You are here:

A Framework for an ET Program’s Evaluation: An Expanded Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model
PROCEEDINGS

, , , University of Texas at Brownsville, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-54-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

The present paper is intended to foster a theoretical framework for a Web-based Educational Technology graduate program's evaluation in an U.S. southern state university. Corresponding to two key program goals and state-mandated regulations, an expanded Kirkpatrick's four-level model is proposed and illustrated in a matrix, including four distinct, but compatible, categories of data: learners' reaction, learning outcomes, behavior change, and business results, and one additional dimension of data sets: learner profiling, i.e., age, gender, work status, and learning styles. It features a flattened evaluation model structure, participants' reaction on a spectrum, a learning assessment tool, a performance appraisal model, and partnership within an eco-system, and use of learner profiling in describing and predicting a successful learning experience and a satisfactory performance across the curriculum. The rationale and justifications of the project are also addressed.

Citation

Pan, C.C., Corbeil, R. & Sullivan, M. (2004). A Framework for an ET Program’s Evaluation: An Expanded Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model. In J. Nall & R. Robson (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2004--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 410-415). Washington, DC, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2023 from .

© 2004 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Askov, E. N. (2000). Workplace literacy: Evaluation of three model programs. Adult Basic Education, 10(2), 100-107.
  2. Bernthal, P. R. (1995). Evaluation that goes the distance. Training & Development, 49(9), 41-45.
  3. Blanchard, P. N., Thacker, J. W., & Way, S. A. (2000). Training evaluation: Perspectives and evidence from Canada. Inter national Journal of Training & Development, 4(4), 295-304.
  4. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2001). Evaluating distributed learning in met ropolitan universities. Metropolitan Universities, 12(1), 41-49.
  6. Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
  7. Kifer, E. (1995). Evaluation: A general view. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 384392). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
  8. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 13, 3–9, 21–26.
  9. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training & Development, 50(1), 54-59.
  10. Lynch, L. L., & Purnawarman, P. (2004). Electronic portfolio assessments in U.S. Educational and instructional technology programs: Are they supporting teacher education? TechTrend, 48(1), 50-56.
  11. Moskal, P. D., & Dziuban, C. D. (2001). Present and future directions for assessing cybereducation: The changing research paradigm. In L. R. Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina, & R. A. Cornell (Eds.), Cybereducation: The future of long distance learning (pp. 157-184). Larchmont, NY: Many Ann Liebert.
  12. Noonan, L. E., & Sulsky, L. M. (2001). Impact of frame-of-reference and behavioral observation training on alternative training effectiveness criteria in a Canadian military sample. Human Performance, 14(1), 3-26.
  13. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (3rd ed.). Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  14. Ring, G. L., & Foti, S. L. (2003). Addressing standards at the program level with electronic portfolios. TechTrends, 47(2), 28-32.
  15. Sivo, S., Pan, C., & Brophy, J. (2004, in press). Temporal cross-lagged effects between subjective norms and students’ attitudes regarding the use of technology. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 42(1).
  16. Thompson, M. M., & Irele, M. E. (2003). Evaluating distance education programs. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 567-584). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read