This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Purposes and Dimension Classification
by Sung Heum Lee, PhD and James A. Pershing, PhD
he evaluation scheme that many corporate training programs use is Kirkpatrick's four-levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick, 1994). However, surveys of the evaluation of corporate training programs show limited application of the levels other than at the reaction level (Alliger & Janak, 1989; American Society for Training and Development, 1996; Brinkerhoff, 1989; Dixon, 1990; Industry Report, 1996; Parker, 1986; Plant & Ryan, 1994). Training participants' reaction is the most commonly used criterion for determining the effectiveness of corporate training programs. Most corporate trainers evaluate their training programs by using a sim-
pIe end-of-course reaction form, often referred to as a "happy sheet" (Plant & Ryan, 1994), a "smile or whoopie sheet" (Robinson & Robinson, 1989), an "end-of-event questionnaire" (Bramley, 1996), or a "reactionnaire" (Newby, 1992). Based on a recent survey of corporate training programs using Kirkpatrick's four-levels of evaluation (American Society for Training and Development, 1996), only 4.3% of the organizations surveyed measured results, 13.7% measured behavior change, 27.9% measured learning, and 88.9% reported using participant reactionnaires. These findings indicate that the majority of the organizations evaluated the reactions and opinions of their training participants
immediately upon completion of training programs.
Reaction Evaluation of Training Program
Purposes The main purpose of reaction evaluation is to enhance the quality of training programs, which in turn leads to improved performance. The ultimate objective is to make training programs more efficient and effective for organizational performance improvement. Reaction evaluations are a type of formative evaluation when the results are used for program modification and the redesign of content, course materials, and presentations (Antheil & Casper, 1986; Robinson & Robinson, 1989). Generally, they collect information that
expansion. or redesign termination. effectiveness. howabout a program's worth or merit (Worthen. Reaction evaluations provide program designers with insights about participants' degree of satisfaction with a program's design and implementation. Identifying and ferent uses of the evaluation results. He indicates for reaction evaluations and for the rigorous design and that ideal reaction evaluations provide the maximum development of reactionnaires. expansion. Summative Evaluation To determine program's worth. Summative evaluations provide program uation focuses on the course instructor or facilitator decisionmakers and potential customers with judgments (Phillips. This is crucial information. interviews observations.is specific enough to help make revisions and improvements in the training program. Kirkpatrick (1994. or efficiency of a training program (Smith & Brandenburg. 1996. when. not to trainee. value. Keller. The kinds of questions to be addressed in to program evaluators. or adoption tion evaluation is to deterFigure 1. and even the training facilities. Worthen & Sanders. The evaluation of a training program. impact of the training activity. Therefore. The responsibility of an evaluator of tion. effectiveness. training programs is to evaluate a training program. The main difference is not in the information. a reaction evaluation will. instructional strategies. presents a few sample reaction forms but does not suggest This difference calls for the careful selection of dimensions guidelines for selecting reaction dimensions. 1991). questionnaires. Both forand applicable presents a formidable problem for corpomative and summative evaluations are essential because rate training evaluation practitioners (Mattoon. training materithe instructor alone. the goal of reacrevision. or quality To improve training program and correct errors Program process Tests. or Fitzpatrick. be linked with the Performance Improvement. Consequence such cases. not instructors or facilitators (Cangelosi. supported by internal evaluators in unique cases Convincing information decisionmaking for observations. mine the value. Figure 1 summarizes the and make constructive feedback about what they do rather basic differences between formative and summative evaluathan who they are. The evaluation of training programs can play either a formative purpose to improve the program or a summative purThere are a number of different dimensions for training pose to decide whether a program should be continued or reaction evaluations. 1990. or adoption (Worthen. of course. however none of the citations preterminated. merit. Reaction questionnaires amount of information and require the minimum amount of should be designed to supply valid and reliable information time to complete. merit. but in how. In Diagnostic for program modification. questionnaires. Instructors are far more likely to accept als. is a judgment about the quality. 1986. Formative Evaluation Purpose Use Focus Tools Time Audience User Major Characteristics To determine program's worth. interviews After training program Stakeholder or potential consumers External evaluators.1996) Bloomer. 