Working Paper 1

EVALUATING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT

JOHN KENWORTHY
DBA 17

(HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)

31 Mount Sinai View

Singapore 276818
Tel: +65 62235638
Fax: +65 62235639

1
 Working Paper 1

EVALUATION

BACKGROUND
There are several issues involved in evaluating management development, more so when the
evaluation also considers the method of management development that this paper explores.
Through a review of the literature, this paper will address the high level issues and establish
the basis for a suitable model of evaluation that will measure the effectiveness of the
method(s) employed in a managerial development intervention or event.

The paper commences by reviewing why we should evaluate; what should be evaluated; and
lastly how to evaluate. The paper then considers suitable models and methods of evaluation to
measure the effectiveness of a management development intervention and the method
employed in undertaking the intervention with particular reference to experiential learning
and the use of computer-based simulations during a training intervention.

WHY EVALUATE
A number of authors consider the need and reasons for evaluation though all tend to fall into
four broad categories identified by Mark Easterby-Smith . He notes four general purposes of
evaluation (P14):
1. Proving: the worth and impact of training. Designed to demonstrate conclusively that
something has happened as a result of training or developmental activities.
2. Improving: A formative purpose to explicitly discover what improvements to a training
programme are needed
3. Learning: Where the evaluation itself is or becomes an integral part of the learning of
a training programme
4. Controlling: Quality aspects in the broadest sense, both in terms of quality of content
and delivery to established standards.

More recent literature uses different terminology which can be placed into these four broad
categories:
Russell does not include such a Learning purpose explicitly but suggests that the evaluation
of performance interventions produces the following benefits:
• Determines if performance gaps still exist or have changed (Proving)

2
 Working Paper 1

• Determines whether the performance intervention achieved its goals (Controlling)

• Assesses the value of the performance intervention against organizational results
(Proving)
• Identifies future changes or improvements to the intervention (Improving)

According to Russell, whichever evaluation model is chosen to follow “the evaluation should
focus on how effective the performance intervention was at meeting the organization’s goals”.

Russ-Eft and Preskill review evaluation across the entire organisation, not just in the training
or development arena and cite 6 distinct reasons to evaluate:
Evaluation:
• Ensures quality (Controlling)
• Contributes to increased organisation members’ knowledge (Learning)
• Helps prioritise resources (Improving)
• Helps plan and deliver organisational initiatives (Improving)
• Helps organisation members be accountable (Controlling)
• Findings can help convince others of the need or effectiveness of various
organisational initiatives (Proving)
They include a seventh reason to gain experience in evaluation as it is ‘fast becoming a
marketable skill’.

Increasingly in the business and Human Resources media and the professional bodies
representing training and development professionals (for example the American Society for
Training and Development, ASTD), there is a call for ‘better’ evaluation of training and
development intervention. The basic principle driving this is for training to demonstrate its
worth to organisations – whether that be its’ attributable Return on Investment (ROI) or its
value in improving performance of individuals (such as productivity gains or reduced
accidents) or of the organisation (such as more efficient use of resources or demonstrable
improvement in quality). Essentially, training and development costs time and money and
needs to be shown to be worthwhile.

3
 Working Paper 1

WHAT TO EVALUATE
Exactly what is to be measured as part of the evaluation is an especially problematic area.
Aspects of behaviour or reaction that are relatively easy to measure are usually trivial.
Measuring changes in behaviour, for example, may require the observations to be reduced to
simpler and more trivial characteristics. Alternatively, these characteristics may be assessed
by the individual’s subordinates – however, the purist would no doubt claim that such holistic
judgements are of dubious validity. The problem is that the general requirement for
quantitative measurement tends to produce a trivialization in the focus of the evaluation.

According to Bedingham , ultimately “the only criteria that make sense are those which are
related to on-the-job behaviour change”. Bedingham advocates the use of research based 360º
questionnaires that objectively measure competency sets and skills applicable to most
organisations, functions or disciplines and making the results of the feedback taken
immediately prior to the event, available to trainees during their training – thus allowing
individuals to easily see how they actually do something and the relevance of the training.
Thus, they can then start transferring the learned skills immediately on return to the
workplace.

Managerial effectiveness and competency

David McClelland is often cited as the father of the modern competency movement. In 1973,
he challenged the then orthodoxy of academic aptitude and knowledge content tests, as being
unable to predict performance or success in life and as being biased against minorities and
women . Identified through patterns of behaviour, competencies are characteristics of people
that differentiate performance in a specific job or role . Competencies distinguish well
between roles at the same level in different functions and also between roles at different levels
(even in the same function) often by the number of competencies required to define the role.
A competency model for a Middle Manager, is usually defined within ten to twelve
competencies, of those two are relatively unique to a given role. Kelner suggest that
competency models for senior executives require fifteen to eighteen competencies, up to half
of which were unique to the model .

