衡量学习与发展的有效性:是时候摆脱 Kirkpatrick 和 Phillips 了?

Cyril Kirwan
{"title":"衡量学习与发展的有效性:是时候摆脱 Kirkpatrick 和 Phillips 了?","authors":"Cyril Kirwan","doi":"10.1111/ijtd.12342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given the pressure to demonstrate meaningful return from investment in Learning and Development (L&D) interventions, there is an increasing need to reliably evaluate such interventions, both from the point of view of their overall effectiveness (summative approach) and their continuing improvement (formative approach). A literature review, the focus of this conceptual paper, highlights the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches to L&D evaluation. Currently, the most popular methodologies in management practice are the summative‐focused frameworks of Donald Kirkpatrick and Jack Phillips. In this paper, their limitations in terms of being able to answer important questions for evaluation are discussed, particularly their failure to take into account a range of factors that influence learning transfer and, thus, learning effectiveness, as well as a lack of guidance on how such interventions could be made better. Arguments for a greater emphasis on formative evaluation are made, and a model for doing so is put forward. Limitations and further research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46817,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Training and Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring the effectiveness of L&D: Time to move on from Kirkpatrick and Phillips?\",\"authors\":\"Cyril Kirwan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijtd.12342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Given the pressure to demonstrate meaningful return from investment in Learning and Development (L&D) interventions, there is an increasing need to reliably evaluate such interventions, both from the point of view of their overall effectiveness (summative approach) and their continuing improvement (formative approach). A literature review, the focus of this conceptual paper, highlights the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches to L&D evaluation. Currently, the most popular methodologies in management practice are the summative‐focused frameworks of Donald Kirkpatrick and Jack Phillips. In this paper, their limitations in terms of being able to answer important questions for evaluation are discussed, particularly their failure to take into account a range of factors that influence learning transfer and, thus, learning effectiveness, as well as a lack of guidance on how such interventions could be made better. Arguments for a greater emphasis on formative evaluation are made, and a model for doing so is put forward. Limitations and further research are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Training and Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Training and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12342\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Training and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12342","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于在学习与发展(L&D)干预措施上的投资必须获得有意义的回报,因此越来越有必要从总体效果(总结性方法)和持续改进(形成性方法)两个角度对这些干预措施进行可靠的评估。作为本概念性文件的重点,文献综述强调了各种 L&D 评估方法的优缺点。目前,在管理实践中最流行的方法是唐纳德-柯克帕特里克(Donald Kirkpatrick)和杰克-菲利普斯(Jack Phillips)的以总结为重点的框架。本文讨论了这些方法在回答重要评价问题方面的局限性,特别是它们没有考虑到影响学习转移的一系列因素,因此也没有考虑到影响学习效果的一系列因素,同时也缺乏关于如何更好地进行干预的指导。提出了更加重视形成性评价的论点,并提出了这样做的模式。还讨论了局限性和进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring the effectiveness of L&D: Time to move on from Kirkpatrick and Phillips?
Given the pressure to demonstrate meaningful return from investment in Learning and Development (L&D) interventions, there is an increasing need to reliably evaluate such interventions, both from the point of view of their overall effectiveness (summative approach) and their continuing improvement (formative approach). A literature review, the focus of this conceptual paper, highlights the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches to L&D evaluation. Currently, the most popular methodologies in management practice are the summative‐focused frameworks of Donald Kirkpatrick and Jack Phillips. In this paper, their limitations in terms of being able to answer important questions for evaluation are discussed, particularly their failure to take into account a range of factors that influence learning transfer and, thus, learning effectiveness, as well as a lack of guidance on how such interventions could be made better. Arguments for a greater emphasis on formative evaluation are made, and a model for doing so is put forward. Limitations and further research are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Increasing international competition has led governments and corporations to focus on ways of improving national and corporate economic performance. The effective use of human resources is seen as a prerequisite, and the training and development of employees as paramount. The growth of training and development as an academic subject reflects its growth in practice. The International Journal of Training and Development is an international forum for the reporting of high-quality, original, empirical research. Multidisciplinary, international and comparative, the journal publishes research which ranges from the theoretical, conceptual and methodological to more policy-oriented types of work. The scope of the Journal is training and development, broadly defined. This includes: The determinants of training specifying and testing the explanatory variables which may be related to training identifying and analysing specific factors which give rise to a need for training and development as well as the processes by which those needs become defined, for example, training needs analysis the need for performance improvement the training and development implications of various performance improvement techniques, such as appraisal and assessment the analysis of competence Training and development practice the design, development and delivery of training the learning and development process itself competency-based approaches evaluation: the relationship between training and individual, corporate and macroeconomic performance Policy and strategy organisational aspects of training and development public policy issues questions of infrastructure issues relating to the training and development profession The Journal’s scope encompasses both corporate and public policy analysis. International and comparative work is particularly welcome, as is research which embraces emerging issues and developments.
期刊最新文献
The emergence of training programmes for the garment industry: Analysing the cases of Bangladesh, Cambodia and Sri Lanka from a historical‐institutionalist perspective Measuring the effectiveness of L&D: Time to move on from Kirkpatrick and Phillips? Issue Information The role of participation in training in the relationship between informal learning and its antecedents Will you stay or will you go?: The role of incidental learning within a liminal space in shaping student nurses' perceptions of nursing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1