This article presents an evolution of transfer of training from 1901 to 2020. The discussion about transfer of training begins with a brief introduction to the framework about the transfer process, followed by the literature review on transfer of training. For the purpose of simplicity, the literature review is broadly discussed based on three eras of research: 1901 to 1988, 1988 to 2008, and 2008 to 2020. During the entire discussion, the results of the research conducted in the three eras are compared and the changing research trends from 1901 to 2020 are discussed.
Keywords: Transfer of training; Human resource development; Management; Education; Training
Over the past few decades, extensive research has been conducted on transfer of training to increase the transfer of knowledge, skills and attitudes acquired in a training context to a job. Transfer of training is defined as the degree to which trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in a training context to the job [1,2]. In spite of these research efforts, and a heightened interest in the concept, the rate of transfer of training by employees to their jobs was estimated at 15 – 30 % three decades ago, and that rate is still the same today [3-5]. This is called the transfer problem. The ‘Transfer Problem’ has existed for more than three decades now. One of the reasons is probably the lack of proper direction, a framework or a consolidation of the available literature. Baldwin & Ford  conducted a comprehensive literature review on transfer of training for the first time in 1988. The period covered in their review was from 1901 to 1988, and based on their review, the authors offered some suggestions for further research. Based on the research gaps they identified, the authors developed a framework for conducting research on the effects of trainee characteristics on transfer of training in organizations. Baldwin & Ford  literature review sparked a new interest in transfer of training in the research and academic circles. A number of researchers conducted research and published on the subject over the next 20 years. Baldwin & Ford  conducted another literature review in 2008. They called their work an updated literature review to include the new literature
that had emerged from 1988 to 2008. They offered a critical analysis of the literature at that time and offered suggestions for further research. The next literature review by Baldwin and Ford is due in 2028. Since 2008, numerous researchers have conducted research on transfer of training. This article traces the evolution of transfer of training from 1901 to 2020.
Baldwin & Ford  developed a framework in 1988 that explained the transfer of training process. They claimed that it was very important to understand the transfer of training as well as the factors that affect the transfer process to address the ‘transfer problem’ in organizations. They described the transfer process in the following way:
Training Design; incorporation of the learning principals, the sequencing of training material and the job relevance of training content.
Trainee Characteristics; ability, motivation and personality traits.
Work Environment Characteristics: supervisory or peer support and constraints & opportunities to perform learning behavior.
ii. Training outcomes
a) Actual learning that occurred during the training.
b) Retention of that material after the program completed.
iii. Conditions of transfer
a) Generalization of the material learned in the training to
the job context.
b) Maintenance of a learned material over a period of time
on the job.
The model indicates that training inputs and training outcomes
have a direct or indirect impact on conditions of transfer (Figure
1). The six linkages shown in the above model are very important
in understanding the transfer process. For example, linkage 6 is a
representation of how training outcomes (learning and retention)
can have a direct effect on the conditions of transfer . Trainee
characteristics and work environment characteristics represented
by linkages 4 and 5 also have a direct impact on the conditions of
transfer regardless of their direct impact on the training outcomes
of learning and retention (linkages 2 and 3). For example, welllearned
skills might not be maintained on the job due to the lack
of supervisory or peer support . Finally, the three training
inputs of trainee characteristics, training design, and work
environment have a direct impact on the training outcomes of
learning and retention (linkages 1, 2 and 3) and an indirect impact
on conditions of transfer. Baldwin & Ford  identified major
empirical studies on the transfer of training process based on their
framework. The literature was based on the research on the effects
of training design, trainee characteristics or work-environmental
characteristics (training inputs) on learning and retention of
the training material (training outcomes) or generalization and
maintenance of training (conditions of transfer). Their review and
analysis of the major empirical studies focused specifically on the
‘transfer problem’ in organizations.
A considerable number of the empirical studies that
Baldwin & Ford  reviewed focused on training design issues.
Four principles were identified in the literature, which are identical
elements, the teaching of general principals, stimulus variability,
and various conditions of practice. These four principles are
a) Identical elements: Thorndike and Woodworth  were
the first authors to introduce the concept of identical elements.
