![History Donald Kirkpatrick ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Kirkpatrick4 levels
Similaire à Kirkpatrick4 levels (20)
Kirkpatrick4 levels
- 1. Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation Rebeca Befus Amber Gale Jamie Gardner Nicole Lenz George Taylor
- 5. Level 1 Evaluation - Reactions Guidelines for Evaluating Reaction 1. Determine what you want to find out 2. Design a form that will quantify reactions 3. Encourage written comments and suggestions 4. Get 100 percent immediate response 5. Get honest responses 6. Develop acceptable standards 7. Measure reactions against standards and take appropriate action 8. Communicate reactions as appropriate (Kirkpatrick, 1998)
Notes de l'éditeur
- History of Donald Kirkpatrick and his four levels of evaluation Donald Kirkpatrick a former professor emeritus at University of Wisconsin and past president of ASTD is best known in the Training and Development field for his four levels of evaluation model that was published in 1959. Between 1954 and 1959 Donald Kirkpatrick developed and researched his four levels of evaluation model for his PhD dissertation. The dissertation consisted of four basic concepts of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and results.
- In 1959, Bob Craig editor of Training and Development approached Kirkpatrick to write an article based on his PhD dissertation. Kirkpatrick ended up writing a four part series. Kirkpatrick’s model has been one of the leading evaluation models for over 50 years and has remained largely unchanged. A recent study by the ASTD found that nearly 94% of training courses are evaluated using the first level of Kirkpatrick’s model. Today, Kirkpatrick’s son Dr. Jim Kirkpatrick is continuing in his father’s footsteps and has published several books on his father’s original model.
- The first level of Kirkpatrick’ Four Levels of Evaluation is reaction. How participants react to training is measured at this level. The goal of this level is to gain an understanding of the participant’s reaction to the learning experience, the content, the instructor and the relevancy of the training to their work. Evaluators should consider this level a measurement of “customer satisfaction” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Evaluating the participant’s reactions helps evaluators make necessary improvements and changes to future training. A negative response may result in negative training results and may result in cancelation of the training program all together. According to Kirkpatrick (2006) (as cited in Guerra-Lopez, 2008 p.49) “If participants leave unsatisfied they might tell others, including their bosses and this could bear on decisions about the training program in the future.” Trainees must respond favorably to the training for training to be effective. If the participants have a positive reaction they are more motivated to learn. Questionnaires referred to as smile or happiness sheets are used to gather data through a Likert Scale with responses ranging from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 5 (extremely satisfied).
- In his book, “Evaluating Training Programs” (Kirkpatick, 1998) Kirkpatrick offers the the following guidleines for evaluation reaction: Guidelines for Evaluating Reaction 1. Determine what you want to find out. 2. Design a form that will quantify reactions. 3. Encourage written comments and suggestions. 4. Get 100 percent immediate response. 5. Get honest responses. 6. Develop acceptable standards. 7. Measure reactions against standards and take appropriate action. 8. Communicate reactions as appropriate.
- Level 2: Learning This level is more rigorous then Level 1 evaluation and determines “the extent of learning that has occurred as a result of a training program (Guerra-Lopez, 2008)”(or lesson). Pitfalls at this level are poorly designed tests which can lead to inaccurate assumptions about learning which can affect future decisions about performance (Guerra-Lopez, 2008). What can be learned(Kirkpatrick, 1998)? Behaviors Attitudes Skills How to evaluate learning(Kirkpatrick, 1998): Using a control group if practical Evaluate knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes both before and after the program Use a paper-and-pencil test to measure knowledge and attitudes Use a performance test to measure skills Get a 100 percent response Use the results of the evaluation to take appropriate action
- Level 3: Behavior Evaluation at this level measures how what was learned during instruction/training has been applied to the learner’s job/performance. Pitfalls at the evaluation step can be not evaluating at the right time which can lead to inaccurate findings (Guerra-Lopez, 2008). Challenges to level 3 (Kirkpatrick, 1998): Learners have to be able to apply what they have learned in order to change behavior Instructors/Supervisors cannot predict when a change in a learners behavior will happen Learners come to the following conclusions: They want to embrace the new behavior They will not embrace the new behavior They want to change their behavior but cannot due to time or some other constraint such as a boss
- How to evaluate behavior (Kirkpatrick, 1998): Use a control group if practical Allow time for behavior change to take place Evaluate both before and after the program if practical Survey and/or interview those who observe the learners behavior Get 100 percent response or a sampling Repeat the evaluation at appropriate times Consider cost versus benefits
