Comparing Kirkpatrick’s original and new model with CIPP evaluation model
Dear Editor, In a young field like educational program evaluation, it is inevitable that conceptual frameworks such as Kirkpatrick model are revised with time and with greater knowledge. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM) is the new version of Kirkpatrick model which is more welcome to con...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
2018-04-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Advances in Medical Education and Professionalism |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://jamp.sums.ac.ir/index.php/JAMP/article/view/813 |
| Summary: | Dear Editor, In a young field like educational program
evaluation, it is inevitable that conceptual
frameworks such as Kirkpatrick model are
revised with time and with greater knowledge.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM)
is the new version of Kirkpatrick model which
is more welcome to context and process, and
hence probably much closer to the context–
input–process–product (CIPP) model (1). The aim
of this paper is to explore the similarities and
differences between three well-known evaluation
models including the original and new versions
of Kirkpatrick model and CIPP model.
The original version of Kirkpatrick model is an
outcome-focused model evaluating the outcomes
of an educational program, for instance, in the field
of medical education, in four levels of reaction,
learning, transfer and impact, respectively (2). The
model is rooted in reductionist approach suggesting
that the educational program success or lack of
success can be explained simply by reducing the
program into its elements and examining them (i.e.
its outcomes) (3). Yet, Kirkpatrick’s original model
fails to provide the evaluators with an insight
into the underlying mechanisms that inhibit or
facilitate the achievement of program outcomes
(4). In response to this shortcoming, the new
version of Kirkpatrick model added new elements
to recognize the complexities of the educational
program context (5).
The most highlighted changes have been
occurred at Level 3 to include processes that
enable or hinder the application of learned
knowledge or skills. The required drivers that
reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward
learners to apply what is learned during training,
on the job learning that happens outside the
formal program and Learners’ motivation and
commitment to improve their performance on the
job are interfering factors that may influence the
given outcomes at level 3. Learners’ confidence
and commitment, and learners’ engagement and
subject relevance ware added to Level 2 and level
1, respectively, to broaden the scope of evaluation
at these two levels (5).
Although the NWKM appears to better
embrace the complexity of educational programs,
some investigators may declare that it would be
similar to CIPP evaluation model. I suppose that
there are some fundamental differences between
them. The CIPP model stems from the complexity
theory that takes into account the educational
program as an open system with emergent
dynamical interactions among its component
parts and the surrounding environment. As a
result, CIPP pays explicit and implicit attention
to the program context by considering context
evaluation as a separate component of four
complementary sets of evaluation studies, as
well as identifying the contextual factors in
other components of the model by employing
a variety of qualitative methods (6). On the
other hand, the NWKM is limited to measuring
some confounding factors such as learner
characteristics or organizational factors on
program outcome achievement (1).
Kirkpatrick, like many traditional program
evaluation models, focuses on proving something
(i.e. outcome achievement) about a program. Thus,
it is usually conducted at the end of the program.
CIPP, on the other hand, acknowledges program
improvement, so providing useful information
for decision makers during all phases of program
development even when the program is still being
developed (7). The NWKM has broadened the
scope of traditional model by adding some
process measures enabling evaluators to interpret
the outcome evaluation results, but with the aim
of proving an educational program.
Overall, notwithstanding some improvement,
NWKM has still some theoretical differences
with the CIPP model resulting in varied
methodological and practical preferences.
However, it is not unexpected to witness more
convergence around these evaluation models with
greater knowledge and experience in the future. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2322-2220 2322-3561 |