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