P. 1
Effective Reaction Evaluation in Evaluation of Training Programme

Effective Reaction Evaluation in Evaluation of Training Programme

|Views: 10|Likes:
Dipublikasikan oleh TekstidinegariThaufik

More info:

Published by: TekstidinegariThaufik on May 26, 2012
Hak Cipta:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Effective Reaction Evaluation in Evaluating Training Programs

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


Performance Improvement.


questionnaires. interviews observations. During training program Program designer or team Primarily internal evaluators. Sanders. value. however none of the citations preterminated. Although these two distinctive roles call for difsent a comprehensive set of dimensions. training programs is to evaluate a training program. 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. or adoption tion evaluation is to deterFigure 1. and by whom it is used (Beer & In writing about level 1 evaluation. or adoption (Worthen. 1987). tive or summative. In Diagnostic for program modification. expansion. they may not use what they have learned and will probably advise others not to attend the training program. merit. Reaction questionnaires amount of information and require the minimum amount of should be designed to supply valid and reliable information time to complete. The kinds of questions to be addressed in to program evaluators. timing and use determine whether an evaluation is forma1991). or Fitzpatrick. The evaluation of a training program. Worthen & Sanders. a reaction evaluation will. 1991) and to make decisions Dimensions to Evaluate concerning program continuation. 1987). is a judgment about the quality. effectiveness. 1990. Summative evaluations provide program uation focuses on the course instructor or facilitator decisionmakers and potential customers with judgments (Phillips. Figure 1 summarizes the and make constructive feedback about what they do rather basic differences between formative and summative evaluathan who they are. expansion. or efficiency of a training program (Smith & Brandenburg. Kirkpatrick (1994. He indicates for reaction evaluations and for the rigorous design and that ideal reaction evaluations provide the maximum development of reactionnaires. value. Instructors are far more likely to accept als. effectiveness.is specific enough to help make revisions and improvements in the training program. instructor. but in how. & ever. supported by external evaluators Timing and control for program improvement Reaction evaluations can also be summative in nature. training materithe instructor alone. modification. 1991). not to trainee. Therefore. 1997). termination. This is crucial information. or redesign termination. Worthen & In some organizations the primary purpose of reaction evalSanders. instructional strategies. Basic Differences Between Formative and Summative Evaluation.1996) Bloomer. supported by internal evaluators in unique cases Convincing information decisionmaking for observations. presents a few sample reaction forms but does not suggest This difference calls for the careful selection of dimensions guidelines for selecting reaction dimensions. The main difference is not in the information. Summative Evaluation To determine program's worth. 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. 1986. or quality To make decisions about a program's future or adoption Program impact Post-tests. of course. there are few differselecting reaction evaluation dimensions that are valid ences in how trainers collect and analyze the data. Reaction evaluations provide program designers with insights about participants' degree of satisfaction with a program's design and implementation. 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. The tion. termination. Identifying and ferent uses of the evaluation results. and improvement (Grove & Ostroff. the goal of reacrevision. questionnaires. The responsibility of an evaluator of tion. Consequence such cases. Volume 38 • Number 8 33 . value. Judgment for program continuation. impact of the training activity. merit. interviews After training program Stakeholder or potential consumers External evaluators. be linked with the Performance Improvement. Keller. 1996. when. 1992). mine the value. If participants are not satisfied with the training experience. and even the training facilities. or quality To improve training program and correct errors Program process Tests. Both forand applicable presents a formidable problem for corpomative and summative evaluations are essential because rate training evaluation practitioners (Mattoon. not instructors or facilitators (Cangelosi. Formative Evaluation Purpose Use Focus Tools Time Audience User Major Characteristics To determine program's worth. howabout a program's worth or merit (Worthen. 1997).

