Rossi and Freeman (1993) define evaluation as "the systematic application of scientific methods to assess the design, implementation, improvement or outcomes of a program." In Approaches to evaluation of training: Theory & Practice, Deniz Eyersel (2002) argues that "existing models fall short in comprehensiveness and they fail to provide tools that guide organizations in their evaluation systems and procedures" (p. 7). Eyersel's (2002) main argument is the need for a unified model of evaluation theory that takes into consideration the need for a collaborative approach to valuation and the complexities involved in the process.
Eyersel (2002) maintains that current evaluation programs do not take into account the complexities of evaluation, specifically the multiple goals and multiple levels involved and the need for evaluation of training programs to be "viewed as a collaborative activity between training designers, training managers, floor managers, and possibly others" (p. 6). Evaluation is a key component of the majority of instructional design (ID) models according to Eyersel (2002), but a significant body of evidence points to evaluations of training programs as "inconsistent" or "missing" (p. 1).
Eyersel (2002) offers a number of reasons why evaluation is often inadequate, from a lack of time allocation to lacks of tools. However, the complexity of evaluation of training itself, which includes multiple purposes at different levels, is the main reason he believes most programs are inadequate. Multiple purposes of evaluation include evaluation of student learning, evaluation of instructional materials, transfer of training, return on investment and others (Eyersel, 2002). Current approaches to evaluation of training are typically rooted in "systematic approaches to the design of training," characterized by instructional system development (ISD) pioneered decades ago (Eyersel, 2002).
...