1997). Although these two distinctive roles call for difsent a comprehensive set of dimensions. & ever. 1992). and improvement (Grove & Ostroff. During training program Program designer or team Primarily internal evaluators. tive or summative. decisions are necessary during the developmental stages of Guidelines for reaction dimensions can help practitioners a training program to improve it and-when it has been stadesign useful reaction evaluations for program modificabilized-to judge its final worth or determine its future. If participants are not satisfied with the training experience. Basic Differences Between Formative and Summative Evaluation. timing and use determine whether an evaluation is forma1991). modification. termination. Worthen & In some organizations the primary purpose of reaction evalSanders. they may not use what they have learned and will probably advise others not to attend the training program. termination. The tion. there are few differselecting reaction evaluation dimensions that are valid ences in how trainers collect and analyze the data. value. value. 1987). 1997). the reaction evaluation of a training program should relate to an instructor's Any aspect of a training program can be evaluated: the instruction and the impact of the training program. 1987). instructor. 1991) and to make decisions Dimensions to Evaluate concerning program continuation. and by whom it is used (Beer & In writing about level 1 evaluation. or quality To make decisions about a program's future or adoption Program impact Post-tests. supported by external evaluators Timing and control for program improvement Reaction evaluations can also be summative in nature. Judgment for program continuation. Volume 38 • Number 8 33 . Sanders.
& Cook. quality of materials. 1996). SEPTEMBER1999 . instructional activities • Program time/length • Training environment • Planned action/transfer expectation • Logistics/administration • Overall evaluation • Recommendations for program improvement Program Objective(s)/Content. the course materials. trainers. the trainer. 1992. comprehensive dimensions for reaction evaluations can be summarized as follows: • Program objective(s)/content • Program materials • Delivery methods/technologies • Instructor/facilitator. The results of material evaluation can be used to revise the training materials and to make the materials as effective as possible (Dick & Carey. Phillips (1996) enumerates the most common dimensions of reaction evaluations as being program content. communication medium. or approaches. program relevance to job/work area. such as objectives. training environment/facilities. and planned improvements. Some reaction forms might be very simple. Schouborg. individualized instruction packages. whether the content was organized into manageable amounts. techniques. trainee. while others might be detailed and require a considerable amount of time to complete. Typically. Other areas incorporate logistical concerns. Robinson & Robinson. effectiveness of the instruotorls). various delivery methodologies. or textbooks-performed for participants. program value. ease of use. adaptability. quality of the program materials. level. 1993. They also suggest that the reaction evaluation of a training program should not only focus on the program itself. and timeliness of the content presented can be judged by the participants' reactions. whether the 34 Performance Improvement. overall evaluation. and value (Hellebrandt & Russell.information requirements of program designers. efficiency. facilities/accommodations. The content of a training program should be identified with recognition of some significant variables. A performance objective is a detailed description of what trainees will be able to do when they complete a training program. The selection of training objective(s)/content depends on the purposes of the training program and is largely a judgment procedure (Tracey. 1996. 1992). Faerman & Ban. allowing for more precise information about a program's content and process. developers should make every effort to avoid unnecessary duplication of content. The areas of feedback used on reactionnaires should be directly tied to the nature and scope of the training program and the purposes of the evaluation. 1994). The purpose of evaluating the training materials is to determine their effectiveness. Sample reaction questions for objective(s)/content dimensions are as follows: • Did the program content meet the stated objectives? • Were the program topics effectively sequenced? • Was the program content up to date? • Was the course content at an appropriate level of difficulty? • Was the course content practical? Program Materials. etc. Robinson and Robinson (1989) indicate that reaction evaluations should include some questions that are specific to the particular program being evaluated. methods. such as the quality of classroom environment. trainer. or decisionmakers (Payne. and methods that are relevant to the training objectives. Forsyth et al. but ask more general questions about whether the training participants feel that they will be able to transfer what they have learned to the work environment and whether the organization is ready to support new skills. program coordinator/facilitator. and the learner's belief as to the overall effectiveness of the event. Cayer. 1993). helping to improve future programs. handouts. level of difficulty. and helpfulness. gaps in content. Answers can verify the consistency of the materials with the program objectives. content. the appropriateness. 1993). duration. discrepancies are bound to occur. 1989. administrative details. class handouts. and reaction evaluations can identify these weaknesses. resources. During the design and development stages of training program materials. (1995) suggest some guidelines for selecting dimensions of reaction evaluation. manuals. The most important concept associated with program content is that of a performance objective. 