Kelner , cites a 1996 unpublished paper by the late David McClelland were he performed a
meta-analysis of executives assessed on competencies, where McClelland discovered that

4
 Working Paper 1

only eight competencies could consistently predict performance in any executive with 80
percent accuracy.

The first scientifically valid set of scaled competencies – competencies that have sets of
behaviours ordered into levels of sophistication or complexity – were developed by
Hay/McBer . The competencies found to be the most critical for effective managers include:
• Achievement Orientation
• Developing Others
• Directiveness
• Impact and Influence
• Interpersonal Understanding
• Organisational Awareness
• Team Leadership

This set of characteristics, or individual competencies, that a manager brings to the job need
to match well to the job or additional effort may be necessary to carry out the job or the
manager may not be able to use certain managerial styles effectively. These are in turn
affected by the organisational climate and the actual requirement of the job.

Managerial effectiveness is the combination of these four critical factors, Organisational

Climate, Managerial Styles, Job Requirements and the Individual Competencies that the
manager brings to the job. Reddin points out that 'managerial effectiveness' is not a quality
but a statement about the relationship between his behaviour and some task situation.
According to Reddin, it is therefore not possible to discover as fact the qualities of
effectiveness which would then be of self-evident value.

If, however the Hay/McBer competencies are able to predict performance in any executive to
80 percent accuracy and these competencies are ‘trainable’ then any training programme
designed to develop managerial effectiveness in any role can be evaluated by means of
assessing the changes in behaviour of the participant that demonstrates the competency.

5
 Working Paper 1

Learning outcomes
Most researchers conceptualize learning as a multidimensional construct. There is
considerable commonality across different attempts to classify types of learning outcomes.
synthesised the work of , and others proposing broad based categories of learning outcomes:
skill-based, cognitive and affective outcomes.

Skill-based learning outcomes address technical or motor skills. A number of game-based

instructional programmes have been used for practice and drill of technical skills. For
example, investigated the effectiveness of the use of an aviation computer game by military
trainees on subsequent test flights.
Cognitive learning outcomes include three subcategories of:
• Declarative knowledge. The learner is typically required to reproduce or recognise
some item of information. For example, demonstrated that students who played a
computer game focusing on Newtonian principles were able to more accurately
answer questions on motion and force than those who did not play the game.
• Procedural knowledge. Requires a demonstration of the ability to apply knowledge,
general rules, or skills to a specific case. For example, found that students using a
variable payoff electronics game achieved higher scores on electronics troubleshooting
tasks than students who received standard drill and practice.
• Strategic knowledge. Requires application of learned principles to different contexts or
deriving new principles for general or novel situations (referred to by others, as
Constructivist Learning ), , for example, found that use of a computer game to
improve practical reasoning skills of students led to improvements in critical thinking.
Affective learning outcomes refers to attitudes. Includes feelings of confidence, self-efficacy,
attitudes, preferences and dispositions. Some research has shown that games can influence
attitudes, for example and .

General approaches to evaluation ‘Schools’

Easterby-Smith groups major approaches and classifies within two dimensions, the scientific-
constructivist dimension, and the research-pragmatic dimension.

6
 Working Paper 1

The Scientific-constructivist dimension represents the distinct paradigms – according to

Filstead , these paradigms represent distinct, largely incompatible, ways of seeing and
understanding the world, yet In practice, most evaluations contain elements of each point of
view . The scientific approach favours the use of quantitative techniques involving the attempt
to operationalise all variables in measurable terms – normally analysed by statistical
techniques in order to establish absolute criteria.

The Scientific approach contrasts greatly with ‘constructivist’ or ‘naturalistic’ methods

which emphasise the collection of different views of various stakeholders before data
collection begins. The process continues with reviewing largely, but not exclusively,
qualitative data along with the view of various stakeholders.

Research-Pragmatic dimension
This dimension represents the contrasting styles of how the evaluation is conducted. Easterby-
Smith described the two extremes as Evaluation and evaluation representing the Research
and Pragmatic styles respectively.

Research styles stress the importance of rigorous procedures, that the direction and emphasis
of the evaluation study should be guided by theoretical considerations and that these
considerations are aimed at producing enduring generalizations, and knowledge about the
learning and developmental process involved. The researcher in this instance should be
independent and maintain an objective view of the courses under investigation without
becoming personally involved.

The pragmatic approach, in contrast, emphasizes the reduction of data collection and other
time-consuming aspects of the evaluation study to the minimum possible. As pointed out in ,
when working within companies, the researcher is dependent on the cooperation and given
time of managers and other informants – who may and will have other more important
priorities than the researcher’s study.

