A recent work experience has reminded me again that
sometimes we lose track of the big picture and get caught up in the process; specifically in this case the Kirkpatrick
Model for evaluating training programs.
Due to the almost cult status of the Donald Kirkpatrick’s
Four Level Model (1) for evaluating training programs, I’m going to
assume you have some familiarity with the model and I won’t overview it
here. The recent challenge has to do
with the Level-Three Evaluation or evaluating behavior.
As I began thinking about the topic of evaluations, and
trying to frame the big picture, I decided to develop a concept map to help
give me some focus. I’ve attached a cleaned up version so you can’t see how
messy my brain really is. As the various components and associations between
the components took form the genesis, the source, the Big Daddy of Reality hit
me that provides the key to being successful in conducting evaluations. Here it is…
The why and how to conducting evaluations in the realm
of training must be linked to why we implement training or the specific
training methods. Sound simplistic? It
might be. The goal of evaluation is to
determine the worth or effectiveness of whatever is being evaluated.
Overview:
Evaluations can be divided into two major types:
summative which is used to determine if a goal has been met, or formative, a
feedback mechanism, focused on improving training results. This post is going
to focus on the formative type.
 |
| Two Major Categories of Evaluations |
The major methods of formative evaluations that provide
actionable information include:
· Student
feedback. Also known as smiley sheets, student reaction sheets, level-one
evaluations. This is a measurement of customer satisfaction; what they liked or
didn’t like. (Not to be confused with what they learned).
· Interim
assessments. A variety of activities that spot check on how the learners are
progressing during the learning process.
These include: homework, quizzes, worksheets, questioning, one-minute
papers, concept mapping, problem solving observations…
· Test
item analysis. Using performance data on test questions. The data can indicate areas of learning
weakness, poor test item construction, poor instructional design or ineffective
implementation.
· Application
assessment. A determination of transfer-of-training. This is the extent
learners were able to apply what they learned in the work environment and to
what degree?
 |
| Major Types of Formative Evaluations |
What’s
the Hype About?
Why all the excitement about conducting Level-Three? In
my opinion, if stems from the misconception that the information gather in
level-three is more important or valuable then in the preceding levels. Or
maybe it is the professional bragging rights to be able to say we conducted,
some arbitrary set number of Level Three evaluations. Our general notion that bigger is better
run-a- muck. Whatever the motivation, the problem is force fitting a process that
doesn’t fit into reality and yields little benefit.
Should
the Focus be on Why Behavior Changed?
Somehow the connection between learning (Level-Two) and
behavior (Level-3) got disconnected. In designed instruction, the content is
based on the learning objectives derived from the tasks performed on the
job. Hmmm…tasks…behavior. If we achieved succes in design and correctly
tested for learning achievement of objectives (behaviors) we already know the
answer to a Level-3; that behavior has changed (or not) as a result of the
training. If you took Kirkpatrick’s tenet that you should allow time (a vague
requirement) for changes in behavior to take place, none of us would be testing
immediately after training. Maybe he is
really suggesting a check for retention?
 |
| Level 2 Evaluations Validate Desired Behaviors |
An
Opportunity for Improvement
I think Mr. Kirkpatrick started out with the right goal
but chose the incorrect methodology. He suggests the focus should be on “How
much transfer of knowledge, skills and attitudes occurs?” then offers a classic
Posttest-Only Control
Group design which will tell you if the training was the cause of the
change in behavior, but not the extent or effectiveness of the transfer of the
training. Great if that is what you want
to know. I suggest a simple pretest
would reveal if potential students already have the KSAs desired. Then compared
to the posttest (Level-2) you would know if training was the causal factor.
I submit the evaluation should provide “actionable”
data that can be used to determine:
· Is
transfer of training occurring? (Are learning outcomes being performed on the
job?)
· The
validity of the analysis (Are we teaching the correct behaviors?)
· The
effectiveness of training (How well the learner was prepared to support field
activities?)
· The
efficiency of the training (Are the process or methods the most efficient?)
Since behavior change has already been verified via
Level-Two, I submit it is a lavish use of resources to conduct level-three
evaluations using the method described by Kirkpatrick for a performance based
training programs. There is another evaluation that can provide valuable
information by focusing on the degree of success of transfer-of-training; an
application assessment.
In an application assessment (transfer-of-training) information
would be gained from the learners and the learners’ supervisor or manager via
observation, survey and interviews. If
it is not happening then find out why.
There are many non-training barriers in the way of
transfer including (2):
· Lack
of reinforcement on the job
· Interference
from immediate (work) environment
· Nonsupportive
organizational culture
· Pressure
from peers to resist change
It is important to remove these barriers although is
suggest this is more of a leadership or management function.
Other business and government agencies have recognize
the benefits of a properly focused evaluation and have developed survey
instruments. Take a look at the survey
instruments developed by the U.S. Coast Guard in the attached article. The Coast Guard survey example offers an
interesting Likert type
scale for gathering information about “training benefit” that could be used as
a template.
There are other related questions that may be of a
concern like retention and proficiency that deal with spacing learning events
over time and opportunities for practice but we’ll save those for another post.
Challenge:
Next time you’re requested to perform a Kirkpatrick
Level –Three evaluation, evaluate if the information generated is “actionable”
and the return on the resource investment will give you real value. And, consider offering an alternative.
Best Regards,
Cj
References:
1. Kirkpatrick Donald, L.(1996). Evaluating Training
Programs: The four levels. San Fransisco, CA. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
2. Broad Mary, L. & Newstrom John, W. (1992)
Transfer of Training; Action-Packed Strategies to Ensure High Payoff from Training Investments. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Massachusetts.
No comments:
Post a Comment