1993). The reaction questions should consider how well training materials-tutorial guides. and general comments. However. and recommendation for program improvement (Basarab & Root. laboratory manuals. There are areas to assess during a reaction evaluation. instructor. content. such as the size and comfort of the room and the tests or other performance measures (Wart. participatory materials. and delivery methods. technological materials. Based on the results of an extensive literature review on reaction evaluations. Instructional materials include published and unpublished print materials such as textbooks. and any conflicts in concepts and terminologies used. Keller. Designing a training program starts with these factors. Program materials are the objects the trainer and instructor use in the training environment. Program designers select procedures. objectives. manipulable materials. the use of media. reactionnaires inquire about participants' reactions to and interest in the usefulness ofthe program content. and relevance to the job or to intended changes. program materials. In addition. Sanderson (1995) advocates dimensions such as the participants' opinion of the precourse briefing. Considerations include how well the training materials matched the real world of the trainee.
visual. the instructor/facilitator is one of the key components of an effective training program. written assignments. 1981. case study. 1995). and course evaluation. cooperative learning group. the training situation. ranging from listening to the instructor. 1992). platform skills. An instructional activity is a set of structured experiences designed to help trainees achieve one or more training objectives. tutorial. self-instruction. and tutorials. Heinich et al. 1992). Performance standards for instructors are the backbone of instructor excellence. The selection of instructional activities for a training program has significant implications for course management strategies. They must identify trainee characteristics. simulation. the evaluator can evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of the delivery methods in helping learners understand the content of a training program.. The designer can choose from delivery methods such as lecture. programmed instruction. Evaluation questions revolve around the instructor's ability to interact with the learners and his or her ability to deliver the training content in a meaningful way. and instructional constraints. particularly for the use of class time (Dick & Carey. instructional staff variables can be one of the more important factors in attempts to account for variance in program outcomes and to distinguish a program's success. 1995). Physical separation from the workplace distinguishes classroom instruction from on-the-job training. Choices of delivery methods/technologies are based on selection criteria such as whether the delivery methods are appropriate for the trainee. and equipment selected for a training program (Tracey. the evaluation might ask questions such as the following: • Were the course exercises relevant to the program objectives? Performance Improvement. The instructors must possess the required technical and pedagogical knowledge. to ensure content understanding and performance change. 1992). Classroom instruction has two distinct attributes: the teaching of groups of trainees and the physical separation of the classroom from the workplace (Yelon. Seels & Glasgow. participant evaluation. To evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of instructional activities. 1992). Jolliffe. questioning techniques. Sample questions for the evaluation dimension of delivery methods/technologies are as follows: • Were the audio learning aids helpful? • Were the presentation technologies used in class effective? • Were the visual aids helpful? InstructorlFacilitator. 1996). and whether the training materials were presented in a way that was both interesting and stimulating (Forsyth. 1999. 1994). objectives. & Stevens. there are 60 standards covering preparation. and attitude and be successful in using the strategies. Jolliffe. problemsolving. Developers should consider several factors in selecting delivery methods/technologies that will help trainees reach objectives. As a manager of the training situation. Sample questions about the instructor/facilitator dimension for reaction evaluation are as follows: • Did the instructor present content clearly? • Was the instructor responsive to participants' questions? • Was the instructor well-prepared? Instructional Activities. Training action begins with this person. In this sense. training aids. discovery. explained concepts. demonstration. as well as each aspect of the total instructional activity. Determining whether the delivery methods will help trainees reach the stated objectives is an important issue in selecting appropriate delivery methods/technologies for different types of objectives (Dean. interesting. role play. and technology-based instruction (Davies. to multimedia-mediated instruction. designers adhere to many instructional principles derived from learning and instructional theories (Yelon. Group teaching distinguishes classroom instruction from individualized instruction. drill and practice. skills. content and sequencing. materials. or multimedia for a training program. Reaction evaluation of program materials should also include gathering data regarding the relevance of reading materials. and constraints before selecting methods or technologies. Reaction questions should also cover how the instructors interpreted and used the training materials and whether they presented materials in a way that was stimulating. Several of these standards can be assessed using