Kuliah 7

1. Kuliah 7 PenilaianProgram Pembangunan Staf

2. HASIL PEMBELAJARAN EDU5822 Pelajardapat: 1. Mempelbagai kaedah untuk latihan dan pembangunan staf (C6) 2. Merekabentukprogram latihan dan pembangunan staf (P6, CTPS) 3. Mempamer perlakuan profesional dalam mengendali program latihan dan pembangunan staf (A5, EM).

3. Tajuk • Rasional penilaian • Proses penilaian • Reka bentuk penilaian • Kaedahpengutipan data penilaian

4. Impact Assessment • Donald Kirkpatrick (1967) proposes one of the most robust procedures to assess the impact of professional training. The model is a widely used assessment framework because it provides theoretically valid reasons for the variability in one’s levels of behavioral change impacted from a training program. • Kirkpatrick’s model for the impact assessment of professional training comprises of four levels of participants’ behavioral change, namely “Reaction,” “Learning,” “Behavior,” “Results.” Phillips’ (1996) notion about “Return on Investment” has now been included in the hierarchy of impact assessment. Most impact assessment focus to measure the first two levels of the training outcomes (Werner &DeSimone, 2006).

5. Kirkpartrick’sModel of Training Assessment

6. While the review of the programs and curriculum addresses the “reactions” level, the survey of the trained participants measures participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and instructional behaviors, which represent the “learning” and “impact” levels. To examine the roles of the participating institutions, focuses on institutional impact of the intervention. • For a professional the training to be impactful, there is a need to determine the appropriate contents and levels of performance. These are the learning outcomes, the professional standards deemed important in the profession. Also, there is a need to align the contents of the training with the agreeable set of training outcomes, which are to be formulated as the professional standards for teachers and lecturers in higher education. However, to date there are no such professional standards in the context of the Malaysian higher education.

7. Training Assessment Framework Donald Kirkpatrick’s Training Assessment Framework; • Reaction • Learning • Behaviour • Results

8. a. Reaction • This level, measures the degree to which participants reacted to the training. It is important to measure reaction, because it helps the organizer understand how well the training was perceived by the participants. It also helps in improvingfuture training. In this assessment project, however, the participants’ reactions were addressed in the review of the training curriculum This level, measures the degree to which participants reacted to the training. It is important to measure reaction, because it helps the organizer understand how well the training was perceived by the participants. It also helps in improvingfuture training. In this assessment project, however, the participants’ reactions were addressed in the review of the training curriculum

9. b. Learning • This level concerns what and how much the participants have learned from the training program. The survey assessed the participants’ self-reported responses to items suggesting for an increase in knowledge, skills and positive attitudes of learning and teaching after undertaking the AKEPT’s training.

10. c. Behaviour • This level evaluatestransfer of learning into instructional practices. It is about whether or not the participants have changed their instructional behaviors, resulting from the training they received. The level is associated withwhether they apply the newly acquired knowledge and skills in their teaching.

11. d. Results • Assessment of the participants’ achievement at this level primarily aims to evaluate if the training lead up to outcomes of relevance to the institutions. In the context of higher education, it is interesting to find out whether the training contributes to the functioning of the participating institution. Some of the valued outcomes of training for an institution of higher education are the rating of the quality of learning and teaching, graduate employment rate, and recognition in terms of expertise, research and publication.