Continued Example: Kirkpatrick & Evaluation of Learning

Evaluation

            Student learning was assessed according to the concepts of formative and summative evaluation as well as Kirkpatrick’s 4-level hierarchy: 1) reactions, 2) knowledge, and 3) behavior, level 4—results—constitutes a more extensive type of evaluation than feasible for this context.

            Asking for feedback on my teaching methods and the students’ reactions earlier in the course—midway, rather than at the conclusion—was a form of formative evaluation, because it allowed me to modify my instruction to be more effective with this group of learners as the course was progressing (Morrison et al., 2011). Both formative and summative evaluation played into measurement of knowledge—level 2 in Kirkpatrick’s model. Instructional designers should assess how well learners have incorporated new knowledge into their existing schemas, which often involves practice with the material and instructor feedback in order to modify students’ misconceptions. Formative evaluation at this level is demonstrated as I responded to comments during the presentation and asked questions of the students—both of which give an indication of student’s grasp of the material. The activity at the end of the lesson and the discussion over dinner further helped to correct student’s mental schemas and cement new knowledge in an accurate way.

Grading of final projects provided an even more comprehensive summative evaluation of student learning throughout the course. Kirkpatrick’s third level—behavior—focuses on a student’s ability to transfer new knowledge to differing contexts and the degree to which this knowledge is exhibited in their behavior (Kirkpatrick, 1960). Instructional PowerPoints submitted as the final project were designed to assess both knowledge and behavior, because the assignment required students to present a training project relevant to Merck in a way that exemplified their understanding of the course material. These projects were successful, in my opinion, and as demonstrated by evaluation according to a rubric created by Dr. Diane Wilcox and adjusted for the Merck context by myself. All students but Michele admitted a complete lack of theoretical knowledge at the beginning of this course.