Kirkpatrick’s Guidelines for Evaluating Training Programs
Returning to the topic of learning – particularly non-formal learning – evaluation using the retrospective pre-test design model.
One advantage of the retrospective pre-test model is that it can assist in addressing some of the gaps exposed by the lack of range-of-transfer of learning metrics provided by a Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment of learners: in effect – to borrow a phrase from Jens Bjornavold – “make learning visible” (2004, p.64).
This is essential, because it helps measure learning. In Chapter 5 of Evaluating Training Programs, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick stress the significance of measuring learning, because
…no change in behavior can be expected unless one or more of the learning objectives have been accomplished.
(2006, p.42)
The authors set out “helpful” guidelines for the measurement of learning:
Table 1 Guidelines for evaluating learning
|
Guidelines for evaluating learning |
|
1. Use a control group if practical |
|
2. Evaluate knowledge skills and/or attitudes both before and after the program |
|
3. Use a paper-and-pencil test to measure knowledge and attitudes |
|
4. Use a performance test to measure skills |
|
5. Get a 100 per cent response |
|
6. Use the results of the evaluation to take appropriate action |
More Next Time…
_________
References:
Bjornavold, J. (2004) Making Learning Visible: Validation of Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning: policy and practices in EU Member States1. European Journal of Education [Internet] 39 (1), 69–89. Available from: http://www.acc.eu.org/uploads/ Makinglearningvisible_1.pdf [Accessed 21st February 2010]
Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, P. (2006) Evaluating Training Programs. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
–
July 19 2010 03:40 pm | e-learning
I see value in many of...