Effectiveness of long-distance training using kirkpatrick evaluation
Keywords:
distance training, evaluation, kirkpatrick modelAbstract
Distance training is one of the training models carried out at the Ambon Religious Education and Training Center or Balai Diklat Keagamaan Ambon (BDK) as a solution to facing the current pandemic era. To determine the effectiveness of Distance training, a training evaluation was conducted. One form of evaluation that is appropriate to measure the effectiveness of training is the Kirkpatrick model which includes four levels, namely: level 1 reaction, level 2 learning, level 3 behavior, and level 4 result. In this article, an evaluation was conducted regarding Distance Training at BDK Ambon using Kirkpatrick’s Model level 1 and level 2. The study was conducted on Madrasah teachers who attended Distance Training at the Ambon Religious Education Center. The results showed that in level 1, namely reaction, the satisfaction of distance training participants was quite effective because the survey results showed the average score was 89.47. It means that in the training process, participants feel comfortable and satisfied. Participants are also able to be motivated in attending lessons and training. Meanwhile, for level 2, namely learning, it shows the average value of the participants' learning outcomes is 82.97 which means satisfactory. This is also supported by the results of an interview conducted with one of the lecturers who taught the training. He said that the participants were quite enthusiastic about participating in the training. In addition, the participants 'understanding was also quite good, especially since most of the participants were young teachers who were quite knowledgeable about technology so the assessment of the competency skills of the participants' attitudes, knowledge, and skills was very significant. Thus, distance training conducted at the Ambon Religious Education and Training Center is quite effective. In the future, it is necessary to evaluate other training and education as a reference for the institution.
References
Abdulghani, H., Shaik, S., Khamis, Al-Drees, A., Irshad, M., Khalil, M., AI, A., & A., I. (2014). Research methodology workshops evaluation using the Kirkpatrick’s model: Translating theory into practice. Medical Teacher, 1(36), S24–S29.
Almeneessier, AlYousefi, N. A., AlWatban, L. F., Alodhayani, A. A., Alzahrani, A. M., Alwalan, S. I., ... & Alonezan, A. F. (2021). Evaluation of Educational Workshops for Family Medicine Residents Using the Kirkpatrick Framework. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 12, 371–382.
Bates, R. (2004). A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 3(27), 341–347.
Bucur, M. (2015). A Study on Business Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility in Romania. Procedia Technology, 19, 996–1003.
Campbell, & Mather. (2018). The evaluation of a home-based paediatric nursing service: concept and design development using The Kirkpatrick Model. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(6), 502–504.
c, S. (1997). Adapting the Kirkpatrick model to technical communication products and services. Perform Improv, 4(36), 14–23.
Chang, N., & Chen, L. (2014). Evaluating the Learning Effectiveness of an Online Information Literacy Class Based on the Kirkpatrick Framework, Libri. 3(64), 211–223.
Cioca, M., & Duta, L. (2011). Web technologies and multi-criterion analysis used in enterprise integration. Studies in Informatics and Control, 2(20), 129–134.
shankar, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. CEP Press.
Fakhru’l-Razi, A., Iyuke, S., Hassan, M., & Aini, M. (2003). Who learns when workers are trained? A case of safety training of maintenance contractors’ workers for a major petrochemical plant shutdown. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, B1(81), 44–51.
Ilian. (2004). Levels of levels: Making Kirkpatrick fit the facts and the facts fit Kirkpatrick. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual National Human Services Training Evaluation Symposium.
Kirkpatrick, Donald, & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Mazloomy, & Karimi, M., Zare Harofte, F., & Mirzaee, M. (2014). Effectiveness of “health promotion evaluation” workshop using kirkpatrick model. The Journal of Medical Education and Development, 8(4), 11–20.
Noe, R. A. (2002). Employee training & development (Second). McGraw- Hill/Irwin.
Ornstein, A.C. & Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues. NJ, Prentice Hall.
Praslova, L. (2010). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education. Educ Assess Eval Account, 22(3), 215–225.
Rajeev, P., Madan, M., & Jayarajan, K. (2009). Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s model - an evaluation of an academic training course. Current Science, 2(96), 272–276.
Shankar, J. (2007). A novel 360-degree evaluation. Proceeding of the 6th European Conference on E-Learning, 573–581.
Smith, S., & Ericson, E. (2009). Using immersive game-based virtual reality to teach fire-safety skills to children. Virtual Reality, 13(2), 87–99.
Wall, J. E. (2014). Program Evaluation Model. 9 – Step Process. Sage Solutions.
YL, I., Hu, L., Jiao, Y., Luo, M., & Wu, G. (2015). Evaluation of simulation-based training for aircraft carrier marshalling with learning cubic and Kirkpatrick’s models. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 1(28), 152–163
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rahmadani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
