The principal objective of this work is to use quantitative methods to analyze trainers’ professional profiles. In turn, we hope to use these profiles to describe common characteristics that allow the trainer to carry out and assume his/her responsibilities.

The article is organized in the following manner. Next, we will present a revision of the secondary sources that created a framework for our analysis as well as the typical ways to evaluate professional competence. After, we will briefly describe our empirical methods. Then, in the fourth section, we will summarize the analysis and describe the dominant profiles. Lastly, in the fifth part, we present a discussion of the empirical studies as well as a few final reflections.

2. Conceptual basis

From the early 1990s to present, the research on continuous professional training has been dedicated to the figure and practice of the facilitator. In the 1990s, the analysis of a facilitator was based on the amount of time dedicated to the continuous training and their professional position. On the national level, the first studies (Chambers of Commerce, 2000; Epise, 2000; INEM, 1996) focus on qualitative investigations, which created invaluable information about the professional role of the trainer based on the degree of professionalism and the specific business. This same qualitative investigation tendency continued throughout Europe, especially in Great Britain, France, Denmark and Germany  (Dupont and Reis, 1991; Evans et al., 1990; Proença, 1991).

In the last decade, we have observed an emphasis on describing and defining the professional profile of trainers in regards to their roles, functions, work and competencies (Álvarez-Rojo et al, 2009; Aznar, 2005; Ferrández at al., 2000; FTFE, 2006b; Mamaqi et al., 2010; Navío, 2005; SPEE, 2009; Tejada, 2005). So in the last 20 years, we have found a large amount of research on the practices and professional figures (Appendix 1) focusing on two main concepts. The first tries to establish a trainers’ profile according to work relations and performance. The second concentrates on studying the profile based on competence and capability as the pressing needs for designing a training curriculum in this new era of continual and permanent learning.

Consequentially, the professional training profile study has yet to capture all the investigative attention it deserves. This is due to the fact that the conducted studies have yet to focus on a specific point and it has proved difficult to conduct these studies in the workplace. The studies also need to, but have yet to, reflect the constant changing atmosphere of the trainer. Jiménez (1996, pp.307) emphasizes the difficulties of these types of studies, writing:

The trainee’s term to an extent, refers to every person that in some way plays a role in employee training. This is a rather heterogeneous group, made up of people with distinct professions.  The heterogeneity of the group makes it difficult to conceptualize, discern or allocate responsibilities to.  The aforementioned differences matched with variations of pre-professional education, personal conceptual theory and practice in both life and work, professional experience, professional level and training, specializations, materials used, and the diversity of their target groups reach just add complexity to this new profession of facilitators and fail to create a standard profile for the career track. 

Also, Ferrández et al., (2000, pp.121) talks about the complications with conceptualizing, defining, and establishing a professional profile.  He lists the following as elements that make this process difficult Jiménez (1996): “the lack of clear titles in the field, the absence of information about some fields, the terminological confusion due to the absence

Therefore, it takes a special type of strength on the part of national authors to define the professional figure of a trainer/facilitator. For Tejada (1999), an employee trainer has the responsibility to not only train employees, but also train the future trainers. On the other hand, Navío (2001, pp. 222), the trainer is, most of all, “the professional of work world training.  Therefore, their job is as professional as it is occupational. In a certain way, it’s a career that develops out of their continual professional training.” The trainer is a specialist that characterizes their experience based on self-development as well as teaching ability. The facilitator relates to the training plan as much as his/her professional development and evaluation. Specifically, their job is limited to continual training, the work world and their specific target groups (Ferrández, 1989; Ferrández, 1996a,b,c; Mamaqi y Miguel, 2009; Tejada, 2000a,b, 2002 y 2005,). The facilitator is conceptualized by the following parameters:

A concrete continuous training and the performance sphere are two specificities of this profession:

·     The contexts of the performances is limited to the context of the business, organizations and training centers – all of which have rather specific functions.

·     His/her performance depends on the target groups.

·     The trainer’s profile integrates the following: knowledge, capacities, skills, abilities and attitudes.