trainer. 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. The selection of training objective(s)/content depends on the purposes of the training program and is largely a judgment procedure (Tracey. instructional activities • Program time/length • Training environment • Planned action/transfer expectation • Logistics/administration • Overall evaluation • Recommendations for program improvement Program Objective(s)/Content. and recommendation for program improvement (Basarab & Root. Based on the results of an extensive literature review on reaction evaluations. However. content. 1994). 1993). Other areas incorporate logistical concerns. individualized instruction packages. handouts. & Cook. and any conflicts in concepts and terminologies used. Program materials are the objects the trainer and instructor use in the training environment. and value (Hellebrandt & Russell. and reaction evaluations can identify these weaknesses. or textbooks-performed for participants. 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. the trainer. techniques. resources. trainers. or decisionmakers (Payne. 1996. trainee. and relevance to the job or to intended changes. The content of a training program should be identified with recognition of some significant variables. During the design and development stages of training program materials. participatory materials. content. manipulable materials. communication medium. Faerman & Ban. (1995) suggest some guidelines for selecting dimensions of reaction evaluation. quality of materials. class handouts. Program designers select procedures. Keller. efficiency. objectives. reactionnaires inquire about participants' reactions to and interest in the usefulness ofthe program content. 1989. They also suggest that the reaction evaluation of a training program should not only focus on the program itself. manuals. Considerations include how well the training materials matched the real world of the trainee. program coordinator/facilitator. Designing a training program starts with these factors. training environment/facilities. quality of the program materials. gaps in content. and planned improvements. Robinson and Robinson (1989) indicate that reaction evaluations should include some questions that are specific to the particular program being evaluated. Cayer. whether the content was organized into manageable amounts. 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. The most important concept associated with program content is that of a performance objective. Some reaction forms might be very simple. helping to improve future programs. 1993). whether the 34 Performance Improvement. program relevance to job/work area. etc. There are areas to assess during a reaction evaluation. Answers can verify the consistency of the materials with the program objectives. ease of use. instructor. SEPTEMBER1999 . the course materials. or approaches. Sanderson (1995) advocates dimensions such as the participants' opinion of the precourse briefing. 1996). developers should make every effort to avoid unnecessary duplication of content. overall evaluation. Phillips (1996) enumerates the most common dimensions of reaction evaluations as being program content. such as the quality of classroom environment. administrative details. In addition. the appropriateness. and timeliness of the content presented can be judged by the participants' reactions. allowing for more precise information about a program's content and process.information requirements of program designers. and helpfulness. and the learner's belief as to the overall effectiveness of the event. technological materials. level of difficulty. the use of media. duration. effectiveness of the instruotorls). 1992). comprehensive dimensions for reaction evaluations can be summarized as follows: • Program objective(s)/content • Program materials • Delivery methods/technologies • Instructor/facilitator. program materials. Schouborg. 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. The purpose of evaluating the training materials is to determine their effectiveness. and methods that are relevant to the training objectives. 1992. various delivery methodologies. and general comments. 1993. Forsyth et al. such as objectives. The results of material evaluation can be used to revise the training materials and to make the materials as effective as possible (Dick & Carey. Robinson & Robinson. while others might be detailed and require a considerable amount of time to complete. and delivery methods. such as the size and comfort of the room and the tests or other performance measures (Wart. The reaction questions should consider how well training materials-tutorial guides. level. Typically. adaptability. laboratory manuals. facilities/accommodations. methods. Instructional materials include published and unpublished print materials such as textbooks. program value. 1993).

questioning techniques. Jolliffe. The designers of training programs strive to be effective in creating each element of classroom instruction. Volume 38 • Number 8 35 . In this sense. Classroom instruction has two distinct attributes: the teaching of groups of trainees and the physical separation of the classroom from the workplace (Yelon. game. Seels & Glasgow. the training situation. interesting. training objectives. 1996). discussion. 1999. 1992). Several of these standards can be assessed using reactionnaires. As a manager of the training situation. and technology-based instruction (Davies. They must identify trainee characteristics. Physical separation from the workplace distinguishes classroom instruction from on-the-job training. 1994). 1992). Heinich et al. 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 tutorials. Consideration should be given to whether the instructor encouraged active participation through the use of examples and illustrations. as well as each aspect of the total instructional activity. & 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. particularly for the use of class time (Dick & Carey.. 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. skills. Performance standards for instructors are the backbone of instructor excellence. training aids. drill and practice. platform skills. and instructional constraints. Training action begins with this person. tutorial. Choices of delivery methods/technologies are based on selection criteria such as whether the delivery methods are appropriate for the trainee. 1990). or multimedia for a training program. The instructional designer determines method/technology options to achieve the objectives of a training program. the instructor/facilitator is one of the key components of an effective training program. 1995). simulation. problemsolving. written assignments. Various instructional activities can take place in a classroom. and enthusiastically answered questions (Forsyth. and helpful. 1992). materials. to multimedia-mediated instruction. demonstration. 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. and attitude and be successful in using the strategies. and constraints before selecting methods or technologies. Group teaching distinguishes classroom instruction from individualized instruction. laboratory. 1981. To evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of instructional activities. explained concepts. the evaluator can evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of the delivery methods in helping learners understand the content of a training program. and equipment selected for a training program (Tracey. 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. designers adhere to many instructional principles derived from learning and instructional theories (Yelon. objectives. participant evaluation. The selection of instructional activities for a training program has significant implications for course management strategies. The designer can choose from delivery methods such as lecture. content and sequencing. To be effective in using instructional activities to enhance job performance. and whether the training materials were presented in a way that was both interesting and stimulating (Forsyth. The instructors must possess the required technical and pedagogical knowledge. cooperative learning group. Jolliffe. to ensure content understanding and performance change. the evaluation might ask questions such as the following: • Were the course exercises relevant to the program objectives? Performance Improvement. 1992). Another important consideration is the degree of trainee involvement in the training activity. discovery. programmed instruction. and the quality of any performance tests or examinations. role play. Developers should consider several factors in selecting delivery methods/technologies that will help trainees reach objectives. self-instruction. and course evaluation. An instructional activity is a set of structured experiences designed to help trainees achieve one or more training objectives. visual. 1995). & Stevens.sequence was from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract. case study. Based on the performance standards for instructors (Powers. Reaction evaluation of program materials should also include gathering data regarding the relevance of reading materials. After using delivery methods such as audio. 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. ranging from listening to the instructor. to group-based activities. gaining participation. 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.

