Indexing
All Issues
Submission
Author Guidelines
Reviewers
Editorial Members
Publication Fee
Vol.3 , No. 1, Publication Date: Jan. 27, 2016, Page: 11-15
 the characters evaluators play in the evaluation process and the competencies and expertise that they must bring to the process; (b) methods and practices used to conduct the evaluations, especially in regard to strategies for time-saving, co-operation, collaboration, and communication between training professionals and the business owners whose employees’ behavior and operations’ results are in question; and (c) the use of enabling technology, especially in regard to data access, collection, analysis and reporting, and also including structure and definition of metrics and measurement classes.&picture=http://www.aascit.org/aascit/decorators/img/journal/914.jpg)
| [1] | Iluminada Vivien R. Domingo, College of Computer and Information Sciences, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa, Manila, Philippines. |
Training, is a key provider to the development of an organization’s human capital and therefore to its competitive advantage, can no longer be evaluated solely on a cost basis. Namely, training programs will be expected by management to focus on producing outcomes that will address the external pressures, largely by affecting change or improvement in employee performance and achievement of business results. In particular, it is suggested that these case studies include examination of three critical components of the evaluation system: (a) the characters evaluators play in the evaluation process and the competencies and expertise that they must bring to the process; (b) methods and practices used to conduct the evaluations, especially in regard to strategies for time-saving, co-operation, collaboration, and communication between training professionals and the business owners whose employees’ behavior and operations’ results are in question; and (c) the use of enabling technology, especially in regard to data access, collection, analysis and reporting, and also including structure and definition of metrics and measurement classes.
Keywords
Training Program, Reaction, Learning, Behaviors, Impact to Employees
Reference
| [01] | Abernathy, D. (2009), ‘Thinking Outside the Evaluation Box’, Training and Development, 53, 2, pp. 18-23 Acas (2006a), ‘Workplace training at Swale PCT: Managing absence, bullying and harassment, and equality and diversity’. Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/casestudies |
| [02] | Acas (2006), ‘Acas training services 2005-6: National evaluation’. Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/researchpapers |
| [03] | Acas (2010), ‘Improving discipline and grievance procedures: an Acas joint working approach to training line managers and supervisors at Patak’s’. Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/casestudies. |
| [04] | Axtell, C., Maitlis, S. and Yearta, S. (2007), ‘Predicting Immediate and Longer Term Transfer of Training’, Personnel Review, 26: 3, pp. 201-213. |
| [05] | Bates, R. (2011), ‘A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 27:3, pp. 341-347. |
| [06] | CIPD (2012), Learning and Development Annual Survey Report 2006, (CIPD, London). |
| [07] | Hansen, F. H. (2010), ‘Choosing Evaluation Models: A Discussion on Evaluation Design’, Evaluation, 11: 447. |
| [08] | Holly, L. and Rainbird, H. (2013), ‘Workplace learning and the limits to evaluation in H. Rainbird (ed.) Training in the Workplace, (MacMillan, Basingstoke), pp. 264-282 Holton, E. F. III (2005). |
| [09] | Holton’s evaluation model (2013): New evidence and construct elaborations’. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(1), 37-54. |
| [10] | Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. (2008), ‘The Value of Joint Working Parties’, Work Employment Society, 10:4, pp. 663-682 Kirkpatrick, D. (1994), Evaluating training programs: The four levels. (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler). |
| [11] | Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2010). Transferring learning to behavior. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. |
| [12] | Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K. and Salas, E. (2013), ‘Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, pp. 311-328. |
| [13] | Lynn, P., Beerten, R., Laiho, J. and Martin, J. (2012), ‘Recommended Standard Final Outcome Categories and Standard Definitions of Response Rate for Social Surveys’, ISER Working Papers Number 2001-23, Institute for Social and Economic Research. Available at: http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/pubs/workpaps/pdf/2001-23.pdf 70. |
| [14] | Mattson, B. (2014), ‘Using the Critical Outcome Technique to Demonstrate Financial and Organizational Performance Results’, Advances in Developing Human Resources 7:1, pp. 102-120. |
| [15] | McNamara, Carter 2009, Evaluating Training and Results (ROI of Training) Authenticity Consulting, LLC. |
| [16] | Newby, A. (2012), Training Evaluation Handbook, (Gower, Aldershot). |
| [17] | Nickols, F. (2012), ‘Why a stakeholder approach to evaluating training’ Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7:1, pp. 121-135. |
| [18] | Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (2007), Realistic Evaluation, (London: Sage). |
| [19] | Pulley, M. (2014), ‘Navigating the Evaluation Rapids’, Training and Development, 48, 9, pp. 19-24. |
| [20] | Pulichino, Joseph April, (2007), “usage and value of kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation”. |
| [21] | Ramirez, C., Fisher, S., Stanley McCarthy, J. (2010), ‘Examining Standardization Of Response Rate Measures In Establishment Surveys’. Paper presented at the 2000 COPAFS Conference, Bethesda MD, November 2000. Available at: http://www.fcsm.gov/committees/igen/igen.html |
| [22] | Tamkin, P. and Hillage, J. (2008), Individual Commitment to Learning: Motivation and Rewards, DfEE Research Report 11, (DfEE, London). |
| [23] | Tamkin, P., Yarnall, J. and Kerrin, M. (2012), Kirkpatrick and Beyond: A Review of Models of Training Evaluation, Report 392, (IES, Brighton). |
