Difference between revisions of "Evaluation"

Difference between revisions of "Evaluation"

From Learning and training wiki

Share/Save/Bookmark
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 27: Line 27:
  
 
 
−
Training evaluation is generally considered as the final stage in a systematic approach with the purpose being to improve interventions (formative evaluation) or make a judgment about worth and effectiveness of the training intervention (summative evaluation). <ref>Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. B. Survey of instructional development models. 3rd ed. Syracuse, 1997.</ref> Goal-based and systems-based approaches are predominantly used in the evaluation of training with the most influential approach being the Kirkpatrick model (1959)<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. L. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 13, 3-26, 1959.</ref>. This model follows the goal-based evaluation approach and is based on four simple questions that translate into four levels of evaluation. The four levels evaluation are reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Under the systems approach, the most widely applied models include:  
+
Training evaluation is generally considered as the final stage in a systematic approach with the purpose being to improve interventions (formative evaluation) or make a judgment about worth and effectiveness of the training intervention (summative evaluation).<ref>Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. B. Survey of instructional development models. 3rd ed. Syracuse, 1997.</ref> Goal-based and systems-based approaches are predominantly used in the evaluation of training with the most influential approach being the Kirkpatrick model (1959).<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. L. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 13, 3-26, 1959.</ref> This model follows the goal-based evaluation approach and is based on four simple questions that translate into four levels of evaluation. The four levels evaluation are reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Under the systems approach, the most widely applied models include:  
  
 
* Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) Model<ref>Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. Educational evaluation. New York: Longman, 1987.</ref>
 
* Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) Model<ref>Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. Educational evaluation. New York: Longman, 1987.</ref>
 
* Training Validation System (TVS) Approach<ref>Fitz-Enz, J. Yes…you can weigh training’s value. Training, 31(7), 54-58, July, 1994.</ref>
 
* Training Validation System (TVS) Approach<ref>Fitz-Enz, J. Yes…you can weigh training’s value. Training, 31(7), 54-58, July, 1994.</ref>
−
* Input, Process, Output, Outcome (IPO) Model<ref>Name.</ref> (Bushnell, 1990)
+
* Input, Process, Output, Outcome (IPO) Model<ref>Bushnell, D. S. Input, process, output: A model for evaluating training. Training and Development Journal, 44(3), 41-43, March, 1990.</ref>
  
  
−
[[Image:Approaches_to_Training_Evaluation.pdf]]
+
View the key trainning evaluation approach: [[http://www.click4it.org/image/e/e5/Approaches_to_Training_Evaluation.pdf]]
  
  

Revision as of 09:44, 19 July 2011

Term2.png EVALUATION
Is an in-depth study which takes place at a discrete point in time, and in which recognized research procedures are used in a systematic and analytically defensible manner to form a judgment on the value of an intervention. It is an applied inquiry process for collecting and synthesizing evidence to produce conclusions on the state of affairs value, merit worth significance or quality of programmes, projects, policy, proposal or plan.[1]

Conclusions arising from an evaluation encompass both an empirical aspect (that something is the case) and a normative aspect (judgment about the value of something). The value feature in evaluation differentiates it from other types of inquiry such as investigative journalism or public polling for instance.

Evaluation can be conducted for purposes of:

  1. Generating general knowledge about and principles of programme effectiveness
  2. Developing programmes and organizations
  3. Focusing management efforts
  4. Creating learning organizations
  5. Empowering project/programme participants
  6. Directly supporting and enhancing programme interventions (by fully integrating evaluation into the intervention)
  7. Stimulating critical reflection on the path to more enlightened practice


Evaluation should ideally be undertaken selectively to answer specific questions to guide decision-makers and/or programme managers, and to provide information on whether underlying theories and assumptions used in programme development were valid, what worked and what did not work and why.[2]

Characteristics of evaluation can be summarized as follows:

  • Analytical – based on recognized research techniques
  • Systematic – carefully planned and using chosen techniques consistently
  • Objective – where the evaluator is as neutral as possible and avoids bias, values and or prejudice
  • Valid – internally valid because the causal link between the intervention and the observed effects is certain and externally valid because the conclusions about the intervention can be generalized and applied to other people, settings and times
  • Reliable – able to have findings that are reproducible by a different evaluator with access to same (or similar) context and using the same or similar methods of data analysis
  • Issue-oriented – address important issues relating to the program, including its relevance, efficiency and effectiveness
  • User-driven – the design and implementation of the evaluation should provide useful information to decision-makers.


Training Evaluation Approaches


Training evaluation is generally considered as the final stage in a systematic approach with the purpose being to improve interventions (formative evaluation) or make a judgment about worth and effectiveness of the training intervention (summative evaluation).[3] Goal-based and systems-based approaches are predominantly used in the evaluation of training with the most influential approach being the Kirkpatrick model (1959).[4] This model follows the goal-based evaluation approach and is based on four simple questions that translate into four levels of evaluation. The four levels evaluation are reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Under the systems approach, the most widely applied models include:

  • Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) Model[5]
  • Training Validation System (TVS) Approach[6]
  • Input, Process, Output, Outcome (IPO) Model[7]


View the key trainning evaluation approach: [[1]]


In the final analysis, the purpose of evaluating training programmes is to:

  1. Establish if the training intervention is fully meeting its stated objectives
  2. Make training programmes more efficient and effective in enhancing individual and organization performance
  3. Provide an opportunity for organizational learning with lessons learned being applied to improve service delivery and meet beneficiary expectations
  4. Determine the value (ROI) of the training intervention both to participants and organization


Training Evaluation Tools:


Flow chart to determine if Level 1 evaluation is required

Flow chart to determine if Level 2 evaluation is required

Steps for conducting Level 1 Training Evaluation (for UNITAR training events)



MATERIAL.png Additional Materials
Pdf.png Key Trainning Evaluation Approaches

Pdf.png Flow chart to determine if Level 1 evaluation is required

Pdf.png Flow chart to determine if Level 2 evaluation is required

Pdf.png Steps for conducting Level 1 Training Evaluation (for UNITAR training events)


References

  1. ↑ Fournier M. Deborah in Mathison, Sandra. Encyclopaedia of Evaluation, pp 171, Ed. University of British Columbia. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.
  2. ↑ Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). Monitoring, Evaluation and Consulting Division, 2006.
  3. ↑ Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. B. Survey of instructional development models. 3rd ed. Syracuse, 1997.
  4. ↑ Kirkpatrick, D. L. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 13, 3-26, 1959.
  5. ↑ Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. Educational evaluation. New York: Longman, 1987.
  6. ↑ Fitz-Enz, J. Yes…you can weigh training’s value. Training, 31(7), 54-58, July, 1994.
  7. ↑ Bushnell, D. S. Input, process, output: A model for evaluating training. Training and Development Journal, 44(3), 41-43, March, 1990.
Retrieved from "http://learningwiki.unitar.org/index.php?title=Evaluation&oldid=9239"