For (Ferrández, 2000, pp. 27), the trainer is also obligated to “be in a constant situation of change. What was good yesterday may no longer be good today due to increased technology. For example, the trainer may need to find more suitable technological devices.” Consequently, the trainer has to possess specific knowledge in regards to specific competencies and capacities. Moreover, their integral character ought to incorporate polyvalence, or a strong understanding of the global concepts of both capacities and competencies, under the label “the key competencies.” Abilities are key elements in the study of competencies and  allow us to talk about profiles. The instructors’ abilities are not evident from the subjects’ activities, but rather are seen through competencies. According to Tejada (1999), competency means, “the collection of knowledge (knowing, knowing how to do, knowing how to compose himself and act – knowledge, procedures and attitudes) integrated with professional practice. Dominating this type of knowledge makes an instructor capable of acting as an individual with efficacy in a professional situation.” These abilities are resources that reveal a person’s potential and are also seen through a person’s actions. The components of competency are: knowledge, abilities and practical, emotional, attitudinal, volitive, aesthetical and social aspects.

The literature distinguishes between generic and/or basic skills and specific skills. In the case of trainers generic skills refers to theoretical or conceptual (analyze, understand, interpret) skills which make up knowledge in general and the specific knowledge required to practice the profession (knowledge of the general context, institutional, classroom, workshop, knowledge of the educational psychology basis of the training, learning theories, knowledge of those being trained, macrodidactics, microdidactics, educational psychology, guidance etc.) applied from the planning of the training to the assessment of the effectiveness of the training given and including learning and teaching strategies, tutoring and monitoring along the way with the involvement of different didactic media and resources. Generic skills also include social skills (the ability to relate and collaborate with others in a communicative and constructive way) which form part of knowing how to be and act in the world (attitudes, values and norms). These include skills relating to organization, administration, management, communication and facilitation in training (group processes, working as a team, negotiation, interpersonal relations, leadership, internal and external strategy, training related etc.) (Darling at al., 1999; Guerrero, 1999; Navío 2005; Selva, 2000; Tejada, 2002c).

Tejada (2000, 2002c and 2005) relates the specific skills of the trainer with those assimilated in the specific conditions in which this professional develops those competences. Today it is impossible to think of the trainer simply as a person who carries out training programs. The trainer today is seen as someone who transforms programs in the light of his or her particular situation and in the context of how they work. However, there is no type of skill that can be developed and assimilated outside the contexts of action of the trainer, regardless of whether it is generic or specific in character or social, technical or didactic etc. On the basis of this contextual model of contexts the following distinction can be made:

a)               The general context: limited to the socio-occupational status of the trainer, considering his or her degree of professionalization and taking two criteria into account: employment conditions (time commitment, type of contract) and occupational conditions (duties to be performed, types of training to be provided). With regard to the social environment, this study limits itself to the status of the institution where the training is carried out, membership of professional organizations, initial training and highest educational qualification achieved.

b)      The specific context: limited to the classroom-workshop, which is the place where the basic professional teaching skills are put in practice (planning, delivery and evaluation of training, trainer's attitude in the classroom and workplace, learning tools used, role of trainer in the classroom and in the workplace, coaching and mentoring activities, etc.) as well as the more specific ones (knowledge of the labor market, specific skills and attitudes such as motivation, power and autonomy, teamwork, willingness to continue with self-improvement, etc.).

3. METHOD

Participants

The participants in the study are all the trainers in continuing training at the national level. Given that there is no official data about how many such trainers there are, the data provided by the Fundación Tripartita para la Formación y Empleo [Tripartite Foundation for Training and Employment] (FTFE 2006a)[1] was used to form an approximation of the universe that is the objective of this study. This data covers the number of the training activities approved and their duration[2]. Detailed information about the sample is provided in Table 1

Table 2 lists some of the main characteristics of the trainers. The highest qualification achieved by more than 50% of the respondents was Licenciado [undergraduate degree] Engineer or Arquitecto Superior [Architect]. 9% had Master’s degrees and 1.5% Doctoral degrees. 65% of the trainers were between the ages of 30 and 45 years. With regard to gender, 55.1% were women and 44.4% were men

Table 1. Technical sheet of empirical study.

