Different training programs are often adopted to fill particular gaps within the workplace. In these training, evaluation plays a critical role in the analysis, design, develop, implement, and evaluate (ADDIE) process. Besides, the evaluation as critical part of the ADDIE process is not usually implemented the way it should or not given a thought altogether.
Evaluation is crucial; since it gives training coordinators or leaders, a chance to establish whether the plan has realized its desired goals; when this is not the case, it allows concerned parties to plan the next move wisely. When employing the ADDIE model in the training program, one should not treat evaluation as a separate entity rather as the main part of the whole process (Hannum & Hansen, 1989). Most firms shy from evaluation in fear that the training programs may have no benefit to the workplace and lack of insight to its importance. Some professional lack the right knowledge to conduct a conclusive evaluation and some organizations just do not support such initiatives (Swanson, 2005).
In a study, involving instructional design practitioners showed that for the 89.5% of those who employ evaluation practices, 71% of them evaluate learning, however from this figure; only 44% use the right methods to measure success. Barely 20% of the chosen sample correctly identified the right methods for evaluating results (Brown and Gerhardt, 2002)
According to Noe (2002), the evaluation in training program occurs in two categories, the formative evaluation and summative. The prior targets providing necessary information needed to improve program design and development. It enables one to notice the weaknesses in methods or instructional material with the aim of establishing practical solutions at the design stage to develop each aspect of the ADDIE process. When conducting program training formative evaluation need to be involved in the entire procedure. The summative analysis targets to establish if the goals of certain training are achieved. Summative evaluation forms the critical part of the ADDIE model and allows one to form a general deduction through assessment and measurement of the model’s results (Brown & Gerhardt, 2002).
Summative appraisal is a critical process since it utilizes all the ADDIE phases in organizational program training helping to achieve desired goals. The evaluation justifies the training financial plan, the human resource development (HRD) investment and validates interventions. Summative evaluation aids to realize the particulars of the training programs especially the aspects that are not in line with the stakeholders’ interests. The data acquired from this kind of evaluation helps to carry out future training and HRD investment with ease.
When conducting a training process using the formative evaluation with the ADDIE phases, one expects the findings to improve the quality of the adopted intervention. It is not always as expected, as the evaluation findings may fail to give positive summative evaluation results, specifically when one conducts the evaluation on an individual who return to their workplace settings. Summative evaluation comes with its challenges as studies show that only 12.9% of the biggest firms have had a successful and impactful evaluation (Sugrue & Rivera, 2005). The figure shows only a small percentage of organizations engaging in an impactful evaluation and makes one wonder what other organization are doing.
The outcome of training interventions is critical to know whether a certain goal is achieved and if it is facilitating on satisfying other values of the organization. During the systematic training stage, summative evaluation phase gives detailed outcome information in two categories, which are the short-term and long-lived outcome assessment. Before the onset of a training intervention, organizations need to figure out expected outcomes for clear analysis at the end of the training.
Short-term evaluation usually occurs on the process and at the termination of the implementation stage. It aims to find out if participants are aware of their learning needs, making sure they are identical to those they pointed out during the analysis phase. If for one reason or another, the learners needs do not match at the analysis phase the professionals would find out if it is because of the delivery or program design. However, this kind of perceptional evaluation is not conclusive rather learners should give their feedback, and they should not have a negative attitude towards the training.
The purpose of training in organizations is to improve the individuals and the organization’s success. Long-term evaluations assist an organization to assess the realization of success due to training interventions. Today, the “smile sheet” is not reliable in assessing the effectiveness and outcome of training interventions. For this reason, Long-term evaluation is increasingly considered in many organizations (Moller et al., 2000).
When looking closely and reviewing the mechanisms employed under the evaluation process of systematic training, it is correct to note that the training profession should have a greater understanding of the practice and beyond. Diverse appraisal strategies emerge every day, offering diversity. However, this may pose a challenge to professionals as they try to find the right approach and techniques that would bring a significantly positive impact in the organization. Besides knowing the right approaches, professionals should be credible measurement skills, which would enable them, create valid and reliable instruments to be able to achieve reliable evaluation results.
References
Brown, K. G., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Formative evaluation: An integrative practice model and case study. Personnel Psychology, 55, 951-983
Hannum, W., & Hansen, C. (1989). Instructional systems development in large organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications
Moller, L., Benscoter, B., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (2000). Utilizing performance technology to improve evaluative practices of instructional designers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13(1), 84-95.
Noe, R. (2002). Employee training and development (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sugrue, B., & Rivera, R. J. (2005). 2005 state of the industry: ASTD annual review of trends in workplace learning and performance. Alexandra, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Swanson, R. A. (2005). Evaluation, a state of mind. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7 (1), 16-21.
