Too many educational assessments are focused on teachers and the process of teaching. For example, teachers at all levels, including medical educators, are frequently assessed according to the perceived quality of their curricular design, instructional methods, and assessment techniques. Likewise, educators who use more recently developed or cutting-edge approaches are often assumed to be doing better and/or more advanced work than colleagues who rely on more traditional approaches. However, the most serious problem with focusing evaluation on teachers and teaching is the fact that it tends to draw attention away from learners and the process of learning. Even a seemingly superb educational program may provide little benefit to learners who are too young or inexperienced to grasp the new material, or to learners who have insufficient motivation or capacity to take advantage of the educational opportunity.
One of the best-known learner- and learning-focused models for educational programs was developed by the late Donald Kirkpatrick, a former emeritus professor at the University of Wisconsin. First published in a journal in the late 1950s and then expanded in books published in the 1970s and 1990s, Kirkpatrick outlines four steps to evaluating educational programs . Although his model is not perfect, it helps educators pay more attention to the ultimate aspirations that shape their teaching and the degree to which they are actually achieving or falling short of them.
Proponents of Kirkpatrick’s approach hold that, properly applied, his model can enrich education both prospectively in the planning phase and retrospectively in the evaluation phase. Although it has been for more than 50 years after its initial publication, this approach has remained the dominant “model” in educational evaluation, in spite of the fact that Kirkpatrick’s original publication construed the four criteria for learning evaluation as individualized techniques for conducting the evaluation, rather than as a hierarchal model . For more than 50 years, this model has evolved as the educational training industry has expanded, especially in the corporate world.
Reaction
Kirkpatrick called his first step “reaction,” meaning how learners react to the educational process. He is referring primarily to the degree to which learners enjoy learning or describe the learning experience as fun. At first glance, it seems obvious that learners are unlikely to glean much benefit from educational programs that they dislike or find boring. On the other hand, there is evidence that, in some cases, learners can reap substantial educational benefits even from educational programs to which they react negatively. For example, learners may find repetition boring, yet they may gain a great deal of knowledge about arithmetic, a foreign language, or the differential diagnosis of imaging findings—simply from encountering it over and over again.
A similar point can be made about repetition and skills. A classic example is the continual improvement in playing a musical instrument (such as the violin, guitar, or piano) by constant daily practice, including the repetitive learning associated with playing scales and exercises. For many young, easily bored children, the development of musical skills during the initial stages of learning may be facilitated by parental support.
Of the four steps in Kirkpatrick’s model, reaction has received the most widespread criticism. Not only can learners sometimes glean a great deal from educational programs they do not like, but there are also dangers in surveying learners immediately after an educational program. In many cases, they may find it difficult to appreciate the relevance of what they have just learned, and even more importantly, to anticipate its long-term impact on their performance. In some cases, the full value of learning may take years to manifest itself. Consider the learned opinion of Amos Alonzo Stagg, one of the great collegiate football coaches of the 20th century, who said that it was impossible for players to know whether they had been part of a good team until a period of 20 years had elapsed.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Learning
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Behavior
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Results
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Conclusions
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Kirkpatrick D., Kirkpatrick J.: Evaluating training programs.3rd ed.2006.Berrett-KoehlerSan Francisco
2. Kirkpatrick D.: Evaluating human relations programs for industrial foremen and supervisors.2010.Kirkpatrick PartnersSt Louis