According to the identical elements theory, if the training
environment, training interactions, and training material match
the performance expectations, then the transfer of training would
occur [8-11]. Later, other researchers revealed that the use of
identical elements increased the retention of motor skills [12,13]
and verbal behaviors [14,15].
b) The teaching of general principles: The second principle
that was identified in the literature is teaching of general
principles. According to this principle, it is very important to
teach the underlying principles and general rules of the training
content in addition to the applicable skills . For example, while
explaining the technical aspects of underwater shooting, Judd 
and Hendrickson, Schroeder  demonstrated how important it
was to know the underlying general rules and principles of the
underwater shooting. Crannell  argued the same point that
the underlying general rules and principles were very important
by conducting experiments on subject’s ability to learn through
card sorting tricks. Goldbeck, Bernstein  discovered that the
technicians of malfunctioning electronic equipment who clearly
understood the underlying functioning principles of the electronic
equipment were in a better position to solve problems than the
technicians who were not .
c) Stimulus variability: Ellis  state in Baldwin & Ford
 that stimulus variability is a notion in which different kinds of
stimuli are used to conduct training. For example, when different
examples are used to explain a concept in training rather than
using the same example repeatedly, the trainees learn more
[20,21]. The principle of stimulus variability has also received
empirical support from other researchers. For example, Shore &
Sechrest  found that when different examples were used in a
training, each example enhanced the learning a little bit more.
Various conditions of practice; Conditions of practice refer to
certain design issues such as:
a. Massed or distributed learning: Massed learning is
a concept in which a learner learns large quantities of content
in short periods of time where distributed learning is a concept
in which a learner learns small quantities of content in longer
periods of time in distributed intervals. Massed or distributed
learning is concerned with the degree to which a training can be
divided into segments. Baldwin & Ford  argue that massed or
distributed learning is very important in a training program for
positive transfer of training. They offered a number of examples
and referred to a number of researchers to support this argument.
For example, some researchers indicated that distributed learning
was more helpful in retaining the knowledge transferred longer
than massed learning [23, 24]. Other researchers provided
evidence that difficult and complex tasks resulted in a higher
performance, which could only be done through massed practice
sessions, followed by brief sessions with more rest periods .
b. Whole or part training: Whole training is a training in
which the whole content is delivered at once. Whole training is
best for content that is high in organization and low in complexity.
On the other hand, part training is a training in which the whole
content is divided into parts. Part training is best for content
that is low in organization and high in complexity. Therefore,
whole or part training refers to the idea of delivering the entire
training material at once or dividing the material into parts to be
learned separately. Researchers have suggested that imparting
the whole training material at once was beneficial when (1) the
learners were of high caliber and highly intelligent, (2) there
was distributed learning rather than massed learning, and (3)
the training material was organized around a task that had low
complexity . On the other hand, part training was ideal when
(1) the learners were not of high caliber and (2) there was massed
learning rather than distributed learning.
c. Feedback: According to Baldwin & Ford , feedback
refers to the critical advice given to the trainees about their
performance or results during the training. Wexley & Thornton
 argued in Baldwin & Ford  that the timing of the feedback
was very important in determining the effects of training. Some
researchers also suggested that the optimal specificity of the
feedback actually depended on the trainees and the stage of
learning in which they were, but the empirical evidence was
d. Overlearning: McGehee & Thayer  stated in
Baldwin & Ford  that overlearning refers to the idea of trainees
being taught even after the task has been successfully completed.
Research suggested that the greater the overlearning, the greater
was the degree of positive transfer of training [29-31]. Baldwin
and Ford also gave another recent example of Hagman & Rose
 who provided empirical evidence in support of the value of
overlearning in military training contexts.
Work-environment can be defined as the surroundings
where an employee works. Work-environment characteristics
can be defined as the positive or negative attributes of the
work-environment. According to Baldwin & Ford , although
the practitioners’ literature stresses the relationship between
positive transfer of training and the work environment, the
research indicates no empirical evidence to support such an
argument . For example, management researchers such
as Baumgartel & Jeanpierre , Baumgartel, Reynolds ,
Baumgartel, Sullivan  explained how a conducive work environment acts as a catalyst for managers to translate their
training skills into productive job performance, leading to a
positive transfer of training. Hand, Richards  in Baldwin &
Ford  argue that a retention of training skills even after 18
months of training was due to certain organizational decisions
such as salary and promotion, which motivated the employees
to learn more. In their research on different management styles,
Huczynski & Lewis  found out that management styles that
allowed employees to discuss training with their managers before
the start of their training entailed maximum transfer of training.