To improve future training programs. 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. 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. 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. accessibility. living room. division of duties and responsibilities. Training participants' perceptions of classroom environments can have a significant influence on both cognitive and affective learning outcomes (Haertel & Walberg. kinds of activities in which people are engaged. 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. To ensure quality programs for performance improvement. reaction evaluations can include questions about operations. 1988). If participants have to report to their managers about their training experiences and their intended transfer actions. facilitator or coordinator. The quality of large training programs depends on how well the objectives and content of the program are marketed. acoustics. social and special events. Too little time or too much time can negatively affect training effectiveness. and how well the program is managed once underway. heating. computer lab. adequacy of the learning environment. Using this dimension. they need to ask specific questions regarding learning space. 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. The facilities of the learning environment include the furnishings. This dimension of reaction evaluation is used to measure the participants' overall reactions about the usefulness of the course content. patterns of work. noise. sleeping accommodation. and the location of the placers) where learning occurs (Tessmer & Harris. 1988). travel arrangements. 1995). These questions function as a type of administrative audit that assesses administrative aspects such as personnel practices.• 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. arrangements. measuring participants' perceptions regarding the likelihood of their being able to transfer training content to the work environment may be particularly important (Baldwin & Ford. To find and remove the barriers for planned action and transfer of training content. SEPTEMBER 1999 . 1992). and special events such as registration procedures. Positive transfer is highly contingent on factors in the trainee's work environment. The logistics and administrative sides of program planning are important. and program procedures and policies (Miringoff. and overall flexibility in terms of training event demands. visibility-conducive to learning? • Did the arrangements-food. it may be more likely that they will implement what they learn (Sanderson. lighting. Time-on-task and the efficient use of time are important in planning a training session. how well pretraining enrollments are executed. effectiveness of the instructor. The place could be a classroom. 1993. developers can use program time/length as an evaluation dimension. office. 1996). study facility-meet your needs? • Was there enough workspace for class activities? Planned Actionlfransfer Expectation. or car. Peterson & Bickman. From this point of view. the program evaluator could ask participants about their plans and expectations for applying the content of the program when they return to their jobs. planned action/expectation for job trans- 36 Performance Improvement. To help the participants implement the results of the program on the job. 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. McVey. reaction evaluation should include questions on planned actions and anticipated organizational barriers. An understanding of logistical and administrative support undergirds the effective team-building effort that is necessary in conducting successful programs. 1980. the conditions. and extracurricular activities associated with the program. When evaluators are considering questions in this area. Sample questions for the training environment dimension are as follows: • Was the training environment appropriate for the learning? • Were the environmental conditions-comfort. Environmental psychologists recognize the environment as a persistent and powerful influence on human learning and behavior. 1988). seating arrangements. room temperature.

G. throughout the training program. 1996). lodging. training (Patrick. 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. dining room. and timeliness of the program content To determine the effectiveness.M.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. preparation. (1996). and leisure facilities Recommendations for ProPlanned Action! To evaluate the participants' plans/expectations and anticipated barriers for gram Improvement. evaluators must decide not only what Performance Improvement." is being used in the best-practice companies to make train• Please make any comments for changes that would improve the program. 1992). and quality of materials for the training program. efficiency. and the Alliger. forced into a set of choices (Keller. 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. nature." Personnel Psychology. some being transitory in American Society for Training and Development. including classroom. attitudes. training location.A. as specified in the participants to express their own thoughts without being purpose of reaction evaluation. but it takes longer to It is a common mistake for a training department to create summarize the results. reaction evaluation can be a more useful and valuable tool in the evaluation of training programs and perConclusion formance improvement programs in general. 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. level. (1989). structure. 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. • What would you suggest to improve the training program? Reaction evaluation. They are the results References of many factors. such as training content and methods. including media/technologies To rate the ability. the training context. Sample questions for recommending one reaction evaluation for all its training programs. With appropriate dimensions. other trainees.fer. & Janak. Dimensions of Reaction Evaluation. Logistics! tinuous quality improveregistration. it is best to use a series of open-ended questions that allow the aspects of these reactions are of interest. E. 331-342. Therefore. but also when they should be assessed. Volume 38 • Number 8 37 . 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. ing more effective in meeting customer requirements. the training program. recognized as "customer satisfaction. and usefulness of written material and other aids To judge the appropriateness and effectiveness of delivery methods. ventions for improving human performance. "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. or feelings about a specific training program are complex. 11\ Each participant's reactions. 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. Participant reactions may vary 42(2). This approach can produce very helpful information for program improvement and decisionmaking for future training. 1989)..

R.L. 40. Hellebrandt. & Ban. Brinkerhoff. (1992). M. & Carey. "Using evaluation to transform training.N. (1992).A. 83-92. --. Hinrichs (Eds. & Casper. "Confirmative evaluation of instructional materials and learners. "Sumrnative evaluation in training and development. D. G. I.J. K... M. Alexandria. Kirkpatrick.C.. Boston.K." Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. TX: Air Force Material Command. & Smaldino. New York: Macmillan. & Ford.Management Review. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 5-20. 16(3). & Ostroff.D. (1996). (1991). (1990). 44.. The training evaluation process: A practical approach to evaluating corporate training programs.J. 55-64. J. N.T. Patrick. Evaluating courses: Practical strategies for teachers. (1988).D. RO.. A.R. "Program evaluation. D. 45-61. MA: Addison-Wesley.L. "The relationship between trainee responses on participant reaction forms and post-test scores. 33(10). J.J. (1986). Developing human resources." In D. Training evaluation Diego: Pfeiffer. D." In R. T. The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed. I.performance (2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins. (1996). I.D. 41(1). Davies. (1999). Phillips.. Upper Saddle River." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. "Comprehensive evaluation model: A tool for the evaluation of nontraditional educational programs. Dick. 294-312.A. & Bloomer. H. Miringoff.)." Personnel Psychology. J. v. London: Kogan Page. Newby. 23(2). London: Academic. FL: Krieger.). 29-55. D. Instructional McGraw-Hill. 40. (1992). (1993). McVey." Innovative Higher Education. London: McGraw-Hill. J. New York: McGraw-Hill. Training. 8(4). Washington. M.M. (1996). handbook." New Directions for Program Evaluation. Haertel.L." New Directions for Program Evaluation. Antheil. TX: Gulf. 129-137. MA: Kluwer Academic. Brooks. "Ergonomics and the learning environment. A. (1994). Mattoon. San Diego: Pfeiffer. (1991). "Levels of evaluation. C. Basarab. ---. Instructional media and technologies for learning (6th ed. 5-185-5-220.. Cangelosi. Reading. (1986). W.. Evaluating New York: Longman. S.F. P. New York: Dean. Evaluating training effectiveness: Benchmarking your training activity against best practice (2nd ed. Houston. (1996). 32(6). Forsyth. (1997).L. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Bramley. L.H. (1996). J. MA: Kluwer Academic." Public Productivity &. 299-314. & Root. L. 335-345. Grove.H. 53-65. (1994).S. D. Baldwin. "Trainee satisfaction and training impact: Issues in training evaluation. 38 Performance Improvement. Craig (Ed. (1980). 1(2). Training: Research and practice. J. Jolliffe. D. 11(1). DC: The Bureau of National Affairs. B.). & Bickman. (1992).L. Boston. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Faerman.). "Industry report: Who's learning what?" (1996). (1988).W. Accountability in human resource management: Techniques for evaluating the human resource function and measuring its bottom-line contribution. Designing educational project and program evaluations: A practical overview based on research and experience. Handbook of training evaluation and mea- Dixon.. Payne. VA: Author. San technique.). Evaluating diversity training: 17 readyto-use tools. J." Performance &Instruction.). Management in human service organizations. Jonassen [Ed. 22-27.C.. J. & Stevens.J. Broad. (1993).). & Russell. & Walberg. (1994)." Human Resources Development Quarterly. lecturers and trainers.. (1988).A. design of Parker. "Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research." New Directions for Program Evaluation. (1996). "Evaluation. (1992). "Program personnel: The missing ingredient in describing the program environment. The systematic instruction (4th ed. J.The 1996 American Society for Training and Development report on trends that affect corporate learning &. 1045-1104. (1989). G. Designing instruction for adult learners.S. 63-105. Molenda. (1981). NJ: Prentice-Hall. "Assessing social-psychological classroom environments in program evaluation. SEPTEMBER 1999 . Peterson.K.G. Heinich. G. (1986). S.M. Wexley & J. Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Russell. A. Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments..E. J." In K. J. & Newstrom. Keller. Evaluating training and educational programs: A review of the literature. classroom instruction. Beer.). Malabar..K. C. (1995)..