- The Fourth and Final Level of Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation is known as the bottom-line or the results (Guerra-Lopez, 2008 p.53). The results give the effectiveness of an instructional program, as to how it relates to an organization (Guerra-Lopez, 2008 p.53). The difficulty to pinpoint results of training programs often lead to trainers not evaluating at this level (Guerra-Lopez, 2008 p.53). However there are six guidelines that Kirkpatrick (2005) gives to evaluate the results: Guidelinesfor Evaluating Results 1. Use a control group if practical. 2. Allow time for results to be achieved. 3. Measure both before and after the program if practical. 4. Repeat the measurement at appropriate times. 5. Consider cost versus benefits. 6. Be satisfied with evidence if proof is not possible. (Kirkpatrick, Donald L. and Kirkpatrick, James D. p.65, 2005). Kirkpatrick (2005) also suggests that one must give time for proper results to be achieved; comparing an organization standing before and after training that way a more accurate result can be measured (p.66). According to Kirkpatrick (2007), “The Kirkpatrick view of results differs from many of the other views of demonstrating the results of training to the bottom line. We believe in the business partnership model of linking training to results— that is, the partnership between learning professionals and business leaders and their needs”(p.122). Picking up on Kirkpatrick’s admitted differences with other methods of evaluation, Guerra-Lopez (2008, p.76-77)cites Brinkerhoff proposed the Success Case Method (SCM) as an alternative to Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation as the SCM is simpler and combines difference performing groups with case studies, while Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluationleaves out factors that supersede simple instruction. The CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Products) model of evaluation like Kirkpatrick’s Four Level of Evaluation has four parts but this is about where the similarity ends. Daniel Stufflebeam who developed this model of evaluation uses four aspects which are outlined in the acronym.They are context which is focused on future guidance of an organization, input choosing the correct program to lead to a defined goal, process the actually implementation of the evaluation and products which deals with feedback to enhance the evaluand (Guerra-Lopez, 2008, p.107-109). The Jack PhillipsROI (return on investment) form of evaluation is often compared to Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of evaluation as some believe adds a fifth level to Kirkpatrick’s methodology. (Guerra-Lopez, 2008, p.61). The ROI percentage enhances the Four Levels of Evaluation purposed by Kirkpatrick as it takes Net Program Benefits and divides that by Program Costs; multiplying it by 100 you get the ROI percentage (Guerra-Lopez, 2008, p.61). Phillips choose to add this factor to Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation and in this way has a concrete numbers the organization can use to inform the stakeholder if training has been worthwhile. In conclusion, the fourth level of Kirkpatrick’s Four Level of Evaluation which is termed the bottom-line or results of a given form of evaluation, describes the tangible benefit(s) if any for the stakeholders to see. The Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation has been merited and ridiculed for its simplicity. This simplicity gave way to other methods of evaluation such as the Robert Brinkerhoff’s SCM which deals primarily with case studies, Daniel Stufflebeam’sCIPP which deals with more concrete data, and lastly the Jack Phillip’s ROI which enhances Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation by adding another component to it, thus giving concrete numbers a stakeholder can use. All of the methodologies have their advantages but the Kirkpatrick method has stood the test of time, subtle enhancements such as Phillip’s ROI can be added to Kirkpatrick’s methodology however its simplicity makes it a worthwhile choice when an evaluator is faced with training an organization and needs step by step instructions to complete the evaluation process.
- Benefits of the Kirkpatrick Model: The Kirkpatrick model is fairly straightforward, simplifying a complex process. It may be easier to understand and conceptualize than some other models. It is a long-established model that is popular and familiar, which could lead to increase chances of stakeholder approval Criticisms of the Kirkpatrick Model Some say that the model is too simplistic, not taking into account other factors, such as motivation and environment, which may influence behavioral change. There is not sufficient evidence that suggests the levels maintain causal relationships. While the levels are intended to be used sequentially, one level does not necessarily relate to the succeeding level. For example, according to Don Clark, many studies show very little correlation between how well people learn and perform and Level 1 evaluation. The learner does not need to like the training in order for it to be effective. In most instances, all four levels of the model are not used when completing an evaluation. Levels 1 and 2 are the easiest to measure while level 3 and 4 are more difficult and time consuming. Level 4 is probably the most important as it captures data that stakeholders are most interested in: Did the training impact the bottom line? Some scholars in the field believe that additional levels should be added to Kirkpatrick’s model. Kaufman and Keller suggest taking an approach that considers non-training elements that impact evaluations. They proposed adding a 5 th level that specifically examines training’s impact on society. Phillips also reworked Kirkpatrick’s model, adding a 5 th level addressing the training program’s return on investment. His model is known as the Phillips ROI model.