Easterby-Smith combines the dimensions into a useful matrix. The arrows show the influence
of one ‘school’ on the development of the linked ‘school’.
()

7
 Working Paper 1

Research

Experimental Illuminative
research evaluation

Goal-free
evaluation
Scientific Constructivist

Systems
model Interventionalist
evaluation

Pragmatic

Experimental Research
Experimental research has its roots in traditional social science research methodology. , , , are
cited in as the best known representatives of this ‘school’. The emphasis in experimental
research is:
1. Determining the effects of training and other forms of development
2. Demonstrating that any observed changes in behaviour or state can be attributed to the
training, or treatment, that was provided.
There is an emphasis on the theoretical considerations, preordinate designs and quantitative
measurement and emphasis on comparing the effects of different treatments. In a training
evaluation study this would involve at least two groups being evaluated before and after a
training intervention. One group receives a training ‘treatment’ whilst the other group does
not. The evaluation would measure the differences between the groups in specific quantifiable
aspects related to their work.

HOW TO EVALUATE

Evaluation models and taxonomies

Kirkpatrick Model
Donald Kirkpatrick created the most familiar evaluation taxonomy of a four step approach to
evaluation – now referred to as a model of four levels of evaluation . It is one of the most
widely accepted and implemented models used to evaluate training interventions.
Kirkpatrick’s four levels measure the following:

8
 Working Paper 1

1. Reaction to the intervention

2. Learning attributed to the intervention
3. Application of behaviour changes on the job
4. Business results realised by the organisation
Russ-Eft and Preskill note that the ubiquity of Kirkpatrick’s model stems from its simplicity
and understandability – having reviewed 57 journal articles in the training, performance, and
psychology literature that discussed training evaluation models, Russ-Eft and Preskill found
that 44 (77%) of these included Kirkpatrick’s model. They also note that only in recent years
(1996) that several alternative models have been developed.

In an article written in 1977, Donald Kirkpatrick considered how the evaluation at his four
levels provided evidence or proof of training effectiveness. Proof of effectiveness requires an
experimental design using a control group to eliminate possible factors affecting the
measurement of outcomes from a training program. Without such a design, i.e., evaluating
only the changes in a group participating in a training program, can provide evidence of
training effectiveness but not proof .

Brinkerhoff model
Brinkerhoff’s model has its roots in evaluating training and HRD interventions. Brinkerhoff’s
cyclical model consists of six stages grouped into the following four stages of performance
intervention:
• Performance Analysis
• Design
• Implementation
• Evaluation

Brinkerhoff’s model addresses the need for evaluation throughout the entire human
performance intervention process.
The six stages:
1. Goal setting – identify business results and performance needs and determine if the
problem is worth addressing
2. Program design – evaluation of all types of interventions that may be appropriate
3. Program implementation – Evaluates the implementation and addresses the success of
the implementation
4. Immediate outcomes – focuses on learning that takes place during the intervention

9
 Working Paper 1

5. Intermediate outcomes – focuses on the after-effects of the intervention some time

following the intervention
6. Impacts and worth – how the intervention has impacted the organization, the desired
business results and whether it has addressed the original performance need or gap.

Holton’s HRD Evaluation Research and Measurement Model

Holton identified three outcomes of training (learning, individual performance, and
organisational results) that are affected by primary and secondary influences. Learning is
affected by trainee’s reactions, their cognitive ability, and their motivation to learn, The
outcome of individual performance is influenced by motivation to transfer their learning, the
programme’s design, and the condition of training transfer. Organisational results are affected
by the expectations for return on investment, the organisation’s goals, and external events and
factors. Holton’s model bears great similarity to Kirkpatrick’s Levels 2, 3 and 4.

The model is more testable than others in that it is the only one that identifies specific
variables that affect training’s impact through identification of various objects, relationships,
influencing factors, predictions and hypotheses. Russ-Eft view Holton’s model as being
related to a theory-driven approach to evaluation .

10
 Working Paper 1

ISSUES WITH EVALUATION APPROACH

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
There are a number of reasons why this approach may not work as well as it might,
particularly with management training where sample sizes are limited and especially where
training and development activities are secondary to the main objectives of the organization.
Easterby-Smith discusses four main reasons:

Sample sizes
Using statistical techniques, essential to experimental research, need to be large to discover
statistical significances when evaluating management training and development. This is
particularly difficult in this field when group sizes are often less than ten and rarely greater
than 30.

Control Groups
There are special problems in achieving genuine control groups. In one study , the selection of
the group to receive training were ‘closer’ to their bosses than those who were not selected –
rather than more objective or even random selection criteria.

