Originally posted to eBridge, 9 February 2013
The most common data gathering exercise within Learning
& Development departments is the collection of training evaluation
sheets - or 'happy sheets' as they are generally referred to. Generally it's
done because it is seen as something that is required, to be used (maybe) as
proof that training events were run effectively. As such they conform quite
strongly to the Kirkpatrick (1959, 1994) method of evaluating training, but only
really hitting level 1 (Reaction), with slight hints at level 2 (Learning).
Clark (2012) has raised criticisms of Kirkpatrick's
evaluation method, as it tends to lead the practitioner into focusing on the
lower levels, with little thought for level 3 (Behaviour) and 4 (Results). This
brings me back around to my initial post, where I considered using some of
Robert Brinkerhoff's (2013) principles about investigating the real business impact of
training - where it has been applied effectively. My Yammer group has been
started, although I'm yet to get some real participation. I'm keen to use this
as my research project, even if I will be going in a little unplanned. However
this could potentially give me a more useful learning experience, as I will be
able to trace back any shortcomings in the results to my initial planning, and
provide some insights for teaching my colleagues how to apply the methods for
themselves.
References
- Brinkerhoff, R. (2013). From cost-centre to 'must-have': making L&D matter. [video online] Available at: <https://www.annotag.tv/learningtechnologies/play/18184> [Accessed March 2013]
- Clark, D. (2012). Kirkpatrick 4-levels of evaluation: Happy sheets? Surely past its sell-by date? Donald Clark Plan B [blog] 4 May. Available at: <http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/kirkpatrick-4-levels-of-evaluation.html> [Accessed February 2012]
- Kirkpatrick, D. (1959). Techniques for evaluation training programmes.
- Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating training programmes: The four levels.
No comments:
Post a Comment