reactionnaires. Various instructional activities can take place in a classroom. Based on the performance standards for instructors (Powers. Volume 38 • Number 8 35 . & Stevens. and enthusiastically answered questions (Forsyth. gaining participation. game. After using delivery methods such as audio. to group-based activities. discussion. Consideration should be given to whether the instructor encouraged active participation through the use of examples and illustrations. training objectives. The instructional designer determines method/technology options to achieve the objectives of a training program. and the quality of any performance tests or examinations. and helpful. laboratory. Another important consideration is the degree of trainee involvement in the training activity. To be effective in using instructional activities to enhance job performance. The designers of training programs strive to be effective in creating each element of classroom instruction. 1990).sequence was from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract. Sample questions for program materials are as follows: • Were the materials consistent with the training objectives? • Were the program materials of high quality? • Was the level of difficulty of the materials appropriate? • Was the content of the handouts easy to understand? Delivery Methods/Technologies.
To ensure quality programs for performance improvement. accessibility. 1988). The quality of large training programs depends on how well the objectives and content of the program are marketed. 1988).• Were the group discussions helpful to participants in exchanging ideas with each other? • Was the homework helpful in understanding the course content? Program Time/Length. reaction evaluations can include questions about operations. 1992). or car. To improve future training programs. 1996). living room. room temperature. McVey. patterns of work. seating arrangements. From this point of view. it may be more likely that they will implement what they learn (Sanderson. The place could be a classroom. arrangements. facilitator or coordinator. 1980. and the location of the placers) where learning occurs (Tessmer & Harris. planned action/expectation for job trans- 36 Performance Improvement. study facility-meet your needs? • Was there enough workspace for class activities? Planned Actionlfransfer Expectation. developers can use program time/length as an evaluation dimension. they need to ask specific questions regarding learning space. heating. and special events such as registration procedures. The logistics and administrative sides of program planning are important. Time-on-task and the efficient use of time are important in planning a training session. Too little time or too much time can negatively affect training effectiveness. Questions related to this fact would focus on understanding and awareness of ergonomics as applied to the logistics and physical adequacy of the training environment (Faerman & Ban. Broad and Newstrom (1992) report that there is a positive relationship between favorable organizational climate and management support of training and the participants' ability to apply classroom learning to the work environment. Training participants' perceptions of classroom environments can have a significant influence on both cognitive and affective learning outcomes (Haertel & Walberg. the program evaluator could ask participants about their plans and expectations for applying the content of the program when they return to their jobs. travel arrangements. computer lab. reaction evaluation should include questions on planned actions and anticipated organizational barriers. lighting. the conditions. 1995). office. This dimension of reaction evaluation is used to measure the participants' overall reactions about the usefulness of the course content. Environmental psychologists recognize the environment as a persistent and powerful influence on human learning and behavior. 1988). Peterson & Bickman. kinds of activities in which people are engaged. and how well the program is managed once underway. 1993. An understanding of logistical and administrative support undergirds the effective team-building effort that is necessary in conducting successful programs. adequacy of the learning environment. Sample questions for the training environment dimension are as follows: • Was the training environment appropriate for the learning? • Were the environmental conditions-comfort. The facilities of the learning environment include the furnishings. visibility-conducive to learning? • Did the arrangements-food. Positive transfer is highly contingent on factors in the trainee's work environment. division of duties and responsibilities. acoustics. SEPTEMBER 1999 . and extracurricular activities associated with the program. When evaluators are considering questions in this area. noise. and program procedures and policies (Miringoff. These questions function as a type of administrative audit that assesses administrative aspects such as personnel practices. To find and remove the barriers for planned action and transfer of training content. the evaluators of a training program can assess the length of sessions and/or entire training program and use the results for schedule changes and considerations of overall program length. If participants have to report to their managers about their training experiences and their intended transfer actions. effectiveness of the instructor. Sample questions regarding the planned action/transfer expectations dimension for reactionnaires are as follows: • Was the training content relevant to your job? • Do you expect the organization to support