According to Baldwin and Ford, the essence of their review was
not to argue and debate each and every point of view about the
transfer problem from 1901 to 1988, but to provide an overall
critique of the literature and offer some recommendations for the
further research. The recommendations for further research that
Baldwin & Ford  offered, paved the way for other researchers
to jump into the field. As a result, transfer of training became an
important arena of research and practice over the next 20 years
beginning in 1988 . This review of transfer of training literature
showed that an increasing awareness of the “transfer problem”
exist in organizations. However, while a concern over the transfer
problem exist, there was a little understanding of the transfer
problem. Different researchers provided different reasons for a
lack of understanding of the transfer problem.
Post-1988 literature revealed four new research trends .
Firstly, researchers had moved beyond such simple experiments
as learning and motor tasks and were studying more complex and
authentic training content. Secondly, there was increasing evidence
of the use of interventions especially designed to increase transfer
outcomes. Thirdly, researchers were more inclined towards looking
outside the training design and more towards pre- and posttraining
influences. Finally, there was a greater variety of criterion
measures to evaluate transfer of training. Where the research prior
to 1988 was using simple memory and motor tasks as laboratory
experiments, and students comprised much of the sample used in
those studies, the post-1988 research focused on more complex
transfer related issues such as trainee characteristics, training
environment, and training context. The use of simple memory and
motor tasks was not realistic since training entailed much more
complex tasks. Similarly, the predominant use of student samples
limited generalizability of the findings. In the post-1988 research,
“business employees and managers, health professionals (e.g.
nurses and doctors), public safety workers and technical or
computer specialists” were used in research samples . An
increase in diverse samples and authentic skills was a positive
trend since it had a tendency for an increased generalizability of
the transfer of training findings. Although a diversity of sampling,
authentic and complex skills was a positive sign, there was still
considerable work left to be done in this arena. For example, there
was still a need for the development of taxonomies and categories
for different kinds of skills and knowledge training that could be
useful in transfer studies. Moreover, some of the important facets
of transfer of training area were still missing from the transfer of
training research, such as little research on the factors affecting
the objectives of training in question . Thus, the scholars
concluded that it would be unwise and illogical to provide any
kind of guidance to the training professionals without further
classification on exactly what is being trained and what training
objectives were being sought. According to most of the scholars,
“The movement toward the study of authentic training content in
naturally occurring contexts (not contrived for research studies)
has been one of the most positive shifts in transfer research of the
last two decades” . This movement must continue and inform
the further research to better understand transfer of training.
Moreover, one of the most prominent limitations of the pre-1988
literature was that it was not action oriented. Most of the studies
of the time stopped a little short of identifying, describing or
measuring the factors that affected transfer of training. The only
studies that dealt with a little change or intervention were the
ones that were dealing with training design . Furthermore, it
was not just the tools used during the training that were important
for transfer to take place, but the post-training assessments,
feedback and goal setting were also essential. They provided
examples of Wexley & Nemeroff  and Reber & Wallin 
who showed that post-training assessments, goal setting, and
feedback caused better performance and transfer of training. After
1988, the research focus shifted from the research design to preand
post-training context. For example, Karl & Ungsrithong 
found that the optimistic training preview had a positive impact
on overall training in the form of motivation, learning, outcome
expectations, feedback to training, and transfer of training. Other
researchers focussed on how training could be framed prior to a
training event. For example, Martocchio  in Baldwin, Ford 
examined a computer program to find out if the use of computers
had a positive impact on transfer of training. Martocchio found
that computer had a positive impact on transfer of training.
Interventions in the design of training might also include
some unique and intriguing error training/management. For
example, Heimbeck, Frese  in Baldwin, Ford  allowed
trainees to make mistakes and errors in the hope that such errors
would result in the most lasting transfer of training outcomes.
