THEME 3: INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
Evaluation Approaches Comparison |
Click 'Go Back' to return
to the theme page |
Lesson 2 - Compare Two Evaluation Approaches
EAC 584
Submitted October 27, 2013
Instructional Design Theme
EAC 584
Submitted October 27, 2013
Instructional Design Theme
The final and most important step in the instructional design process is evaluation. Companies spend billions of dollars on training and development activities. Responsible training and development professionals need to determine the training effectiveness in order to provide the ROI. The assignment I chose to represent this important step is from EAC 584: Evaluating Training Transfer and Effectiveness. To demonstrate my knowledge I selected and assignment from our learning contract. Comparing evaluation approaches focuses on comparing and discussing Kirkpatrick’s four level evaluation approach to Comb’s and Falletta’s Targeted Evaluation Approach.
In this assignment, I aimed to recommend one of the models. Kirkpatrick’s four level system measures outcomes by assessing reaction, learning, behavior and results. It is by far the most popular model out there because of its simplicity. However, many practitioners rarely make it past the second level of the Kirkpatrick model. Combs and Falleta criticize the Kirkpatrick model for not being flexible and meaningful and promote their own model, the targeted evaluation process (TEP). The TEP has six steps and aims to increase flexibility by including stakeholders and context in evaluation design. When looking at both, the TEP seems to be a more practical guide for evaluation. See the table for a direct comparison of steps.
In this assignment, I aimed to recommend one of the models. Kirkpatrick’s four level system measures outcomes by assessing reaction, learning, behavior and results. It is by far the most popular model out there because of its simplicity. However, many practitioners rarely make it past the second level of the Kirkpatrick model. Combs and Falleta criticize the Kirkpatrick model for not being flexible and meaningful and promote their own model, the targeted evaluation process (TEP). The TEP has six steps and aims to increase flexibility by including stakeholders and context in evaluation design. When looking at both, the TEP seems to be a more practical guide for evaluation. See the table for a direct comparison of steps.
I currently work for a software company, and I would suggest the TEP model for our use. I would do this for several reasons. First the TEP model encourages partnering with stakeholders. Partnering with other business units provide real evaluative data for my training programs. Second, the TEP model considers context. It is essential in performance based training to understand how new behaviors will be applied in the workspace. Softwarecustomers are changing the reasons and manner in which they use the products. It is essential to understand the context behind the use of our products. Another important point when understanding context is that it may provide cues to understand the motivation to participate in performance based training.
Access a PDF copy of the assignment by clicking the link below
Access a PDF copy of the assignment by clicking the link below
Click 'Go Back' to return
to the theme page |