Table 2. Trainer’s personal dates

Procedure 

To narrow the geographic focus for the carrying out of the surveys (the geographic area of Spain, which consists of seventeen Autonomous Communities), a hierarchical cluster was carried out which used the participants in the training activities of the Autonomous Communities and business sectors (FTFE, 2006a), the working population (EPA, 2005) and the number of participating companies and trainers in training activities of the Autonomous Communities and business sectors (FTFE, 2006). Thorough this analysis identical segments or groups from the Autonomous Communities (Regions) were identified that were different from other groups. An Autonomous Community was selected from each group, with that Community representing that cluster or segment, that is to say, the one at the center of the segment was selected. The questionnaire was addressed personally in continuing training at the national level[3] represented by the Autonomous Communities of Madrid, Valencia, Aragón, Cataluña and Andalucía (Table 3). To find points of interest for the carrying out of the sampling a list was drawn up of the public and private centers of continuing training as well as businesses with more than 50 employees as these are the ones most likely to carry out training activities. To ensure the representativeness of the trainers in terms of their workplace the following quotas were drawn up for the carrying out of the surveys: 65% of the trainers were working in private centers (academies, training centers and businesses and 36 % were working in the public sector (training centers, public enterprises, universities etc.) Prior to the conducting of the survey a telephone contact was set up with each sampling center (directors, training managers, personnel or human resources managers etc.) Groups of survey professionals were set up in each of the Autonomous Communities. The groups received specific training regarding the subject and the questionnaire to be administered.

Table 3. - Sample distribution

 Instruments

The delimiting of the conceptual framework of the study led to the selection of a group of indicators and variables in order to obtain the necessary information about a series of personal and professional characteristics of the trainers. This information was used to draw up a structured questionnaire of six parts divided into the general context and more specific matters. In the case of the general context data was collected on the status of the workplace (public or private), the participation of various professional bodies, the position held, professional category and type of contract. Questions were also asked about the amount of time the respondent had spent (in years) with the same kind of contract in the same position at the same workplace. In the case of the specific context, the questionnaire focused on the evaluation of generic and/or basic skills as well as specific ones. It continued with the identification the skills and attitudes of the trainer in the classroom/workplace and the continuing training carried out, and finished with a section on personal variable like highest educational qualification, sex and age. The full questionnaire can be found in Annex 1. While the questionnaire was being drawn up the following issues related to the evaluation of skills and capacities were treated with care:

·        Each question is accompanied by a brief definition of the topic to which it refers but the formulation of the question itself is brief and clear.

·        Its structure in sections, in the order of the criteria that define the profile of trainers, facilitates understanding and helps the respondent to focus on providing appropriate responses.

·         Efforts were made to ensure that the indicators used to define skills were representative and that they gathered all the possible answers of respondents (prior to the carrying out of the survey the questions were evaluated by a group of 20 experts by way of an electronic Delphi method) (Mamaqi et al., 2010).

·        In the case of doubts about the number of indicators representing a variable, semi-open responses were chosen that consisted, in general, of finishing the options opened by “Other. Specify” and so collecting those issues that, because of the lack of previous knowledge it was not possible to include.

·         A 5-category Likert scale was used, (1 “very unimportant”, 2 “unimportant”, 3 “relatively important”, 4 “important” and 5 “very important” and 5 “"very important”). This system of evaluation is similar to that used by Navío (2001 and 2005). A scale reliability test was carried out to test the reliability of the questionnaire.  The resulting Cronbach' alpha score (0.70) indicated a degree of scale reliability much higher than the limit demanded by the literature.

 Analyses performed

   The survey used a set of indicators to define the Basic Professional Skills and Specific Professional Skills (BPS and SPS[4]) of the trainers. A Categorical Principal Components Analysis (CATPCA) was carried out in order to reduce the high number of indicators that form part of these two concepts to a smaller set of skills and capabilities that better explain the importance of the original indicators, while retaining the maximum amount of information. The use of this technique not only reduces the indicators to a smaller number of components, it also facilitates interpretation and allows the components extracted to be included in the analysis of the profiles. This procedure simultaneously quantifies categorical variables while reducing the dimensionality of the data. The technique is most useful when a large number of variables preclude an effective interpretation of the relationships between objects (subjects and units). By reducing the dimensionality, a small number of components instead of a large number of variables is interpreted. The quantification[5] of the BPS and SPS by CATPCA shows that the trainers were evaluated on a scale of three categories (not five as initially set out in the questionnaire), beginning with the first level in the third category, rated as being of “relative importance”.

The goodness of fit of the model was deduced by way of the percentage of variance explained and the relationship between components and original indicators was interpreted through the significance of the loadings in the original indicators of the components.

