Recently, I had the opportunity to review Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Evaluation model. In his model, Kirkpatrick defines a process by which corporations can evaluate training programs. His evaluation process is constructed on the following basis: how learners react to the learning process (reaction), the extent to which learners gain knowledge and skills (learning), capability to of students to perform learned skills on the job (behavior), and results using items such as monetary, efficiency, moral, etc (results).
In this model I can see a useful tool for assessment, but it may not account for the three other steps in the process of a successful development program; planning, budgeting, and funding. One could imply that assessment is the only necessary step because inherent in good training, the other elements of planning, budgeting and funding must exist. I contend that may not be the case.
Planning, budgeting, and funding, in addition to assessment, are key ingredients to a successful development program. It is important to view development holistically for the ways it can facilitate learning. Developing projects with the proper academic focus and fiscal responsibility can only be accomplished through a process of shared governance and based on institutional priorities. A poor planning process can still produce a successfully evaluated training program that has very little value to the overall institutional goals.
The act of planning is very important to ultimate success of projects, but planning cannot be conducted within a vacuum it requires input. It can be said that planning without budgeting is nothing more than wishful thinking. It is important to develop plans and make sure those plans are included in the budgeting process in a meaningful way.
This increasing dedication of precious IT dollars to maintenance as oppose to funding new instructional innovation has force institutions to find many different sources of funding. With the increased pressure, it is important to identify dedicated sources of funding for development that is continued and lasting. A training program can be developed and funded, but if there is a lack of overall funding post-training, although the program itself may be deemed a success, the entire purpose for the development can be a failure or simply stagnate.
Although the bedrock of the academy has been critical analysis and research, few institutions have embraced the concept of assessment for administrative purposes. In this respect, Kirkpatrick's levels of evaluation is a step forward. Comprehensive assessments of development programs are vitally important to prevent uninformed decisions and misdirecting of precious funding. Assessment is an important weapon in the arsenal of the technologist, but it alone cannot insure success.
Introduction on Kirkpatrick’s 4 levels of evaluation
http://www.skagitwatershed.org/~donclark/hrd/isd/kirkpatrick.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment