Assessment of an In-Service Training Activity Transformed into an E-Learning Environment Using the Kirkpatrick Model

Year 2024, , 207 - 221, 30.06.2024

Veysel Bilal Arslankara , Elif Arslankara , İlyas Asan , Mehmet Külekçi , Ertuğrul Usta

https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1441595

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate an in-service training program transformed into an e-learning environment using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model. A single-group experimental design was employed in the research. Thirty teachers who participated in the in-service training program were included in the study. The program was adapted to the e-learning platform and presented to the participants. Data were collected through surveys. 90% of the participants expressed satisfaction with the program, finding the e-learning format beneficial, and liking the content and presentation of the program, stating that it helped reinforce their knowledge. They mentioned a more flexible and comfortable learning experience compared to face-to-face training and acquired the targeted knowledge and skills by the end of the program.
The findings indicate that an in-service training program delivered face-to-face can be successfully transformed into an e-learning environment and evaluated using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model. The e-learning format provided participants with a more flexible and comfortable learning experience. The program significantly improved participants’ knowledge, skills, and behaviors. Adapting the program to similar professional groups can offer various benefits, such as enhancing professional skills, increasing workplace productivity, and improving professional satisfaction.

Keywords

In-service training, e-learning, Kirkpatrick evaluation model, knowledge, skills, behavior, performance.

References

• Akbaş, O. (2023). Planning curriculum with backward design: Understanding by design and learning outcome-based design. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 43(3), 1931- 1962.
• Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Traver, H. & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria, Personnel Psychology, 50, 1997.
• Alsalamah, A. & Callinan, C. (2021). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model of training criteria to evaluate training programmes for head teachers. Education Sciences, 11(3), 116.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2006). Increasing impact of training investments: an evaluation strategy for building organizational learning capability. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(6), 302-307. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850610685824
• Cahapay, M. (2021). Kirkpatrick model: Its limitations as used in higher education evaluation. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(1), 135-144.
• Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
• Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Dick, W., Carey, L. & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). New York: Pearson.
• Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
• Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J.L. & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Central for Applied Research, 2004(7).
• Ergün, E. & Kurnaz, F. B. (2019). Investigating the relationship between learning styles and academic achievement in e-learning environments. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 12(2), 532-549. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.407029
• Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Garrison, D. R. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/15156/
• Gustafson, K. L. & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th Edition). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
• Hara, N. (2000). Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 35(2), 129-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180010002297
• Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856
• Horton, W. K. (2011). E-learning by design (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
• Hudak, M. (2013). Professional development plus: rethinking professional learning. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Arizona.
• Jonassen, D. H. & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.
• Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
• Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, California.
• Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
• Kumar, R. (2011) Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 3rd Edition. Sage, New Delhi.
• Malik, S. & Asghar, M. Z. (2020). In-service early childhood education teachers’ training program evaluation through kirkpatrick model. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 14(2), 259-270.
• Mankan, T. (2019). Evaluation of hand hygiene education given to nursing students supported by hand hygiene products according to the Kirkpatrick model. Doctoral dissertation, İnönü University, Türkiye.
• Moore, M. G. & Anderson, W. G. (2003). Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
• Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). London: Routledge.
• Moore, M. G. (1997). Distance education: A system view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
• Parry, S. B. (1997). Evaluating the impact of training. Association for Talent Development; 1st edition (September 1, 1997).
• Paul, T. (2012). The impact of age and education on the level of satisfaction and motivation among employees. The IUP Journal of Management Research, 11, 1, 29-37.
• Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227–241.
• Phillips, P. P. (2003). Training evaluation in the public sector. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, USA.
• Pintrich, P. R. & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 249--284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Popham, W. J. (2009). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Prochaska, J. O. & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral interventions: Theory, research, and procedures (pp. 315-342). New York: Academic Press.
• Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. Paper presented on April 27, 2000 at Session 41.29, “International Perspectives on Instructional Technology Research for the 21st Century,”, New Orleans, LA, USA.
• Reiser, R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson.
• Richey, R.C., Klein, J.D. & Tracey, M.W. (2010). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice (1st ed.). Routledge.
• Robertson, R.F. (1996). Develop a performance-focused organization. Hdrocarbon Processing Dec., 75, 12, 81 86.
• Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5 197-211.
• Salmon G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London; Sterling, VA: Kogan Page Limited.
• Seels, B. B. & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional design models and learning theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 19-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Simonson, M., Schlosser, C. & Orellana, A. (2011). Distance education research: A review of the literature. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2), 124-142. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s12528-011-9045-8
• Simonson, M., Smaldino, S. E. & Zvacek, S. M. (2011). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.
• Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Soprano, K. & Yang, L-L. (2012). Inquiring into my science teaching through action research: A case study on one pre-service teacher’s inquiry-based science teaching and self-efficacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, December 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9380-x
• Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Classroom assessment for learning: A handbook for educators (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson.
• Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Yardibi, N. (2018). The Effect of Teachers' Satisfaction Levels with Administrators on Their Job Performance. Mersin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 14(1), 426-435. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.401087
• Zhetpisbayeva, B., Sarzhanova, G. & Seilkhanova, A. (2020). Using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model for pre-service teacher education course. Collection of Scientific Works, 68-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.36074/11.12.2020.v4.24