A Two Phase Cluster Analysis was used for the determination of profiles. This method is different from traditional cluster methods because it permits the analytical use of variables of distinct scales (continuous and categorical) and the selection of the best solution by comparing the results obtained from among different profiles. It is also useful because it permits the obtaining of test results within and between profiles and descriptive analysis of the variables that establish the clusters (mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables), thus producing the relative contribution of variables in creating profiles through the contrast statistics.

4. RESULT

4.1. Results of the analysis of BPS and SPS

The results of reduction analysis and interpretation of the BPS and SPS are presented in detail in Table 4. A total of 22 indicators make up the BPS of the trainer in continuing training: i) planning and programming of training (seven indicators), ii) providing training (seven indicators), iii) assessment of learning (four indicators) and iv) types of trainer action in the classroom (four indicators). In the case of SPS, there are a total of 19 indicators representing: i) adaptation of learning strategies to the characteristics of training and the trainees (7 indicators), ii) attitude of the trainer in classroom (4 indicators) and ii) capacity and personal attitudes of the trainer (8 indicators). A two-dimensional[6] CATPCA analysis was carried out for each construct, these being, from the conceptual point of view, different skills that the trainer must possess and demonstrate professionally.

The criteria for the extraction of the dimensions (components) are as follows:

·        When choosing the number of dimensions, the most useful guideline is that the number be small enough for the possible interpretations to make sense.

·        The eigenvalues can be used as an indication of the number of dimensions that are necessary, therefore they have been preserved as representative components with an eigenvalue greater than unity and they explain most of the variance of the original indicators.

·        The relationship between the components and the original indicators was established by the value of the coefficients (loadings) greater than 0.42 (Ferrán, 2002).

·        The components that relate to one or two indicators have been retained because they meet  the following criteria: obtain an eigenvalue greater than unity, help explain a considerable proportion of the total variance of the model and allow the correct interpretation of the BPS and SPS.

Among the common results of the analyses carried out in the case of the BPS and SPS the following are worth highlighting:

·       The obtaining of eight and four components with an eigenvalue greater than unity for the BPS and SPS, respectively.

·       More than half of the variability of individual indicators is explained by the two components model (the sum of variances explained by both components in all cases varies between a minimum of 63% and a maximum of 80%, approximately). The first component explains the highest percentage of variance explained.

·       All the indicators have positive component loadings in the two dimensions, which indicates that there are two common values for their explanation.

·       The indicators with the highest loading values were used for the naming of the new components.

With regard to the BPS it is worth noting the high representation of the indicators “to manage and coordinate the processes of teaching and learning, planning, evaluation and design of training courses”, to name the first component (it explains more than half the percentage of the total variance with respect to the indicators of “Planning and Programming”) as “Implementation and design of training”. The second indicator was called “Planning and programing of training” because of its relationship with the two indicators “Formulation and implementation of the objectives” and “Planning of teaching and learning activities”. In the case of techniques of “Delivery of training”, the indicators of “Group discussion techniques”, “On the job training” and “Lecture” had greater loadings in the first and second components respectively, which allowed their correct interpretation. With regard to “Assessment of learning” and attitude of the trainer in the classroom”, the results obtained show a solution coherent with the meaning of the original indicators, thus permitting the preservation of characteristics of the opposing sort reflected in the components “Continuous assessment” and “Periodic assessment”, Communicative attitude” and “Critical attitude” in the classroom, explained by one or two indicators.

With regard to SPS, the indicators with the greatest weight for the indicators of “Learning Strategies” were “Adaptation to the improvement of the competitiveness of the company”, “Adaptation to the use of ITCs” and “adaptation to the means of production of the company”, in the case of the first component, and “Adaptation to the prior knowledge and learning abilities of the participants”, in the case of the second. Taking into account these relationships these have been called “Adaptation to the work environment” and “Adaptation to the level of the trainees”. In the case of “Capabilities and attitudes”, the indicators of greatest weight were “Attitude for self-evaluation”, “Attitude of permanent change and adaptation” and “Will to self-improvement”, for the first component and “Harmony between training course taught and the training of the trainer”, for the second component. The first component called “Self-improvement” reflects the dimension of the attitude towards and capacity for change of the trainer with regard to acquiring and demonstrating  skills.

Tabla 4. CATPCA analysis results