Similarly, Gully, Payne  in Baldwin et al.  examined the
effectiveness of error training in trainees in decision making
with different levels of “cognitive ability, openness to experience,
and conscientiousness” . They discovered that error training/
management with trainees of different levels of cognitive
ability, openness to experience, and conscientiousness can have
different transfer of training outcomes. A considerable amount
of research in behavior modeling was conducted from 1988 to
2008. For example, Baldwin  “examined the use of negative
and positive transfer model displays on outcomes of a behavior
modeling training program” . They discovered that in a training
of assertive communication, trainees who displayed both negative
and positive transfer had greater retention and a higher level of
generalization of trained skills. Similarly, Holladay & Quiñones
 examined the relationship between near and far transfer, self-efficacy and practice variability as cited in Baldwin, Ford ,
and “They found that variable practice was superior to constant
practice in promoting high levels of self-efficacy. In addition, selfefficacy
served as a mediator between practice variability and far
Taylor et al.  did a meta-analysis of 66 studies and evaluated
the effects of behavior modeling training on job behavior . They
found that training retention was greatest when mixed (negative
and positive) transfer models were presented. Similar to pretraining
interventions, research on post-training interventions
was also dramatically increased from 1988 to 2008. Baldwin et
al. concluded that studies that explored intentional interventions
had greater potential to add to the body of knowledge about
transfer of training and cautioned researchers to be mindful
of those intentional interventions in their studies. Pre- and
post-training influences play a significant role in the transfer of
training. Transfer of training could only occur after the training
but surprisingly, pre-1988 research focused entirely on the nature
of the training itself and not the transfer of training. However, very
limited research indicated that the trainees, their traits and their
ability to transfer skills learned in trainings to job performance
were important predictors of the transfer process. Baldwin et al.
state, “The notion that performance, in any setting, is a function of
ability, motivation, and opportunity is one of the most enduring
conceptualizations in industrial/organizational psychology” .
In addition, Facteau, Dobbins  in Baldwin, Ford  argued that
trainees needed three traits for transfer to occur:
a) Their ability to learn.
b) An effort to learn and to improve.
c) A belief that a changed performance leads to valued
Moreover, drawing on Bandura  and his social cognitive
theory, a number of behavioral studies have been conducted to
demonstrate the effects of behaviour on learning as well as transfer
of self-efficacy and its variants. Other studies have shown various
pre- and post-training factors that could influence the transfer
of training. For example, the choice to attend a training program,
motivation not only to learn but also to transfer, motivation to
improve job performance, work environment, quality of worker/
supervisor relationship, and an open-mindedness to change are
all essential predictors of transfer of training. Thus, transfer of
training factors exists in training design and in pre- and posttraining
activities. The factors indicate that continued research
that is multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional would be most
useful to fully understand transfer of training . Before 1988,
the research on transfer of training was very limited because of
short-term single source measurement of transfer. Baldwin & Ford
 noted that a number of problems existed with the pre-1988
research and these problems mostly related to the measurement
of training outcomes. However, after 1988, two advances that
occurred in the transfer of training research were (1) a broadening
of the measurement of outcomes, and (2) a collection of multiple
tools for the measurement of outcomes over time. Moreover,
transfer of training research started including concepts like selfefficacy
[50,51,52-55]. Research showed that the employees
having self-efficacy were more likely to perform more tasks
and attempted to do more difficult and complex tasks . Thus,
self-efficacy was an important variable in the understanding of
transfer of training, and self-efficacy was an important example
of how theoretical and empirical research helped in widening
the number of variables in the measurement of the outcomes of
transfer of training .
The second important trend that Baldwin, Ford  found in the
research after 1988 was that most of the researchers had started
conducting longitudinal studies, that is, research conducted over
a period of time ranging from one week to a month or a couple of
months to one year or a couple of years. One of the best examples
of such research was by Hazucha, Hezlett . They conducted
a longitudinal study that measured the outcomes of training
multiple times over two years. The main objective of their research
was to investigate the relationship between skill development,
development efforts, and the environmental support for the
developmental efforts. A longitudinal study gave the scholars a
change to measure the development of skills, the efforts being
used for development, and the environmental support provided
over the span of two years. The post-1988 research on transfer
of training took an interesting turn. The post-1988 research was
interesting because a number of new developments took place
and the research on transfer of training took some new directions.