your use of the skills learned in this program? • What factors will encourage job transfer of the training content? • What factors will inhibit job transfer of the training content? Logistics/Administration. Sample questions for the program timellength dimension are as follows: • Was the amount of time in the program sufficient? • Was the length of the program appropriate for program objective(s)? • Was there enough time for practice of course content? Training Environment. measuring participants' perceptions regarding the likelihood of their being able to transfer training content to the work environment may be particularly important (Baldwin & Ford. Using this dimension. and overall flexibility in terms of training event demands. Sample questions for this dimension of reaction evaluations are as follows: • Was the scheduling for this course efficiently administered? • Was the process of registration for this course easy? • Was the assistance with extracurricular activities helpful? Overall Evaluation. To help the participants implement the results of the program on the job. how well pretraining enrollments are executed. social and special events. sleeping accommodation.
level. such as training content and methods. the training context. • What would you suggest to improve the training program? Reaction evaluation. E. and other logistical and administrative matters Administration ment of the training program and provide an open forum To determine overall participant satisfaction and feelings about the training Overall Evaluation for the participants to share program their opinions. some being transitory in American Society for Training and Development. lodging.fer. 1989). ventions for improving human performance. training (Patrick. attitudes. 1992). (1996). structure. 1996). and timeliness of the program content To determine the effectiveness. They are the results References of many factors.. throughout the training program. Logistics! tinuous quality improveregistration. the training program. and quality of materials for the training program. ing more effective in meeting customer requirements. but it takes longer to It is a common mistake for a training department to create summarize the results. Participant reactions may vary 42(2). as specified in the participants to express their own thoughts without being purpose of reaction evaluation. Sample questions of this dimension for reaction evaluation are as follows: • Was the overall instructional environment conducive to learning? • Was there enough time to cover the program content? • Did the training program meet your intended needs? • Would you recommend this training program to others? Dimension Program Objectives/ Content Program Materials Delivery Methods/ Technologies InstructorlFacilitator Instructional Activities Program Time/ Length Training Environment Purpose To evaluate the program objectives with participants' expectations and the appropriateness. and the Alliger. but also when they should be assessed. preparation. nature. "Kirkpatrick's levels of trainee's perceived success at achieving some of the goals of training criteria: Thirty years later. and effectiveness of the trainer or facilitator in leading the program To evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of in.and/or out-of-class activities To assess the length of session and/or entire training program for schedule change and considerations of program length To evaluate the adequacy of the physical training environment. Dimensions of Reaction Evaluation. Sample questions for recommending one reaction evaluation for all its training programs. Volume 38 • Number 8 37 . 331-342.A. (1989). This approach can produce very helpful information for program improvement and decisionmaking for future training. The idea of selecting dimensions for the reaction evaluation of A total of 11 dimensions and their purposes are summarized training programs also can be applied to evaluate other interin Figure 2. With appropriate dimensions. other trainees." is being used in the best-practice companies to make train• Please make any comments for changes that would improve the program. & Janak. Therefore. reaction evaluation can be a more useful and valuable tool in the evaluation of training programs and perConclusion formance improvement programs in general. it is best to use a series of open-ended questions that allow the aspects of these reactions are of interest. including media/technologies To rate the ability." Personnel Psychology. or feelings about a specific training program are complex. including classroom. and leisure facilities Recommendations for ProPlanned Action! To evaluate the participants' plans/expectations and anticipated barriers for gram Improvement. G. efficiency.M. training location. and usefulness of written material and other aids To judge the appropriateness and effectiveness of delivery methods. When the Recommendations for To receive suggestions/recommendations for improving similar or future evaluator wants more sponProgram Improvement training programs taneous feedback about participants' attitudes toward Figure 2. dining room. 11\ Each participant's reactions. forced into a set of choices (Keller. At least program improvement are as follows: a portion of each evaluation should be specific to the program it is designed to evaluate (Robinson & Robinson. recognized as "customer satisfaction. Questions Transfer Expectation applying the content of the training program on the job in this dimension collect useful information for conTo evaluate the smoothness and effectiveness of the scheduling. evaluators must decide not only what Performance Improvement.
