Thanks Dorothy for sharing this link. I find it interesting and useful.
My projects fund several training activities and tools like this help to enrich my perspectives for evaluating the training activities to ensure effectiveness, relevance and sustainability.
Currently, I use a standards template which pursues to measure/evaluate the extent to which the training concept, plan, implementation and evaluation measures post-implementation meet the prescribed standards. The tool adopts a highly transparent and participatory manner in that all stakeholders involved in the training activity are evaluated within the same premises and time through somewhat of a focused group discussion. The process is simple as it only requires respondents to answer Yes, No or Not Quite and since it is participatory, it allows for further insight into the evidence to justify the responses. For instance, an evaluator can probe further to understand why the scores. It is flexible as it allows for one to introduce some ranking or grades e.g. Yes = 10, No = 0 and Not Quite = 5, depending on the specific needs of the evaluator and user.
In essence, the key indicators to measure, as suggested in KirkPatrick's Model, are more or less found in the tool which I am using: According to the Kirkpatrick's Model, it focuses on four points: 1) the degree to which participants find the training favourable and relevant to their jobs (Reaction); 2) the degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment based on their participation during the training (Learning); 3) the degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job (behaviour); and 4) the degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package (Results).
It's interesting the points of convergence here... Here you can find the tool I am currently using for this exact purpose: https://dgroups.org/?nprypl28
RE: What can evaluations do in terms of capacity development?
Thanks Dorothy for sharing this link. I find it interesting and useful.
My projects fund several training activities and tools like this help to enrich my perspectives for evaluating the training activities to ensure effectiveness, relevance and sustainability.
Currently, I use a standards template which pursues to measure/evaluate the extent to which the training concept, plan, implementation and evaluation measures post-implementation meet the prescribed standards. The tool adopts a highly transparent and participatory manner in that all stakeholders involved in the training activity are evaluated within the same premises and time through somewhat of a focused group discussion. The process is simple as it only requires respondents to answer Yes, No or Not Quite and since it is participatory, it allows for further insight into the evidence to justify the responses. For instance, an evaluator can probe further to understand why the scores. It is flexible as it allows for one to introduce some ranking or grades e.g. Yes = 10, No = 0 and Not Quite = 5, depending on the specific needs of the evaluator and user.
In essence, the key indicators to measure, as suggested in KirkPatrick's Model, are more or less found in the tool which I am using: According to the Kirkpatrick's Model, it focuses on four points: 1) the degree to which participants find the training favourable and relevant to their jobs (Reaction); 2) the degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment based on their participation during the training (Learning); 3) the degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job (behaviour); and 4) the degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package (Results).
It's interesting the points of convergence here... Here you can find the tool I am currently using for this exact purpose: https://dgroups.org/?nprypl28