These new developments and directions are discussed under four
themes, which are an understanding of learning, the trainees,
training design, and the training context. An Understanding of
Learning: The individual was not the focus in pre-1988 research
on transfer of training, and so an understanding of learning
was not a major focus of research during that period. Much of
the laboratory experiments conducted by researchers were
about memory and motor skills, and the samples used were
students. The next 20 years (1988 – 2008) led to more interest
in understanding how individuals learn. More diverse groups,
like managers, professionals, nurses, and doctors were studied,
which made the research results more generalizable. Similarly,
more authentic and complex human learning behaviours were
studied. These trends were a positive sign since they made
transfer of training research more generalizable and useful. In the
next decade (2008 – 2018), transfer of training was defined as
the application of newly learned knowledge, skills, attitudes, and
behaviours to the workplace [57,58]. However, Tonhäuser & Büker
indicate that for research on transfer of training to be complete,
researchers should consider the pedagogical and psychological
aspects of transfer problem, including whether the trainees have
the ability to transfer newly learned knowledge, skills, attitudes,
and behaviour to the workplace. Tonhäuser & Büker refer to this ability transfer competence, which is a prerequisite to a change
in working behaviour. Therefore, the discussion on the transfer
problem became centered around the individual rather than
around the measurement of training outcomes. Thus, transfer
of training becomes complete only when the individual learning
patterns are taken into account in the transfer process [59,60].
Another interesting issue in the understanding of transfer
research was the limited research in the area of information
technology and its impact on transfer of training. Research on the
impact of information technology on transfer of training emerged
in the early 1990s, even though considerable research in the area
appeared only after 2008. For example, according to Hughes,
Anthony Day , considerable complexity in transfer research
in areas such as computer software, navigation skills, and video
games exist. Thus, information technology can have an impact on
learning and enhancement of cognitive abilities. For example, in
this era of apps, when mobile devices are widely available, along
with the extensive use of educational apps and YouTube videos,
people learn faster and quicker compared to use of the traditional
training approaches [62, 63]. Therefore, the use of information
technology, mobile devices, and mobile aps help to increase the
transfer of training.
The Trainees: Although some researchers such as Robinson
 and Trost  believed that various trainee characteristics
were important for the transfer of training, Baldwin & Ford 
argued that the main trainee characteristics of “ability, personality
and motivational effects” did not have enough empirical evidence.
Over the next 20 years (1988-2008), more research on trainees
and trainee characteristics became available. For example,
Facteau, Dobbins  in Baldwin, Ford  argued that trainees
should have three traits for transfer to occur. The trainees should
have an ability to learn, they should make an effort to learn
and improve their performance, and they should believe that a
changed performance would lead to valued outcomes. Further,
during the post-2008 research, transfer research related to the
trainees and trainee characteristics was broadened. According
to Bell, Tannenbaum , researchers moved beyond just using
expectancy theory in transfer research. Instead, they started using
multiple theories like “the theory of planned behavior, proactive
personality, social exchange, career motivation theory, personenvironment
fit, and deprivation theory” . In another research,
Dragoni, Oh  found a positive relation between self-efficacy,
stability, and learning orientation to self-perceived knowledge
role. Another research indicated that self-efficacy and learning
orientation shielded trainees from stresses from challenging job
experiences . During the post-2008 transfer research period,
numerous experiments ranging from instructional methods and
training through e-learning, simulations, and games and their
effects on various trainee characteristics were conducted. These
experiments measured trainee self-efficacy, cognitive ability, and
goal orientation in the training process. These experiments have
had a direct influence on the trainees’ learning ability, and a direct
impact on transfer of training [57,61]. In short, post-2008 transfer
research era marked the undertaking of experiments related to
the broadening of trainee characteristics. The experiments strove
to explore the relationships between self-efficacy, cognitive ability,
and goal orientation.
Training Design: A considerable number of empirical studies
before 1988 focused on training design . Four principles were
identified in the literature, which were identical elements, the
teaching of general principals, stimulus variability, and various
conditions of practice . Pre-1988 research was also not action
oriented, as it was limited to lab experiments only. From 1988
to 2008, a heightened interest on action research emerged, with
an increased focus on transfer interventions and their effects on
learning behaviours. During the period from 1988 to 2008, training
design models were developed to test various forms of training
interventions that could lead to an increase in transfer of training.
The last decade (2008-2018) witnessed an increased reliance on
technology and the use of eLearning tools. That trend shifted the
focus of training and training design to learner centered training
designs, which gave the learners control over their learning
. Another interesting issue that emerged in research during
the decade was a comparison of different technologies used for
training and training design to determine their value. Researchers
argued the more technologies used in training design and delivery,
the more effective the training became Brown, Charlier, & Pierotti
[69,70-73]. Pedagogical features that governed the e-learning
technologies used in training became much more important Bell
& Federman .