& Ban. (1990). "Trainee satisfaction and training impact: Issues in training evaluation.A. Reading." In R. --. (1994). Russell.K. L.G. 55-64. San technique.L. 294-312. & Stevens. Jolliffe. "The relationship between trainee responses on participant reaction forms and post-test scores. Forsyth. Brinkerhoff. & Newstrom." New Directions for Program Evaluation. New York: McGraw-Hill. M. 1045-1104. (1996). & Bickman.. N. Washington. Jonassen [Ed. & Ostroff. T. W. classroom instruction." New Directions for Program Evaluation. M. 29-55.L.J. Boston.M. (1996). (1994). (1988). J." Journal of Industrial Teacher Education.). Cangelosi. San Diego: Pfeiffer.H. 40. (1993). I. London: McGraw-Hill. J. "Program evaluation.). London: Kogan Page. G. (1980). "Industry report: Who's learning what?" (1996). "Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. J.. (1991). L. handbook. Evaluating courses: Practical strategies for teachers. lecturers and trainers. & Root. (1996).A. (1992). Basarab. Developing human resources. Kirkpatrick.L. J.. (1981). D. The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed.performance (2nd ed. & Russell.C. Phillips. Grove. Keller. B. Peterson.. 23(2). The systematic instruction (4th ed. Faerman. Boston.). "Assessing social-psychological classroom environments in program evaluation. New York: Dean.D. (1993).S. 22-27.). 16(3).. DC: The Bureau of National Affairs. "Confirmative evaluation of instructional materials and learners. Baldwin. (1992).K. & Smaldino. 83-92. D. Designing educational project and program evaluations: A practical overview based on research and experience. Dick.. Craig (Ed. A. Management in human service organizations. Newby. J. 38 Performance Improvement. S. 41(1).S. (1988). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. & Walberg.. J. A. ---. Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments.). Evaluating training and educational programs: A review of the literature." Innovative Higher Education. Alexandria.The 1996 American Society for Training and Development report on trends that affect corporate learning &. New York: HarperCollins. (1986). (1996). SEPTEMBER 1999 . G. Handbook of training evaluation and mea- Dixon. 299-314. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. 63-105. I.R. Malabar..D. TX: Air Force Material Command. Upper Saddle River. McVey. J. "Sumrnative evaluation in training and development. J. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Instructional McGraw-Hill. Molenda. London: Academic. (1988). R. 32(6). Wexley & J." Performance &Instruction. TX: Gulf. Evaluating training effectiveness: Benchmarking your training activity against best practice (2nd ed." In K. MA: Kluwer Academic. Training. 44. D.C. Miringoff.M. 45-61. 1(2). (1996). Designing instruction for adult learners.. Houston.). (1994). D. 5-185-5-220. "Evaluation. A.T. "Levels of evaluation.H. C. (1991). (1986). Bramley.F. K. NJ: Prentice-Hall." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. MA: Kluwer Academic. & Ford.N.Management Review.L. RO. 8(4). Beer." Personnel Psychology.. Patrick. 11(1).E. Training: Research and practice.. & Bloomer. & Casper. (1992). Mattoon. C. (1999)." Human Resources Development Quarterly. MA: Addison-Wesley. Antheil.A. D. "Comprehensive evaluation model: A tool for the evaluation of nontraditional educational programs. FL: Krieger." In D. 53-65. & Carey. "Program personnel: The missing ingredient in describing the program environment. Accountability in human resource management: Techniques for evaluating the human resource function and measuring its bottom-line contribution.J. New York: Macmillan. Evaluating diversity training: 17 readyto-use tools. 33(10). Evaluating New York: Longman. (1997). 5-20. Training evaluation Diego: Pfeiffer. G. Hinrichs (Eds. The training evaluation process: A practical approach to evaluating corporate training programs. H.D. "Using evaluation to transform training. (1992). J.." New Directions for Program Evaluation. Brooks. Broad. 335-345. 129-137. D. (1986).L. (1995). Davies. Heinich.. I. design of Parker. Payne. v..W. (1989).J. Haertel. (1992). 40. S. M.K. "Ergonomics and the learning environment.). (1996).)." Public Productivity &. Instructional media and technologies for learning (6th ed. VA: Author. J. P. Hellebrandt. J.J.
