Week 5

Before and After: Models of Evaluation

Chapter 10 discusses different means of evaluating instruction to make sure the practice is effective.  I like Stufflebeam's CIPP Evaluation model and Kirkpatrick's Training Evaluation Model as a means of considering how well a program would work before it's implemented and what the effects of said program would be.  I think both models, one focusing on what happens before the instruction and the other on the results, could be merged to create a very successful new model.

The C in CIPP stands for Context Evaluation, often called a Needs Assessment.  It's "the assessment of the environment in which an innovation or program will be used."  I'd ask myself what factors in the environment would impact my program's success.

The I stands for Input Evaluation, and this is in regards to resources and cost-benefit analysis.  Would I be able to craft my program to be effective based on the materials present?

The last two steps, P for Process and P for Product, have to do with what happens as the instruction is occurring.  The process is judged through a sort of formative evaluation, and the product reveals the success of the program.

Kirkpatrick's model could actually be a sort of continuation of Stufflebeam's last P.  It consists of four levels of evaluation of a particular training.  

The first is reaction.  Many companies seem to only rely on this as a means to determine how effective a training was, and while Kirkpatrick argues that it's important (because if a student isn't satisfied then the subsequent three levels can't be met), it's hardly revelatory alone.  He says open-ended and stem questions are important to include to inspire more thought than only "did you find this program helpful?"

The second level has to do with learning and can be done with a pre-test and/or post-test with or without group interaction.

The third level is behavior/transfer of training, and can be observed in individuals who have completed the course to see if what they have learned has been implemented in his or her job performance.

Finally, the fourth and last level is results.  This is kind of the opposite of the first C when the context/environment where the training will take place is examined.  For results, the environment is examined to see if a variety of positive changes have occurred.

These processes hearken back to the models of instructional design mentioned in chapter 2 in the sense that they allow for self-correction and iteration.  I think they'd be interesting to try them out in a real-world scenario as an evaluator, and I think these ideas will be helpful in my future classroom(s).