Further, does ‘no training’ have a negligible effect on the ‘control group’? Indeed Guba and
Lincoln now include those whoa are left out as one of the main groups of stakeholders.

Causality
The intention of experimental design is primarily to demonstrate causality between the
training intervention and any subsequent outcomes. However, it is often hard to isolate the
intervention from other influences on the manager’s behaviour. It may be possible to reduce
the ‘clutter’ of other influences for training interventions that have a specific, identifiable
skills focus, interventions of a more complex nature may be subject to myriad external
influences between evaluations.

Time and effort

Kirkpatrick identifies that an experimental design to ‘prove’ that training is effective requires
additional steps including the evaluation of a control group. Particularly with regard to his
Level 3 (Behaviour) and Level 4 (Results), ensuring that any post-test evaluation is

11
 Working Paper 1

undertaken at a time after the training event long enough for the participant to have had an
opportunity to change behaviour, or for results to be realisable .

ILLUMINATIVE EVALUATION
In response to the problems above with experimental research, evaluators usually try to
increase the sample size. The Illuminative evaluation school takes issue with the comparative
and quantitative aspects of experimental research. Such a view will tend to concentrate rather
on the views of different people in a more qualitative way. However, this school has been
noted to be more costly than anticipated , and also this style of evaluation had been rejected
by sponsors.

SYSTEMS MODEL
Easterby-Smith notes three main features of the systems model ‘school’. Starting with the
objectives, an emphasis on identifying the outcomes of training and a stress on providing
feedback about these outcomes to those people involved in providing inputs to the training.

Additionally, evaluation is the ‘assessment of the total value of a training system, training
course or programme in social as well as financial terms’. Critical of the approach Hamblin
suggests that this is restrictive because evaluation has to be related to objectives whilst being
over ambitious because the total value of training is evaluated in ‘social as well as financial’
terms. However, Hamblin’s own cycle of evaluation depends heavily on the formulation of
objectives, either as a starting point or as a product of the evaluation process.

Another important feature of Hamblin’s work is the emphasis on measurement of outcomes

from training at different levels. It assumes that any training event will, or can. Lead to a
chain of consequences, each of which may be seen as causing the next consequence. Hamblin
stresses that it would be unwise to conclude from an observed change at one of the higher
levels of effect that this was due to a particular training intervention, unless one has followed
the chain of causality through the intervening levels of effect. Should a change in job
behaviour, for example, be observed, the constructivist take on this would possibly be to ask
the individual for his or her own views of why they were now behaving in a different way and
then compare this interpretation with the views of one or two close colleagues or
subordinates.

12
 Working Paper 1

Hamblin’s Five-Level Model

Hamblin , also widely referenced, devised a five-level model similar to Kirkpatrick’s.
Hamblin adds a fifth level that measures “ultimate value variables” of “human good”
(economic outcomes). This also can be viewed as falling into the tradition of the behavioural
objectives approach .
()

The third main feature of the systems model is the stress on feedback to trainers and others
decision makers in the training process. This features significantly in the work of who take a
very pragmatic view of evaluation, suggesting that it should be of help to the trainer in
making decisions about a particular programme as it is happening. subsequently makes a
further distinction between assisting decisions that can be made about current programmes,
and feedback that can contribute to decisions about future programmes. This, Rackham began
to appreciate after attempting to improve the amount of learning achieved in successive
training programmes by feeding back to the trainers data about the reactions and learning
achieved in earlier programmes. What Rackham noticed was that the process of feedback
from one course to the next resulted in clear improvements when the programmes were non-
participative in nature, but that there were no apparent improvements in programmes that
involved a lot of participation.

The idea of feedback as an important aspect of evaluation was developed further by Burgoyne
and Singh . They distinguish between evaluation as feedback and feedback adding to the body
of knowledge. The former they saw as providing transient and perishable data relating directly
to decision-making, and the latter as generating permanent and enduring knowledge about
education and training processes.

Burgoyne and Singh relate evaluative feedback to a range of different decisions about training
in the broad sense:
1. Intra-method decisions: about how particular methods are handled, for example
‘lectures’ may vary from straight delivery to lively debates.
2. Method decisions: for example, whether to employ a lecture, a case study, or a
simulation in order to introduce the topic

13
 Working Paper 1

3. Programme decisions: about the design of a particular programme, whether it should

be longer or shorter, more or less structured, taught by insiders or visiting speakers
4. Strategy decisions: about the optimum use of resources, and about the way the training
institution might be organized.
5. Policy decisions: about the overall provision of funding and resources, and the role of
the institution as a whole, whether for example, a management training college should
see itself as an agent for change or as something that oils the wheels of change that are
already taking place. ()

The systems model has been widely accepted, especially in the UK, but there are a number of
problems and limitations that should be understood. According to Easterby-Smith the main
limitation is that feedback (i.e. data provided from evaluation of what has happened in the
past) can only contribute marginally to decisions about what should happen in the future. This
is due to the legacy of the past training event and feedback can highlight incremental
improvements based on the previous design, but not note when radical change is needed.

