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