinds of on-the-job training has become a critical issue for firms in the United States. TYPES OF ON-THE-JOB TRAININGTYPES OF ON-THE-JOB TRAINING Two different types of on-the-job training are frequently distinguished in the professional literature: struc

19、tured (planned) and unstructured (unplanned). Unstructured is the most common kind and refers to loose on-the-job training programs that largely involve a novice employee working with an experienced employee, who serves as a guide or mentor in an observe-and-imitate training process. The new workers

20、 largely learn by trial and error with feedback and suggestions from experienced workers or supervisors. Unstructured training is designed based on work requirements (e.g. manufacturing products), not on imparting job skilled needed by new workers (e.g. the specific skills needed to manufacture prod

21、ucts). Consequently, unstructured on-the-job training often fails to impart needed skills fully or consistently, because experienced employees sometimes are unable to articulate clearly the proper methods for performing a job and they sometimes use different training methods each time train new work

22、ers. In contrast, structured on-the-job training involves a program designed to teach new workers what they must know and do in order to complete their tasks successfully. On-the-job training represents a significant investment considering that roughly 30 percent of a new workers time is spent in on

23、-the-job training during the first 90 days of employment, that productivity of experienced workers assigned to train new workers may decrease during the training period, and that new workers may make expensive mistakes, according to William J. Rothwell and H.C. Kazanas in Improving On-the-Job Traini

24、ng. Hence, it behooves companies to design and implement systematic training programs. One of the first structured on-the-job training programs was launched during World War I in the shipbuilding industry by Charles Skipper R. Allen, who based the program on the ideas of the psychologist Johann Frie

25、drich Herbart. Allen sought to make training more efficient by having trainees undergo four steps: 1.Preparation: show workers what they are required to do. 2. Presentation: tell workers what they are required to do and why they are required to do it. 3. Application: let workers perform the required

26、 tasks. 4. Inspection: provide feedback, informing workers of what they have done right and what they have done wrong. On-the-job training received renewed interest during World War 11 when Allens program was expanded to include seven steps: 1.Demonstrate how to complete a task. 2. Review important

27、points. 3. Demonstrate task again. 4. Let workers perform easier parts of the task. 5. Help workers perform the entire task. 6. Allow workers to perform the entire task, while being monitored. 7. Allow workers to perform the task on their own. The seven-step approach to on-the-job training became kn

28、own as job instruction training and studies indicated that this approach led to increased productivity during World War II. Contemporary approaches to on-the-job training emphasize the training of novice workers by experienced workers who possess not only the skills necessary for the tasks to be lea

29、rned but also the skills as a trainer. By selecting such trainers, companies can achieve consistency in training content, methods, and results. In addition, structured on-the-job training is viewed as a process that includes training inputs (novice employees, experienced employees, and tasks to be l

30、earned), a training program, and training outputs (job performance and novice employee development). The process begins with the selection of qualified trainers and trainees: trainers must know the tasks and know how to communicate how to perform them and the trainees must be able to learn the tasks

31、. In addition, the tasks to be learned and the training goals must be identified. Based on this information, companies can establish a training program. Next, the training program is implemented: the experienced worker prepares to train the novice worker and takes steps to ensure that the trainee un

32、derstands the tasks to be learned and that the trainee actually learns to perform these tasks. The implementation of the training program also should follow a specific timetable and hence it should help new employees learn needed skills more quickly and systematically than unstructured programs. Fin

33、ally, the training outputs result from the training inputs and the training program. If all goes well the training outputs should include the trainee being able to complete assigned tasks adequately in accordance with the training goals. After a training program is finished and new employees begin t

34、o work on their own, the training process inputs, the training program, and outputsmust be assessed to make sure that it successfully prepared workers for their tasks and any necessary modifications should be made. INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCESINTERNATIONAL INFLUENCES Japanese production and management t

35、echniques had a large influence in the American workplace in the 1980s and 1990s. One element of this was the increased use of statistical control techniques and qualityquality circles,circles, which required more sophisticated on-the-job training for production workers. Firms such as the Victor Pro

36、ducts Division of the Dana Corporation, the First Chicago Corporation, Nestle Foods Corp., and Motorola, Inc. provided basic training to lowskilled and unskilled workers in computers and statistical process controls. In addition, these firms provided on-the-job training in basic skills, including re

37、ading and math. An increasing number of firms came to provide such training in basic skills in response to dramatic changes in production techniques, for which such skills were essential. At the same time, management training also shifted directions. U.S. firms placed increased emphasis on interacti

38、on with stockholders, customers, and suppliers. This required greater management knowledge of the details of their firms products and production processes, knowledge gained through intensified on-the-job training. On-the-jobtrainingprogramscanbedistinguishedbythelevelof centralization at which they

39、occur. Most on-the-job training in the United States is decentralized, occurring at or near the job itself. Centralized training departments generally play a more important role in larger firms, but even in these cases it is estimated that more than half of on-the-job training takes place at a decen

40、tralized level. The extent of decentralization depends also on the generality of knowledge that the firm desires in an employee, and this depends on whether the employee is among the managerial, technical, marketing, or production occupations. The Japanese-influenced emphasis on quality control afte

41、r the 1970s brought with it a greater emphasis on decentralized on-the-job training. This resulted from the implementation of quality circles, in which production workers assume a much larger role in quality control. Previously in the United States, quality control had been largely the domain of man

42、agement. In spite of the Japanese influence, however, U.S. firms continue to rely less on on-the-job training and more on formal education for management training than do Japanese firms. Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degrees provide an important credential for managers in the U.S., wherea

43、s only one Japanese university offers a degree similar to an MBA Japanese managers often begin their careers by doing production work and are trained by being rotated through a broad range of a firms operations until they become top-level managers. The German system of job training is also an influe

44、ntial model in job-training policy debates in the United States The German system relies heavily on on-the-job training, but in a more formal manner than in the U.S. or Japan. About 80 percent of Germans have completed vocational education programs, which prepares them for one of 400 occupations. Th

45、e system supports approximately 1.5 million apprentices at a time, with an estimated $8,400 (U.S. dollars) spent per year for each apprentice. Though vocational education is overseen by a federal government agency, training takes place largely within firms. These firms take responsibility for the da

46、ily supervision of trainees and for the administration of certification exams. Unlike the Japanese system, traineesin Germany generally do not become employees at the firms in which they received their training. That is, trainees are prepared for the job market at large, not the so-called internal l

47、abor market within the firm as in the Japanese system. This difference isa reflection of the lifetime employment system in Japan, in which firms benefit directly from investments made in entry-level on-the-job training. Germany and Japan both have lower employee turnover rates than in the United States, however. In this sense, U.S. firrns run a higher risk in investing in ongoing on-the-job training for their workers, in that they are less able to secure returns from that training. JOINT TRAINING