Training Context: The training context was not studied
in depth before 1988. The only factor that was considered the
training context during that period was the work-environment
characteristics. In addition, since researchers were focused
on understanding the nature of training, limited research
was conducted on transfer of training during that period .
According to Baldwin, Ford , the training context was an area
in need of considerable research during that period. During the
decade from 2008 – 2018, many aspects of the effects of training
context on transfer of training remain unknown such as the
personal or professional environment related circumstances that
can affect training before, during, and after the training. Research
on contextual factors such as the personal or professional
environment related circumstances that can affect training before,
during, and after the training remains scarce as of 2020.
This review article traces the evolution of transfer of training
from 1901 to 2020. The article presents an analysis of the research
trends from 1901 to 2020 giving special emphasis to various
competing philosophies and avenues for future research. The
article also presents itself as a comprehensive literature review on
the field for future empirical studies.
Wexley KN, Latham GP (1981) Developing and training human resources in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Newstrom JW (1984) A role-taker/time differentiated integration of transfer strategies in 1984 meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA). Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Holton E (2008) Why training transfer is a critical problem in Transfer of Training Channel. YouTube.
Khalid M, Hanif A, Laila U (2017) Transfer of training & the challenges: NADRA A case study. International Review of Management and Business Research 6(1): 274-288.
Cheema F-e-A, Syed NA (2014) Issues of transfer of training from the training houses to the line department: A case of government sector department in Pakistan. IBT Journal of Business Studies 9(1): 150-158.
Baldwin TT, Ford JK, Blume BD (2009) Transfer of training 1988-2008: An updated review and new agenda for future research. in International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Hodgekinson GP, Ford JK, (Edts.), Wiley: Chichester, UK, p. 41-70.
Thorndike EL, Woodworth RS (1901) The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review 8(3): 247-261.
Thorndike EL, Woodworth RS (1901) The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions II: The estimation of magnitudes. Psychological Review 8(4): 384-395.
Thorndike EL, Woodworth RS (1901) The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of the other functions III: Functions involving attention, observation, and discrimination. Psychological Review 8: 553-564.
Tonhäuser C, Büker L (2016) Determinants of Transfer of Training: A Comprehensive Literature Review. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training 3(2): 127-165.
Rahman AA, Shiddike MO (2020) Mixed methods in human resource development: Reviewing the research literature. International Journal of Business and Management 15(3): 25-36.
Shiddike MO, Rahman AA (2020) Case study method in human resource development: Reviewing the research literature. International Business Research 13(4): 113-124.
Hughes M (2013) Learner-controlled practice difficulty in the training of a complex task: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology 98(1): 80-98.
Savern LR, Andrew G, Lynn J (2017) Efficacy of low-cost PC-based aviation training devices. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 16: 127-142.
Merschbrock C (2016) Serious games as a virtual training ground for relocation to a new healthcare facility. Facilities, 34(13/14): 788-808.
Robinson JC (1984) You should have sent my boss. Training 21(2): 45-47.
Trost A (1982) They may love it, but will they use it? Training and Development Journal 36(1): 78-81.
Dragoni L, Lisa Oh, In-Sue Tesluk, Paul E Moore, Ozias A, VanKatwyk, et al. (2014) Developing leaders' strategic thinking through global work experience: the moderating role of cultural distance. Journal of Applied Psychology 99(5): 867-82.
Brown KG, Charlier SD, Pierotti A (2012) e-learning at work: Contributions of past research and suggestions for the future, in International review of industrial and organizational psychology. In: Hodgkinson GP, Ford JK, (Eds.), Wiley: New York, pp. 89-114.
Stomp B (2019) Technology and training, in Propane Canada. Northern Star Communications Ltd. Calgary, Canada, pp. 6-7.
Kuemmerle JF (2012) Effective Use of Technology in Gastroenterology Training. Gastroenterology 143(4): 881-884.
Rahman AA, Shiddike MO (2019) Agendas for future training transfer research: Pakistan’s perspective. Developing Country Studies 9(4): 39-48.
Shiddike MO, Rahman AA (2019) Engaging faculty in professional development: Lessons from Bangladesh. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology 9(2): 124-137.
Bell BS, JE Federman (2013) E-learning in postsecondary education. The Future of Children 23(1): 165-185.