The emphasis on outcomes provides a good and logical basis for evaluation but it represents a
mechanistic view of learning. In the extreme, this suggests that learning consists of facts and
knowledge being placed in people’s heads and that this becomes internalized and then
gradually incorporated in people’s behavioural responses.

The emphasis on starting with objectives brings us to a classic critique of the systems
approach. Just whose objectives are they? It has been questioned by MacDonald-Ross
whether there is any particular value in specifying formal objectives at all, since among other
things, this might place undue restrictions on the learning that could be achieved from a
particular educational or training experience.

GOAL FREE EVALUATION

This leads to the next major evaluation ‘school’: Goal free evaluation. This starts with the
assumption that the evaluator should avoid consideration of formal objectives in carrying out
his or her work. Scriven proposed the radical view that the evaluator should take no notice of
the formal objectives of a programme when carrying out an investigation of it.

14
 Working Paper 1

Goal free evaluation leans more to the constructive method where the evaluator should avoid
discussing or even seeing the published objectives of the programme and discover from
participants what happened and what was learned .

INTERVENTIONALIST EVALUATION
According to Easterby-Smith this approach includes responsive evaluation and utilization
focused evaluation. He cites Stake contrasts responsive evaluation with the preordinate
approach of experimental research. The latter requires the design to be clearly specified and
determined before evaluation begins, it makes use of ‘objective’ measures, evaluates these
against criteria determined by programme staff, and produces reports in the form of research-
type reports. In contrast, responsive evaluation is concerned with programme activities rather
than intentions, and takes account of different value perspectives. In addition, Stake stresses
the importance of attempting to respond to the audience’s requirements for information
(contrasting with some goal-free evaluators to distance themselves from some of the principal
stakeholders). Stake positions this method more pragmatically by recognizing that ‘different
styles of evaluation will serve different purposes’. He also recognizes that preordinate
evaluations may be preferable to responsive evaluations under certain circumstances.

Guba and Lincoln take this method further by what they call responsive constructivist
evaluation. Guba and Lincoln recommend starting with the identification of stakeholders and
their concerns, and arranging for these concerns to be exchanged and debated before
collection of further data.

Patton stresses the importance of identifying the motives of key decision makers before
deciding what kind of information needs to be collected. Recognising that some stakeholders
have more influence than others (a view Guba and Lincoln argue should not be the case) but
goes further by concentrating on the uses of the subsequent information might be put.

But, Interventionalist evaluation has the danger of being so flexible in its approach because it
considers the views of all stakeholders and the use of the subsequent information, that the
form adapts and changes to every passing whim and circumstance, and thereby producing
results that are weak and inconclusive. It may also be, that the evaluator becomes too close to
the programme and stakeholders, something that goal-free evaluators set pout to avoid,
leading to a reduction of impartiality and credibility.

15
 Working Paper 1

EXPERIENCE WITH TRAINING PROGRAMME EVALUATION MODELS

Many researchers measuring the effects of training have looked at one or more of the
outcomes identified by Kirkpatrick : reactions, learning, behaviour, and results.

Evaluation of Trainee reactions to learning has yielded mixed results , yet it is often the only
formal evaluation of a training programme and relied upon to assess learning and behaviour
change. It may be reasonable to assume that enjoyment is a precursor to learning, and that if a
trainee enjoys the training, they are likely to learn but such an assumption is not supported by
a meta-analytic study combining the results of several other studies .

Kirkpatrick’s second level, Learning, is the most commonly used measurement after trainee
reactions to assess the impact of training. Studies investigating the relationship between
learning and work behaviour have also shown mixed results and offer little concrete evidence
to support the notion that increased learning from a training programme relates to
organisational performance. cited in .

Training transfer is defined as applying the knowledge, skills, and attitudes acquired during
training to the work setting. Most organisations are genuinely interested in this aspect of the
effectiveness of training events and programmes – yet the paucity of research dedicated to
transfer of training contradicts the importance of the issues. Some research in this area has
focussed on comparison of alternative conditions to training transfer. A typical design of such
research compares groups who receive different training methods and/or a ‘control group’ that
receives no training. Such studies do not all use the same research design and the results are
inconsistent. However, the research does indicate that some form of post-training transfer
strategy facilitates training transfer .

