Evaluation of Learner Performance - Assignment Example

Evaluation of learner performance Evaluation plays a vital role in models of instruction. Evaluation methodologies and tools help to determine general effectives of instruction methods. Despite playing this integral part in instructions interventions, evaluations of variety of training programs have been identified to be inconsistent and even missing. A number of explanations have been given to explain this trend. They include, insufficient budget allocation, lack of expertise, insufficient time, blind trust in offering training solutions and absence of tools and methods. Part of this explanation inclines on the fact that the evaluation in itself is a complex activity. Factors such as interventions in the spheres of learning, organization, and transfer are complex undertakings by nature. The complexity factors are often associated with the dynamism and constant interactions among various attributes and dimensions of training and organizational goals, training situations, trainees, and technologies aiding instructions (Bushnell, 1990). Evaluation goals entail varying purposes at assorted levels. The purposes entail evaluation of instructional materials, student learning, return of investment, transfer of training and many other factors. To attain all the mentioned purposes, collaboration among different people is essential at different parts of an organization. Furthermore, some of the goals of learners are never well defined and may change with the passing of time. Attempts have been made to come up with approaches to assist in tackling the various complexities associated with learner evaluation. How technology can be incorporated to address these challenges has also been highlighted.Similarly, approaches to evaluation and even associated models are covered in depth. The variety of approaches used in evaluation has their foundation in systematic approaches for training designs. They are characterized by systems of instructional development. Evaluation mainly targets the final stages of systematic approach usually within the main aim of improving the interventions. The other reason can be to aid in making judgments about worthiness and effectives of an instructional design. In the recent past, most instructional system developments have incorporated evaluation all through the process (Carnavale & Schulz, 1990). Six approaches applied in instructional evaluation have been identified as, goal based evaluation, goal free evaluation, responsive evaluation, systems evaluation, professional review, and quasi legal. Systems and goal-based evaluations are predominantly applied in evaluating training. This has led to the proposal of a variety of evaluation frameworks. Kirkpatrick’s model is widely used and is based on the criteria of reaction followed by learning then behavior and finally results. The under system model which is also used entail the context followed by the input, process and then the product.Similarly, the training validation system entail the input followed by process, output and then the outcome. In addition, the system model has been accredited for its usefulness concerning thoughts about the general situation and context which may never provide adequate granulity (Bushnell, 1990). Evaluation becomes essential in circumstances such as considering why America should spend 100 billion dollars annually on trainings yet less than only ten percent of these expenditures give direct benefits. This therefore would be interpreted to mean that not every training program is normally evaluated and that consistency lacks. The society for development and training in the United States found out that forty-five percent of companies surveyed only gauged their trainee’s reaction to their courses (Carnevale & Schulz, 1996). Overly, ninety-three percent of the courses were evaluated at the first level. The situation is not widely different as reflected in Europe. Large, medium, and small organizations that had invested in trainings did not put summative and formative evaluation into use. For evaluations to give a pervasive and substantive impact on training programs development,personel such as training managers, training designers, chief personnel and internal resources should increasingly be incorporated as the program evaluators. While it is true that imploring external evaluators has its merits, the time and resources involved makes the entire approach impractical to most organizations. The mentality that evaluation is a preserve of external experts should therefore be suspended since in most cases it compromises the accuracy of evaluation (Dixon, 1996). In the same regard, concerns arise on the competence of the internal team to conduct standard evaluation on learners. It also reveals how using such an approach (standard evaluation) can be done with limited levels of biasness. For this reason, automated systems to guide evaluation should increasingly be involved to be at par with the automated expert systems that are currently being created. Insufficiency of training designers, quest for standardizes evaluation and pressures for doubled productivity in this premise calls for adoption of technological approaches to assist in evaluation. If such systems are put in place, bias levels may be minimized by good margins. Morrison and Rose suggest two major categories that automated systems would incorporate in evaluation (Donoghue, 1999). The first one being automation of planning system through expert guidance and secondly data collection process. Procedural or operational model can be used in the incorporation of automation through expert guidance. The expert program solicits core information then offer recommendations on possible strategies. Categories for input information meant for the expert include the following: Evaluation purpose (Summative or formative), Kinds of objectives for the evaluation (effective, cognitive, behavioral impact), Evaluation level (Reaction, learning, organizational impact and behavior), Instructional objectives types (Procedural learning, declarative knowledge and attitudes), delivery types of instruction (technology based, classroom or mixed) (Dixon, 1996). In conclusion, the various approaches discussed is a clear manifestation that evaluation activities are complex in nature and this to some extent makes them not well structured or even consistent. Since in most cases evaluation focuses on multiple goals, graet consideration is necessary to make it a wholesome collaborative activity. This is because it involves the training managers, instructional designers, floor managers, trainers and possibly many more people. There is a great need for general unifying model concerning evaluation theory. References Bushnell, D. S. (1990). Input, process, output: A model for evaluating training. Training and Development Journal, 44(3), 41-43. Carnevale, A. P., & Schulz, E.R. (1990). Return on investment: Accounting for training. Training and Development Journal, 44(7), S1-S32. Dixon, N. M. (1996). New routes to evaluation. Training and Development, 50(5), 82-86. Donoghue, F. (1999). Promoting added value through evaluation of training. Dublin: European Commission Leonardo-PAVE Project. Read More