Presentation on theme: "One common way to evaluate such effectiveness is to measure learners’ satisfaction with the various aspects of a course. According to Borges-Andrade (2002),"— Presentation transcript:
One common way to evaluate such effectiveness is to measure learners’ satisfaction with the various aspects of a course. According to Borges-Andrade (2002), reaction measures may be based on the evaluation model known as MAIS (Borges- Andrade, 1982), which postulates that one should consider the specific context of the organization of work and of the course itself before constructing a survey to measure reaction. Many different aspects may be taken into account when evaluating reaction, for example, the course’s utility, the quality of the didactic material, the training results, and the tutor’s competence, to name a few (Pilati & Borges-Andrade, 2006). Learners’ perceptions about the training results provide the instructional system with further information about knowledge assimilation, ability to put such knowledge into practice, and capability of transferring knowledge to peers. METHOD Reaction to training results: a comparative study between two distance education courses REFERENCES Borges-Andrade, J.E. (1982). Avaliação somativa de sistemas instrucionais: integração de três propostas. Tecnologia Educacional, 46, 29-39. Borges-Andrade, J.E. (2002). Desenvolvimento de Medidas em Avaliação de Treinamento. Estudos de Psicologia, 7 (Número Especial), 31-43. Borges-Andrade, J.E. & Piltati, R. (2006). Construção de Medidas e Delineamentos em Avaliação de TD&E. J.E. Borges-Andrade, G.S. Abbad, L. Mourão (Org). Treinamento, Desenvolvimento e Educação em Organizações e Trabalho: fundamentos para a gestão de pessoas. 1. ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed. ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to compare learners’ reaction to training results in two distance education courses. Participants from two web-based courses answered to a questionnaire containing 3 items about results. The main findings showed that there was significant difference in the evaluation of the courses for the three items in the questionnaire, pointing to the importance of considering some characteristics of the learners when planning an educational program. RESULTS The significant difference between the two courses may be due to participants’ characteristics, and on the difference in nature between the courses (content, criteria for participating, and so on). The major implications of such results point to the importance of considering some characteristics of the learners when planning any educational program, especially when it comes to goals, needs, and previous experience. Both courses were very well-evaluated, as the descriptives reveal (see Table 1). According to the T-tests, results from the course ‘FC’ were perceived as more positive than those from the course ‘MA’ for the three items (see Table 2). PRONEX Fubra University of Brasilia Instite of Psychology Impacto: Research on Training and Organizations of Work Authors: Lidia Parachin Gardênia Abbad Clara Cantal Annelise Soares Vanessa Brixi André Wogel Amanda Mourão INTRODUCTION Questionnaire: 3 items; Likert scale: 0 (none) – 10 (total) Knowledge assimilation Ability to put knowledge acquired in the course into practice Capability of transferring knowledge acquired in the course to different people. Program ‘FC’: Estimated study-time : 60h at distance Participants: 223 Organization of Work MSD Tecnologia Educacional (MSD Educational Technology): founded in 1993, develops multimedia products to education, training and entertainment. Programs Evaluated Program ‘MA’: Estimated study-time: 60h at distance; 40h at presence Participants: 710 Total number of respondents: 933 CONTEXTCONTEXT Procedures: Participants received an electronic mail containing a link to the questionnaire Data analysis took place with use of the software SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Data analysis: descriptives, and T-Tests DescriptivesBoth programsProgram ‘MA’Program ‘FC’ Highest mean8.878.77 (Sd=1.07)9.21 (Sd=0.90) Lowest mean8.788.66 (Sd=1.25)9.18 (Sd=0.85) Table 1: Highest and Lowest Means T-testsProgram ‘MA’Program ‘FC’ Knowledge assimilation (mean)8.74 (Sd=1.32)9.21 (Sd=0.90) Ability to put knowledge into practice (mean)8.76 (Sd=1.07)9.19 (Sd=0.88) Capability of transferring (mean)8.66 (Sd=1.24)9,18 (Sd=0.86) Table 2: T-tests results for both courses DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATIONS The questionnaire used in this work should be improved and used in future research in order to develop deeper investigation of the topic. Organizational environments are more and more dynamic, demanding new organizational and individual competences each day. Because employees need to learn continuously in order to keep their abilities in a reproduction cycle, training programs must reach every single individual effectively. The significant difference between the two courses may be due to participants’ characteristics, and on the difference in nature between the courses (content, criteria for participating, and so on).