3.1. Training program The training program comprised a mix of introduction, demonstrations, videos,

500 Words2 Pages
3.1. Training program
The training program comprised a mix of introduction, demonstrations, videos, and exercises. Each session was 3 h long and included two parts of training: a 1.5-h e-mail specific time-management module and a 1.5-h e-mail tool training module. Three hours was considered suitable because this was about the length most organizations would allocate for a training session not directly related to immediate profits. The e-mail-specific time-management session taught the subjects how to set goals, how to plan, and how to set priorities for e-mail use; it specifically dealt with interruptions and media selection. Further, the session persuaded the subjects to keep a time diary to track e-mail use following the training for a
…show more content…
Its human resource department agreed to collaborate in this experiment after meeting our experienced instructors, reviewing our proposal and training material. Therefore, subjects were recruited through the training and education unit of the human resources department, among the employees whose job functions characterized them as knowledge workers.

The recruitment was presented to employees as a regular in-house training and education program. As the subjects could freely choose to attend the training sessions, it was not possible to randomly assign each subject to an experimental or control group; it was only possible to randomly designate subjects of an entire session to either an experimental or control group. Therefore the subjects in the two groups were unequal in number. Also, the nature of quasi-experiment does not assure equivalent control group, i.e., the characteristics of the control group may not be similar to the experimental group. This non-equivalent control group design (Cook & Campbell, 1976) is a nature of quasi-experiment, and calls for ANCOVA analysis to include baseline scores as a covariate, in order to eliminate the effect of non-equivalent control group.

The two groups were assessed for profile similarity prior to training to ensure that there were no significant demographic differences between them. The results of this assessment
Get Access