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