USA: +1 415 256 4347 
Sign in
Question
Please explain about
1. The CIPP model for evaluation
2. Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation.
Use the below references (plus others).
1. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). “The CIPP model for evaluation”. In Evaluation models: Viewpoint on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 117-200). Web link: https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=J6TzCAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=Evaluation+models:+Viewpoint+on+educational+and+human+services+evaluation&ots=cgkocUTK4-&sig=Ou3r2mfyHPJDHG-1ZRM3fFZMun8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cipp%20model&f=false
2. Winfrey, E. (1999). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation. Encyclopedia of
Educational Technology, 1–6.
Answer
Contents
Kirkpatrick’s Learning Evaluation Model 3
Recommendations for Improvement. 4
Quality Improvement
Introduction
There are several models an organization can adopt when it comes to conducting an evaluation, and among them is the CIPP model for evaluation as well as Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation. “CIPP” which stands for Context, Input, Process, and Product, is a comprehensive framework that is essentially used for guiding evaluations of programs, projects, personnel, and other assessment systems. This model was developed in the late 1960s by Daniel Stufflebeam, and it provides many systematic ways and perspectives of looking at the different curriculum aspects for development (Werner & DeSimone, 2011). The latter, on the other hand, was advanced in 1994 in a book entitled Evaluating Training Programs and it mirrored the ideas that had been originally published in 1959, thus increasing awareness that made it the most widely used model for the thorough evaluation of training and learning. Besides, it is arguably the most efficient and standard model that is being adopted across various human resources and training circles. This essay will examine the key components of each model as well as the weaknesses and recommendations for improvement.
CIPP Model
To begin with, this program is an all-encompassing scheme that serves as a crucial tool for guiding developmental and collective evaluations of projects, personnel, products, institutions and systems as well. From a theoretical perspective, it seeks to make assessments as relevant as possible and align them to the needs of decision-making in the different cycles of a program regardless of its nature or complexity. The model’s fundamentalslogan is that evaluation’s most crucial purpose is to improve and not to prove. Owing to this slogan, for an evaluation to yield success, it must directly and accurately address the questions that decision-makers are asking and should do so in a clear and simple language that the decision-makers will be able to comprehend (Stufflebeam, 2000). Consequently, this scheme aims at actively involving the decision-makers in the evaluation planning to serve as a primary tool for increasing the probability of adding relevance to the outcomes and findings of this process and having them being used as a basis for larger project appraisals. This predicament stems from the fact that most agencies claim that the reports they receive from such assessments are in fact inadequate and unusable during decision-making due to their inconclusive nature and lack of clear-cut indications of how to address conflicting inferences. All in all, Stufflebeam (2000) strongly asserts that evaluationshould be an extensive process that is aimed at demarcating, obtaining and availing sufficient information to decision-makers while having project improvement as the guiding principle.
Kirkpatrick’s Learning Evaluation Model
Kirkpatrick’s model is a coherent learning framework that facilitates evaluation based on four fundamental levels. Firstly, reaction evaluation is the standard that measures how different learners respond to various situations. It looks at the students’ perception and attitudes towards training and the learning experience as a whole. The next level, learning, investigates just how much knowledge has been acquired by the delegates. It looks at the changes in attitude and the skills acquired as a result of indulging in the learning process (Winfrey, 1999). Thirdly, performance (behavior) is evaluated at this stage, and it looks at the practical aspects of how well students can apply the skills they have acquired throughout the course, whether in school or in the workplace. Finally, result sums up these stages. At this point, the overall effectiveness of the training program is assessed scrupulously. The impacts of the program are evaluated here in an attempt to determine their effect on the business as well as the environment that arises from having exposed the trainee to such a system(Winfrey, 1999). It can be noted that such influences may be in the form of moral values, financial appreciations among others.
Their Weaknesses
CIPP as a model clearly blurs the line between evaluation and other investigative processes such as needs assessment.Similarly, it is quixotic in that it holds an idealistic notion of what an assessment process should be instead of focusing on actuality and practicality particularly when decision-making is imperative to an organization. Owing to this, the model is not widely applied in the performance improvement field when weighed against others since it does not provide a practical approach.
On the other hand, Kirkpatrick’s approach is incomplete and holds too many assumptions especially when increasing the importance of information across the four levels. As such, the four levels proposed by this model insignificant to organizations. This is because the model propagates a centric learning perspective that often confuses rather than demystifies the issues facing a firm(Alliger& Janak, 1989). If anything, it contributes to the lack of understanding of businesses and the learning processes.
Recommendations for Improvement
Firstly, the CIPP model should be restructured in such a way that it takes into consideration the views of stakeholders since they have a right to consult on matters that touch on their information needs. Thus, the model should be based on democracy to accommodate all participants. In doing so, the model will serve as a profound basis of improvement and accountabilitywithin an organizational setup.
On the other hand, Kirkpatrick’s scheme ought to be rearranged entirely to present both a planning and evaluation model instead of only advancing the latter. This will constitute an effective plan that will visualize the end in mind and proceed to improve the overall performance of the business. Moreover, it is paramount that analysis and planning be at the core of this model to drive the performer’s perceptions in achieving the desired goals.
Conclusion
It is evident that both models are comprehensive frameworks that have been designed to improve those areas that need attention in an organization to boost performance levels in the long-run. The programs are designed in such a way that they guide systematic examinations of efforts that occur in the real world and provide a hands-on approach to combating management issues. Kirkpatrick’s model takes on a more proactive approach by treating evaluation as finality in the learning process (Winfrey, 1999; Alliger et al., 1997). However, CIPP is equally beneficial in evaluating management and development programs and is capable of addressing areas that the predecessor has failed to tackle.
References
Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel psychology, 42(2), 331-342.
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(2), 341-358.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). “The CIPP model for evaluation”. In Evaluation models: Viewpoint on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 279–317). London: Routledge.
Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2011). Human resource development. Cengage Learning.
Winfrey, E. C. (1999). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation. Encyclopedia of educational technology, 1-6.
