SIOP Annual Conference
Impact Evaluation: From Employee Training to Leadership Development
Saturday, April 25, 12:30PM-1:20PM
Cancelled due to COVID-19 Policies
Organizations continue to spend more and more on learning and development (L&D), as a way to build their workforce for business success. However, there has not been much evidence that all the spending on L&D is producing more capable talent. Most evaluation efforts are not effective in demonstrating the impact of L&D practices. To help L&D professionals effectively evaluate the impact of their efforts, this session draws on the combined expertise of a diverse panel of experts in different L&D areas, ranging from employee training, high potential programs, to leadership development programs. Panelists will share insights on current practices and future opportunities in impact evaluation and ways to build value using evaluation data.
Associate Director of Workforce Analytics, Merck & Co., Inc.
Dr. Neelima Paranjpey
Senior Consultant, Vaya Group
Dr. Eric A. Surface
CEO and Principal Scientist, ALPS Insights
Dr. Chia-Lin Ho (Chair)
Independent Consultant, Ho Leadership & Talent Management Associates
For many learning and development (L&D) professionals, training evaluation practices remain mired in the muck. What ends up being evaluated hasn’t changed much over the past two or three decades. We almost universally measure whether trainees liked the training, most of us measure if they learned something, and beyond that, evaluation is a mix of “We’d like to do that” and, “We’re not sure of what to make of the data we get.” Perhaps more critically, in one recent national survey, nearly two-thirds of L&D professionals did not see their learning evaluation efforts as effective in meeting their organization’s business goals.
Anyone who has participated in a training event is familiar with open-ended survey items like this one: “Please provide any additional comments you have about the training program you just completed.” After getting into the rhythm of clicking bubble after bubble in response to closed-ended survey items, many trainees come to a roadblock when provided with a blank box of space and asked to provide feedback in their own words.
ALPS Solutions engaged in a series of studies to understand why instructors were having such a large impact on student outcomes in the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community. If training is supposed to be a standardized experience, then the instructor to which a student is assigned should not cause a variable experience for students across classes. The goal of this research was to identify and reduce variability to create a more standardized and a positive experience.
ALPS Solutions has worked closely with training programs within the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community to evaluate training effectiveness and identify areas where interventions by program administrators and instructors can have a positive impact on learner- and class-level outcomes.
This document highlights findings and recommendations from the Establish Best Practices for the Supervision of Instructors Technical Report, which compares the instructional supervisory behaviors and practices used in Special Operations Forces (SOF) Initial Acquisition Training (IAT) schools to best practices described in the literature, as well as to practices used in language schools external to the SOF IAT community.
This document summarizes trends and predictive relationships among instructor and student during-training speaking in the target language (TL) and student proficiency outcomes (e.g., end-of-training OPI results), using data collected from the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community.