Tracey. Smith Research Center. Bloomington. MA: HRD. Houston. Flex: A flexible tool for continuously improving your evaluation of training effectiveness. M.edu. 35-58. M. B. Wart. RA. B. 383-411. Smith. Exercises in instructional design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. PhD. & Fitzpatrick. (1993).R. New York: Pergamon. J. & Ryan. 201 North Rose Avenue. (1994). & Sanders.). Bloomington. Handbook of training and development for the public sector: A comprehensive resource. "Objectives and evaluation. Plant.org Performance Improvement." In H. (1990). This article was accepted for publication before James A. & Cook.pn? • Check Out the ISPI Bulletin Boards at WWW. Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.lspl. training evaluation. Sung Heum Lee. D. the International Society for Development.e.. Keeps (Eds. Z. Sanders. (1992). B. G.). 2805 EastTenth Street. S. W..). Instructor excellence: Mastering delivery of training. is a Research Associate with Education and Training Resources at Indiana University. His research focuses on the fields of performance analysis. "Who is evaluating training?" Journal of European Industrial Training. the Worthen. Schouborg.I§. & Robinson. Analyzing the instructional setting: Environmental analysis. Training for impact: How to link training to business needs and measure the results. 4(2). & Brandenburg. Sanderson. Amherst..).R (1992). Cayer. (1993). B. J. Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations.. (1992). (1989). D. training evaluation. He may be reached at Wendell W. 113-14. Worthen. Stolovitch & E. B. J.L. for and and theory of instructional and performance technology.V. OH: Merrill. Volume 38 • Number 8 39 • . Tessmer. (1995). Haertel (Eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. He holds a PhD in Instructional Systems Technology from Indiana University. computer-based several topics in professional Educational Performance Communications Improvement. J. (812) 855-8545.surement methods: Proven models and methods for evaluating any HRD program (3rd ed. He has presented such as the Association Society for Training & Technology. The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation. Handbook of training and development (znd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.). Wright Education Building #2230.e. J. 42-47. or fax: (812) 339-8792. 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." Performance Improvement Quarterly. Seels. TX: Gulf. G. Pershing. (1992). Designing training and development systems (3rd ed. M. 18(5). Walberg & G.G.." In S. & Glasgow. and the business impact of training and development.J. Got a Performance Qu.). Worthen. Room 101. "Classroom instruction.. Powers. N. New York: Longman. Truelove (Ed. (1991). "Program evaluation. PhD.J. RJ.. associations the American instruction/training. "Summative evaluation. 27-30. Yelon.R. email: pershin@indianaedu. email suhlee@indiana. Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines.R (1990).D. IN 47405-1006. New York: Longman. London: Kogan Page. New York: AMACOM. He may be reached at the Office of Education and Training Resources. IN 47408. (1997). or fax: James A.).D.E. needs analysis. S. D. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Oxford: Blackwell. Pershing was selected to replace Martha Dean as the new editor of Performance Improvement. Robinson.L. & Harris. Columbus. and the International Federation of Training and Development Organisations over the last three years.R (1987)." In H.R.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->