Kirkpatrick’s Model
Kirkpatrick developed a model of training evaluation in 1959
Arguably the most widely used approach
Simple, Flexible and Complete
Four Levels of Learning Evaluation
The four levels of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model essentially measure:
• Reaction of student - what they thought and felt about the training
• Learning - the resulting increase in knowledge or capability
• Behavior - extent of behavior and capability improvement and implementation/application
• Results - the effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee's performance
All levels of evaluation are important. Sometimes people skip the "level 1" evaluation because it doesn't directly relate to learning; however, if the student is distracted by something in the learning experience, his or her ability to learn can be impacted. Levels 3 and 4 are the most important because a difference in behavior is what we strive for. Levels 1 and 2 should be measured to make sure nothing gets in the way related to the training event/solution itself.
Eg: To get a authenticity lets take look at a research study
The data is generated from a measure of the participant’s knowledge before the course, the participant’s knowledge immediately after the course as well as the participant’s knowledge 3 months after the course
The findings in this article regarding training effect are based on data of 70,932 participants from 667 different courses involving 3,750 learning activities. 46,913 participants have been measured on classroom learning activities and 24,019 participants have been measured on e-learning activities.
As not all learning activities include a measure of the level of knowledge and skills 3 months after the training, the findings hereof rely on data from 17,107 participants.
The results presented in this paper are all based on paired data. The level of significance in this study is 95 percent
Reference:
The findings in this article regarding training effect are based on data of 70,932 participants from 667 different courses involving 3,750 learning activities. 46,913 participants have been measured on classroom learning activities and 24,019 participants have been measured on e-learning A significant though small difference in the pre-test score was found. E-learning was around 6 percentage points higher than classroom training, respectively 36.2 percent and 29.8 percent. The data also reveals that e-learning produced significantly higher knowledge and skill levels immediately after training respectively a post-test e-learning score at 80.1 percent compared to 71 percent for classroom training.
Efficiency Transfer
Classroom 41.3 % -3.8 % 58.8 % 90.7 %
E-learning 44.0 % -11.7 % 68.8 % 73.4 %
The e-learning efficiency was 68.8 percent compared to 58.8 percent for classroom training. This difference can most likely be explained by the fact that participants taking e-learning were able to monitor their learning success continuously during training; therefore they are assumed to be motivated to continue learning until achieving the desired learning level. The satisfaction level was slightly lower in e-learning than in classroom training.
Finally, this study reveals that both classrooms training and e-learning ended up at the same levels of skills and knowledge 3 months after training, respectively 67 percent and 68 percent. Hence, participants on e-learning lost 11.7 percentage points of their knowledge and skills 3 months after training whereas only 3.8 percentage points on average were lost among participants taking classroom training. For this reason the transfer of knowledge and skills were significantly smaller on e-learning at 73.4 percent compared to transfer of classroom training at 90.7 percent.
This research found that the learning effect and efficiency of e-learning are significantly higher than classroom training. These findings are of particular interest as e-learning programmes are generally less costly compared to classroom training.
On the other hand, the classroom training had a better retention and transfer of learning, causing the two approaches to end up producing the same level of knowledge and skills in the job score 3 months after the training.
Coming back to discussion on Kirkpatrick's Model ,
E learning was successful in first two levels because the distractions were less and one to one concentration was given to the candidate. As far as the second and third part is concerned is shows that the TAT in the Kirkpatrick's model is based on different factors
1. Type of training
2. Environment
3. Time span
And it is a notable point that between each stage TAT depends on type of requirement also , if it is knowledge level TAT of e learning was lesser and if it is a skill based , TAT of class room is better and if it is induction type of trainings where both skill and knowledge is concerned then we need to have a combination of both to reduce TAT between each stages and improve quality.
My Reference and courtesy to : Wikipedia , PEOPLEWAY PRESS // JANUARY 2009 // LARS JULIN & KASPER EJLSKOV.
No comments:
Post a Comment