You are here:

Evaluating E-Learning Effectiveness Using Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model PROCEEDINGS

, , , Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon (UANL), Mexico

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Honolulu, HI, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-73-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Abstract

An important area of opportunity of corporate e-learning resides in the evaluation of its effectiveness. Research on the subject is scarce, and it tends to focus on participants’ satisfaction and learning. Perhaps this is related to the difficulty in doing measurements that include more significant aspects, like the application of the acquired knowledge and the resulting business impact. Maybe it is that companies simply do not publish this type of data. The current paper aims to help filling the resulting knowledge gap by compiling the available literature on the subject, while focusing on Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model for evaluating training programs’ effectiveness. E-learning seems to be an effective training modality, when considering employees’ satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and behavior at the workplace. However, more research is still required to know more about the impact of e-training on business results and the return of investment.

Citation

Padilla Rodriguez, B.C., Rodriguez Nieto, M.C. & Padilla Montemayor, V.M. (2009). Evaluating E-Learning Effectiveness Using Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2009--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3341-3346). Honolulu, HI, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 17, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bates, R. (2004). A critical analysis of evaluation practice: The Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 341-347.
  2. Bonk, C.J. (2002). Online training in an online world. Bloomington, IN: CourseShare.com.
  3. Chen, N.-S., Lin, K.-M. & Kinshuk. (2008). Analysing [sic] users’ satisfaction with e-learning using negative critical incidents approach. Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 45(2), 115-126.
  4. Delfino, M., Manca, S., Persico, D. & Sarti, L. (2004, February). Online learning: Attitudes, expectations and prejudices of adult novices. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web-Based Education, Innsbruck, Austria.
  5. DeRouin, R.E., Fritzsche, B.A. & Salas, E. (2005). E-learning in organizations. Journal of Management, 31 (6), 920-940.
  6. Drennan, J., Kennedy, J. & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 331-338.
  7. Hao, H.-W. (2004). Students’ attitudes toward interaction in online learning: Exploring the relationship between attitudes, learning styles, and course satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA. Isoph & Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Network (N-TEN). (2004). E-learning in nonprofits and associations. Retrieved on November 20, 2008, from: http://www.isoph.com/pdfs/2004_nonprofit_e-learning_survey.pdf Kirkpatrick, D. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and Development Journal, 33(6), 78-92.
  8. Kirkpatrick, D. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Revisiting Kirkpatrick’ s four-level model. Training& Development, 50(1), 54-59.
  9. Kirkpatrick, D. (2007). The long view.
  10. Martinez, I.M., Cifre, E., Llorens, S. & Salanova, M. (2002). Efectos de la tecnología asistida por ordenador en el bienestar psicol ó gico afectivo [Effects of computer-aided technology on psychological and affective well-being]. Psicothema, 14(1), 118-123.
  11. McFarland, D. & Hamilton, D. (2006). Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction: Online versus traditional course delivery. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(2), 25-32.
  12. Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., Upchurch, R., Hartman, J. & Truman, B. (2006). Assessing online learning: What one university learned about student success, persistence, and satisfaction. Peer Review, 8(4), 26-29.
  13. Organista Sandoval, J. & Backhoff Escudero, E. (2002). Opinió n de estudiantes sobre el uso de apoyos didácticos en línea en un curso universitario [Students’ opinion on the use of online didactic resources in a university course]. Revista Electró nica de Investigación Educativa, 4(1), 1-14.
  14. Peak, D. & Berge, Z.L. (2006). Evaluation and eLearning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 124-131.
  15. Phillips, J.J. (1996). Measuring ROI: The fifth level of evaluation. Technical& Skills Training, 7(3), 10-13.
  16. Phillips, J.J. (1999). ROI: The search for best practices. The Manchester Review, 4(2), 11-17.
  17. Pulichino, J.P. (2007). Usage and value of Kirkpatrick’ s four levels of training evaluation. Doctoral Dissertation, Pepperdine University, California, United States.
  18. Rivera, R.J., Trierweiler, C. & Sugrue, B. (2005). The role of online higher education incorporate learning, research report. ASTD & Capella University. Retrieved on 10/25/07, from: http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/413B5ADB-B9F84FAC-8E2F-649E60A02C05/0/ASTD_Capella_OnlineHigherEd_Report.pdf
  19. Ruiz, J.G., Mintzer, M.J. & Leipzig, R.M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207-212.
  20. Skillsoft (2005). What return of investment does e-learning provide? Retrieved on 11/18/08, from: http://www.elearningcentre.co.uk/eclipse/Resources/What%20Return%20on%20Investment%20Does%20eLearning%20Provide%2

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.