Evaluating Results of training in terms of business results, financial results and return on
investment (ROI) is much discussed in the popular literature – most offering anecdotal
evidence or conjecture about the necessity of evaluating training’s return on investment and
methods that trainers might use to implement such an evaluation. Solid research on this topic
is not, however, so voluminous. Mosier proposes a number of capital budgeting techniques
that could be applied to evaluating training whilst recognising that there are common reasons
why such financial analyses are rarely conducted or reported:

16
 Working Paper 1

• It is difficult to quantify or establish a monetary value for many aspects of training

• No usable cost-benefit tool is readily available
• The time lag between training and results is problematic
• Training managers and trainers are not familiar with financial models.
Little progress appears to have been made in this area since Mosier wrote.

CHOOSING AN EVALUATION STYLE

EXPERIENCE WITH TRAINING PROGRAMME EVALUATION MODELS

Reviewing the history and development of training evaluation research shows that there are
many variables that ultimately affect how trainees learn and transfer their learning in the
workplace. Russ-Eft and Preskill suggest that a comprehensive evaluation of learning,
performance , and change would include the representation of a considerable number of
variables . Such an approach, whilst laudable in terms of purist academic research, is likely to
cause another problem, that of collecting data to demonstrate the affects and effects of so
many independent variables and factors. Thus, we need to recognise that there is a trade off
between the cost and duration of a research design and increasing the quality of the
information which it generates .

Hamblin points out that a considerable amount of evaluation research has been done. This
research has been carried out with a great variety of focal theories, usually looking for
consistent relationships between educational methods and learning outcomes, using a variety
of observational methods but with a fairly consistent and stable background theory. However,
the underlying theory has been taken from behaviouralist psychology summed up as the
‘patient’ - here the essential view is that the subject (patient) does (behaviour or response) is a
consequence of what has been done to him (treatment or stimulus).

Another approach according to Burgoyne which researchers appear to take to avoid

confronting value issues is to hold that all value questions can ultimately be reduced to
questions of fact. This usually takes the form of regarding the quality of 'managerial
effectiveness' as a personal quality which is potentially objectively measurable, and therefore
a quality, the possession of which could be assessed as a matter of fact. In practice this
approach has appeared elusive. Seashore et al, felt that the existence of the concept of
'managerial effectiveness' as a unitary trait could be confirmed, if they found high

17
 Working Paper 1

intercorrelations between five important aspects of managerial behaviour: high overall

performance ratings, high productivity, low accident record, low absenteeism and few errors

There are no forced rules about the style of evaluation used for a particular evaluative
purpose. However, suggests that studies aimed at fulfilling the purpose of proving will tend to
be located towards the ‘research’ end of the dimension, and studies aimed at improving will
tend to be located near the ‘pragmatic’ end. On the methodological dimension there may be
more concern with proving at the ‘scientific’ end, and learning at the ‘constructivist’ end. ()

ISSUES OF EVALUATION FOR SIMULATIONS

Margaret Gredler notes that a major design weakness of most studies evaluating simulation
based training and development is that they are compared to regular classroom instruction.
However, the instructional goals for each can differ. Similarly, many studies show
measurement problems in the nature of the post-tests used.

The problems highlighted above regarding the choice of evaluation methodology are further
compounded by the lack of well-designed research studies in the development and use of
games and simulations – much of the published literature consists of anecdotal reports and
testimonials providing sketchy descriptions of the game or simulation and report only on
perceived student reactions.

Most of the research, as noted by Pierfy is flawed by basic weaknesses in both design and
measurement. Some studies implemented games or simulations that were brief treatments of
less than 40 minutes and assessed effects weeks later. Intervening instruction in these cases,
however, contaminated the results.

DO SIMULATIONS REQUIRE A DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT OF

EFFECTIVENESS?
Mckenna cites many references to papers criticising the evaluation of learning effectiveness
using Interactive Multimedia and many researchers ask for more research to quantitatively
evaluate the real benefits of simulations and games-based learning.

The question whether Simulation based learning requires a new and different assessment
techniques beyond those in us e today remains relatively unexplored. Although there have

18
 Working Paper 1

been some attempts at constructing theoretical frameworks for the evaluation of virtual worlds
, , very few working examples or reports on the practical use of these frameworks exists.

Whitelock et al. argue that effective evaluation methods need to be established to discover if
conceptual learning takes place in virtual environments. In practice, however, the assessment
of virtual environments and simulations has been focused primarily on its usefulness for
training and less on its efficacy for supporting learning especially in domains with a high
conceptual and social content.

