Evaluation and eLearning

Yıl 2006, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 124 - 131, 01.03.2006

Debra Peak Zane L. Berge

Öz

In today’s results-oriented, fast-moving business environment, it is critical for trainers to demonstrate the value of training to the organization: There is nothing inherently valuable about training. It is performance gains that training catalyzes that give it worth (Graber, 2000). This is why evaluations tied to business results are becoming commonplace. If you ask training professionals about measuring training, most will start talking about levels of evaluation, referring to Kirkpatrick’s landmark evaluation model developed in 1959. Kirkpatrick’s levels of evaluation have been the industry standard for nearly half a century. However, many professionals now believe that elearning and a shift in emphasis toward performance improvement have changed the training business so that these levels are no longer completely relevant. The purpose of this paper is to discuss what similarities and differences exist between evaluating elearning and traditional classroom instruction, how Kirkpatrick’s evaluation levels are currently conducted, why conducting Kirkpatrick’s Level 4 evaluation is so difficult to do, why elearning evaluation has evolved to include return-on-investment (ROI) calculations, and whether other evaluation methods currently practiced are more relevant and useful.

Anahtar Kelimeler

eLearning, Evaluation(s), Return-on-Investment (ROI), Traditional Classroom Instruction, Kirkpatrick’s Levels of Evaluation.

Kaynakça

• Abernathy, D. J. (1999). Thinking outside the evaluation box. Retrieved July 18, 2004 from http://www.pdonline.ascd.org/pd_html/eval2read1.html.
• Adelgais, S. (2001). Return on investment—An evaluative framework. Retrieved July 18, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/roi/index.htm.
• Berge, Z.L. (2004). Complexity and confusion in distance education. Distance Learning. (2): 1-6.
• Bersin, J. (2003). Elearning analytics. Retrieved July 18, 2004 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jun2003/bersin.html.
• Goldwasser, D. (2001). Beyond ROI. Retrieved July 18, 2004 from http://www.trainingmag.com/training/search/search_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1504012
• Graber, J., Post, G., & Erwin, R. (n.d.). Using ROI forecasting to develop a high-impact, high-volume training curriculum. Retrieved July 18, 2004 from http://www.businessdecisions.com/Docs/ASTD ROI Chapter.doc.
• Hall, B., & LeCavalier, J. (2000). The case for level 3. Retrieved July 18, 2004 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/nov2000/hall.html.
• Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels, 2nd Edition. San
• Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Phillips, J. J. (1996, March). Was it the Training? Training and Development, pp. 28-32.
• Phillips, J. J., Phillips, P. P., Duresky, L. Z., & Gaudet, C. (2002). Evaluating the return on investment of elearning. In Alison Rossett (Ed.), The ASTD Elearning Handbook (pp.387- ). Madison, WI: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
• Purcell, A. (2000). 20/20 ROI. Retrieved July 18, 2004 from http://www.astd.org/members/td_magazine/td0700/purcell/0700.pdf.
• Raths, D. (2001, May). Measure of success. Online Learning, 5(5), 20-22, & 24.
• Rothwell, W.J., Sanders, E.S., & Soper, J.G. (1999). ASTD models for workplace learning & performance. American Society for Training & Development.
• Teletraining Institute (n.d.). Embracing evaluation. Retrieved November 27, 2003 from http://www.teletraining.com/LP/embracing_evaluation.htm.
• Willyerd, K. A. (1997). Balancing your evaluation Act. In Donald Kirkpatrick, Evaluating
• Training Programs: The Four Levels, (2nd Ed.) (pp.87-97). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.