Subject: discussion5
Author: A
Based on Kirkpatrick’s four level evaluation methods, I think if the instructional designers at the University of the South Pacific (USP) had used this concept well, there would be more improvement in the content of the training to enhance future participants.
Firstly they should consider that we were participants as well as their customers. Since nearly half of our class dropped out and did not complete the IS 121 programme final examination, I could say that they fail in meeting the organizations’s strategy, objectives and policy.
On the other hand, the students have to suffer because they dropped this programme after they had fully paid their fees. I therefore agreed that “In instructional design, everything is based on the notion that the participants are customers. (Suzuki, 2004, p.3-4).
Subject: Re:discussion5
Author: B
Hi A,
My understanding of Kirkpatrick's four level evaluation is that it is done during formative evaluation period. I agree there maybe some areas which need to be seriously looked at in improving the course content.
It is easy to look at fault concerning the course. However, I am also of the view that it is a two-way interaction. Would there be other (personal) factors for students dropping out?
I am just wandering was the course fully online, or were there face-to-face sessions? I don't want to seem defensive but I believe there are also avenues to raise these issues with the respective School and lecturer(s) and not to be silent.