Hodges suggests that simulations (especially Virtual Reality) prove most valuable in job
training where hands-on practice is essential but actual equipment cannot often be used.
Greeno et al. suggest that knowledge of how to perform a task is embedded in the contextual
environment. Druckman and Bjork suggest that only when a task is learned in its intended
performance situations can the learned skills be used in those situations.

Since the early days of simulation and gaming as a method to teach, there have been calls for
hard evidence that support the teaching effectiveness of simulations . Their paper states that

“despite the extensive literature, it remains difficult, if not impossible, to support

objectively even the most fundamental claims for the efficacy of games as a teaching
pedagogy. There is little relatively little hard evidence that simulations produce
learning or that they are superior to other methodologies.”

They go on to review the reasons as being traceable to the selection of dependent variables
and to the lack of rigour with which investigations have been conducted.

HOW TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF SIMULATIONS

One of the major problems of simulations is how to “evaluate the training effectiveness [of a
simulation]” citing . Although for more than 40 years, researchers have lauded the benefits of
simulation , very few of these claims are supported with substantial research

Many of the above cited authors attribute the lack of progress in simulation evaluation to
poorly designed studies and the difficulties inherent in creating an acceptable methodology of
evaluation.

19
 Working Paper 1

There are a number of empirical studies that have examined the effects of game-based
instructional programs on learning. For example both Ricci, et al. and Whitehall and
McDonald found that instruction incorporating game features led to improved learning. The
rationale for these positive results varied, given the different factors examined in these
studies. Whitehall and McDonald argued that the incorporation of a variable payoff schedule
within the simulation led to increased risk taking among students, resulting in greater
persistence and improved performance. Ricci, et al. proposed that instruction incorporating
game features enhanced student motivation, leading to greater attention to training content
and greater retention.

However, although anecdotal evidence suggests that students seem to prefer games over other,
more traditional methods of instruction, review have reported mixed results regarding the
training effectiveness of games and simulations. Pierfy evaluated the results of 22 simulation-
based training game effectiveness studies to determine patterns of training effectiveness. 21
studies are reported on having comparable assessments. Three of the studies reported results
favouring the effectiveness of games, three studies reported results favouring the effectiveness
of conventional teaching. The remaining 15 studies reported no significant differences. 11 of
the studies tested for retention of learning, eight of these indicated that retention was superior
for games, the remaining 3 yielded no significant result. 7 of 8 of the studies assessing student
preference for training games over classroom instruction reported greater interest in
simulation game activities over conventional teaching methods. More recently, Druckman
concluded that games seem to be effective in enhancing motivation and increasing student
interest in subject matter, yet the extent to which this translates into more effective learning is
less clear.

THE PROBLEM OF SIMULATION VALIDATION

Specifically with regard to simulation based training programmes (but also applying to all
training delivery methods perhaps with different terminology), this section reviews the
literature on simulation evaluation developing a coherent framework for pursuing the
evaluation problem. Three prominent constructs appear in the literature: fidelity, verification,
and validation. Validation of a simulation as a method of teaching and that the simulation
programme as a training intervention produces (or helps to produce) learning and transfer of
learning are the important criteria yet fidelity and verification are easier to evaluate (but not

20
 Working Paper 1

necessarily to measure objectively) and often distract evaluators from the more tricky issue of
validation.

Simulation Fidelity
Fidelity is the level of realism that a simulation presents to a learner. Hays and Singer
describe fidelity as “how similar a training situation must be, relative to the operational
situation, in order to train most efficiently”. Fidelity focuses on the equipment that is used to
simulate a particular learning environment.

In more sophisticated (technologically) simulations that use virtual reality for example, the
construct of fidelity has an additional dimension, that of presence (the degree to which an
individual believes that they are immersed within the virtual world or simulation) .

The degree of fidelity or presence in a learning environment is a difficult element to measure .

Much research during the 60’s and 70’s studied the relationship between fidelity and its
effects on training and education. These studies according to Feinstein and Cannon found that
a higher level of fidelity does not translate into more effective training or enhanced learning
In fact, it may be that lower levels of fidelity but with effective ‘human virtual environment
interface’ (navigational simplicity) and a significant degree of presence can assist in trainees
acquiring knowledge or skills within the simulation .

Simulation Verification
Verification is the process of assessing that a model is operating as intended. Verification “is a
process designed to see if we have built the model right” . During the process, simulation
developers need to test and debug errors in the simulation (now usually software errors)
through a series of alpha and beta tests under different conditions, verifying that the model
works as intended. Often, developers are distracted by this process producing what appear to
be brilliant models that work ‘correctly’ but with no appreciation of the educational effect and
hence their validity. In this sense, verification can be a trap, notwithstanding its critical status
as a necessary condition of validity .