edu. (1992). 113-14. G." In H.D. J. MA: HRD. New York: AMACOM. & Harris. Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations. J. Bloomington. Truelove (Ed. Analyzing the instructional setting: Environmental analysis. (1991).V. He may be reached at the Office of Education and Training Resources. B. 18(5). Schouborg. 42-47. (812) 855-8545. Handbook of training and development for the public sector: A comprehensive resource. & Robinson. Columbus. Room 101. 35-58. London: Kogan Page. Worthen. Keeps (Eds.).lspl. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Instructional Systems Technology and Director of Education and Training Resources at Indiana University He teaches courses and conducts research in the areas of performance technology. This article was accepted for publication before James A. B. 383-411. B. Stolovitch & E. Sanderson. TX: Gulf. S. & Cook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. & Ryan. J. email: email@example.com. Handbook of training and development (znd ed.). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed. and the International Federation of Training and Development Organisations over the last three years. New York: Pergamon.. Wart. "Summative evaluation." In S.R. Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Powers. Robinson. Tracey.. G. "Who is evaluating training?" Journal of European Industrial Training. D. IN 47405-1006.R. B. Walberg & G.R (1987).). Got a Performance Qu." In H. "Classroom instruction. Sanders. Plant. S. Amherst. W. training evaluation. Pershing. OH: Merrill. 4(2).R (1990). 201 North Rose Avenue. needs analysis. associations the American instruction/training. training evaluation. Oxford: Blackwell. or fax: James A. email suhlee@indiana.). M. Designing training and development systems (3rd ed.). B. Worthen. D. Flex: A flexible tool for continuously improving your evaluation of training effectiveness. or fax: (812) 339-8792. Bloomington. Tessmer. N. Exercises in instructional design.surement methods: Proven models and methods for evaluating any HRD program (3rd ed. (1990). (1993). Smith Research Center. (1992).L. the Worthen. 27-30.J. He may be reached at Wendell W. New York: Longman. for and and theory of instructional and performance technology. Instructor excellence: Mastering delivery of training. The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation.. M. Haertel (Eds.). "Program evaluation.R. the International Society for Development. & Sanders..J. computer-based several topics in professional Educational Performance Communications Improvement. is a Research Associate with Education and Training Resources at Indiana University. Yelon. M. & Fitzpatrick.. (1989). and the business impact of training and development.D. J. Volume 38 • Number 8 39 • . Smith. He holds a PhD in Instructional Systems Technology from Indiana University. J. Training for impact: How to link training to business needs and measure the results. (1995). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. RA.pn? • Check Out the ISPI Bulletin Boards at WWW. & Glasgow.e. IN 47408. 2805 EastTenth Street. Wright Education Building #2230. PhD. (1994). New York: Longman.. Pershing was selected to replace Martha Dean as the new editor of Performance Improvement. Z. D.I§. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass..org Performance Improvement. RJ. Houston. He has presented such as the Association Society for Training & Technology. (1997). His research focuses on the fields of performance analysis. (1992). Seels.G.).R (1992). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.E." Performance Improvement Quarterly. Cayer. & Brandenburg.L. (1993). PhD. "Objectives and evaluation. Sung Heum Lee.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.