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