21
 Working Paper 1

Validation
Building on the work of Feinstein and Cannon, Cannon and Burns and others, there are three
main questions beyond those of the general issues of evaluation noted above. ()
1. Are we measuring the ‘right’ thing? Validity of the constructs
2. Does the simulation provide the opportunity to learn the ‘right’ thing? Verification of
the simulation and the appropriate fidelity for the content and audience.
3. Does the method of using a simulation deliver the learning? Validity as a method of
developing.

Evaluation of simulations for learning outcomes

An analysis of the review of simulation literature identifies learning outcomes instructors
adopt as they strive to educate business students. These learning outcomes have been
advanced as targeting the skills and knowledge needed by practicing managers. In particular,
the sources are . Simulation researchers have speculated that the method is an effective
pedagogy for achieving many of these outcomes. below identifies these learning outcomes
where
P= measurement of learner perceptions of learning outcomes
O= an objective measurement of learning outcomes

It is clear from the table above that the vast majority of evaluations have relied on the
learner’s perceptions of their learning outcomes. Objective measurements (for any learning
intervention) are more difficult, however, there appears to be a need to bring in more
objective measures to help understand if simulations are an effective method for people to
learn business management skills.

Conclusion
This paper commenced with three key questions:
1. Why evaluate?
2. What to evaluate? and
3. How to evaluate?
Why evaluate?
Any deliberate learning intervention costs and organisation and individuals’ time and money.
The value placed on this may vary from person to person, however, there is a value, hence it

22
 Working Paper 1

is worth ensuring that the value of the outcome is greater than or equal to the value of the
input.
What to evaluate?
What to evaluate is more difficult to answer. In business and especially management,
behavioural competencies as learning outcomes are increasingly recognised as a valid and
useful measurement.
How to evaluate?
How to evaluate poses significant problems for the researcher. The training community is
most familiar with Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation and most frequently measures Level
1 (Reactions) to training intervention as a proxy for all learning outcomes achieved. The basic
premise is that if trainees enjoy the training, then they will learn from it. This may be true;
however, it does not mean that the trainees have learned what was intended, let alone needed.
This suggest that a goal-free evaluation approach may be suitable to establish what was
learned – regardless of what was intended in the intervention.

Greater objectivity about on-the-job behaviour change may be obtained through the use of a
suitable instrument and 360º assessment. However, the researcher needs to be aware of
Wimer’s warning that 360º feedback can have detrimental effects especially when the
feedback is particularly negative or not handled sensitively .

Evaluation style
Choosing an evaluation style requires the researcher to clearly understand his intentions of the
evaluation. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of using simulations as a method of
developing managerial competencies, this researcher is interested in ‘proving’ (rather than
learning) the effectiveness of the delivery method and in ‘proving’ (rather than improving) the
development intervention. The experimental research approach to evaluation appears to be the
most objective and scientific in approach for this purpose.

Researcher involvement and bias

There are significant problems to consider, those of; the researchers involvement – whether
direct or not, the fact of measuring participants in a programme may have a direct impact on
the achievement of the learning outcomes. However, if this is the same with all delivery
methods being evaluated, the comparison measures on the same basis.

23
 Working Paper 1

Sample size
The next and very significant issue is that of sample size. It is recognised that in order to
achieve statistical validity, the sample size will need to be significantly large – to the order of
100 or more participants.

Control group and other influences

Issues of the suitability of the control group need to be considered as well. It can be expected
that individuals will react differently to the same training intervention. Such aspects of the
individual as their preferred learning style, their educational history, perhaps gender, perhaps
race, perhaps cultural heritage, their age, etc. may all play a part in whether they, as an
individual, learn and change behaviour as a result or as a consequence of a particular learning
intervention.

The design of a suitable evaluation research method will need to consider all of these issues.

24
Working Paper 1

25
 Working Paper 1

John Kenworthy
About the author
John is the Director of Henley Management Education (Asia Pacific) Pte. Ltd., a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Henley Management College in Singapore, where he is responsible
for marketing and supporting the Henley MBA by Distance Learning in Singapore. He has
lived in Singapore since 1997 and considers the island city state his home. John is also
Director of Corporate Edge Asia, a company specializing in delivering computer-based
simulation and experiential training programmes.
John has a BSC in Hotel and Catering Studies from Manchester Polytechnic and an MBA in
Technology Management from the Open University. His research and business interests are in
the use of computer-based simulations to develop managerial competence. He is an active
member of ABSEL (Association for Business Simulations and Experiential Learning) and
AECT (Association for Educational Communications and Technology).
John is a member of DBA 17, commencing his DBA in 2001.

26