USING KIRKPATRICK’S FOUR-LEVEL-EVALUATION MODEL
Article by Colin Baskin
- Published
- Publisher : ASCILITE
- Name of issue : ASCILITE 2001 Conference, p.37-44
- Date of issue : 2001
- Web address : https://www.fdi.vt.edu/Archive/PDFs/2002/Webinstruction/baskin.pdf
- Language : English
Subjective Assesment
A nice practical example of the application of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model for exploring the effectiveness of collaborative online group work at university level.
Overview
From the abstract: "This paper examines two cohorts of students, each engaged in the same
course of study but using different means of engagement. One cohort of 90
students completed a real time learning program integrating group dynamics,
action research, team performance and participative decision-making
(Tuckman & Jensen, 1977: Belbin, 1981: Dick, 1986: Hopson & Scally,
1982). A second cohort of 171 students completed the same course of study in
an online environment. Satisfaction ratings were drawn across the real-time
and online cohorts, the data structured and critically mined using a four level
evaluation of learning model (Kirkpatrick, 1996) to explore student-learning
outcomes related to online group work.
Findings indicate that the real time student sample recorded a significantly
higher satisfaction rating in some aspects of their group learning experiences
than their online counterparts. Further examination of the learning outcomes
of the online cohort of students using level two, level three, and level four
evaluation strategies (Kirkpatrick, 1996), suggests that the online group work
model successfully supports group learning behaviours, transfer of these
behaviours to practice, and improvement in learner behaviours at the enterprise
level. Despite some differences in between group learning outcomes, online
group work was seen to add value to the group learning experience."
Methodology
Kirkpatrick's four level evaluation model
Results
The author succeeded in the development of findings relating to the reserach topic (online collaboration) and identification of differences from 2 settings by applying the tools mentionned.
Conclusions
Issues
Related Documents