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