1 Niel
Evaluation at every step of the way! Goal is shared understanding. 1. Initiation; problem identification, stakeholder contact and roles are defined. 2. Screening; needs-analysis, feasibility-analysis and evaluating
sen
current communication strategy. 3. Action planning; design interventions and tools. 4. Implementation; implement tools and interventions while collecting feedback and logging process. EF is planned change!
One-best way (process can explain outcome), top-down (employees as target of change), single event beginning/end, desired situation is clear, pre/post-measurement of expected outcome.
Visse Democratic and participatory evaluation. Goal is creating mutual understanding. Homo- and heterogeneous focus groups for even more depth and detail in understanding, resulting in thick description. It is
important to listen to marginalized voices. Morality is very important; who/what did I care for and why? Continually reflect on identity and relations and values. For example, the evaluator controls who to interview
and when; power dynamics. You can counter this by asking opinions of outsiders. RE is continuous change. Non hierarchical, everybody equal, interaction, sensemaking, democracy, collaboration and dialogue. 1.
Identification. 2. Variety of stakeholders. 3. Joint perspectives. 4. Homo- and heterogenous focus groups. 1. Identity; how is the evaluator seen? Relation; on which relations do I (not) focus and why? Values; wat values
matter in evaluation practice? Challenges; getting everyone to participate, manage different perspectives and stay objective. Why is it continuous change? Non-hierarchical (democratic process), collective inquiry,
interaction and sensemaking (collaborative process between stakeholders including evaluator), everyone brings in expertise (dialogical approach and dialogue about what and how to evaluate).
Similarities; both value stakeholder involvement, both emphasize the process (one of the whole intervention, the other of the evaluation), and both take context into account (one mostly the social and political context that
influence the view of the evaluator, the other the context of the whole organization). Differences; RE focusses on moral responsibly, while EF focusses on employee health and well-being. RE is more qualitative, while EF used mixed
methods.
2 Kirk Although not in the literature, the pyramid helps understanding transfer. 1. Reaction. 2. Learning. 3. Behavior. 4. Results. Transfer takes place in 2 to 3! Micro-to-macro-transfer is transfer from individual (daily
patri practice) to organizational performance. Botke calls micro-to-macro vertical transfer, don’t let that fool you! Transfer is important for the optimization of operations, work processes, output, solving problems and
ck profit! Pro’s; evaluating and promoting of effective formal learning. Con’s; easy to suggest that learners lack motivation, little attention for other reasons for limited transfer (like working from home), leaves out
informal learning.
Blum Transfer can be near (setting similar), far (setting different), lateral (setting different, complexity same) and vertical (complexity different). Lateral and vertical are described as directional transfer. The concepts of
e generalization (knowledge here to knowledge there) and maintenance (does knowledge stick) are also important. There is a time element; far transfer is often more spread out in time, while near is often in a
shorter span, this is quite logical.
Botk Transfer is the Achilles heel of (soft skill) training. Knowledge almost never sticks! Botke proposes a model to track post-training transfer by measuring performance in different stages; t0 (before training), t1 (after
e training), t2 (beginning of applying) and t3 (full integration). Botke defines three types of factors that can influence the transfer of soft-skill training. Job-Related Factors: everything regarding job specifics, so how
much time there is, how much budget etc. Social Support: everything regarding the support of colleagues on different levels in the organization. Organizational Facilitation of Learning: is there a learning climate
and is personal development fostered and supported? Motivation to transfer, behavior, individual performance, organizational performance. Influenced by transfer enhancing interventions, and the
already mentioned work factors.
Salas Training works, but only if well-designed! Salas outlines a three-phase model to ensure training effectiveness: before, during, and after training. Before training, conduct a needs analysis (job, organization and
performance) to determine what and who should be trained. During training, design interactive, feedback-driven programs to boost learning. After training, focus on transfer—ensuring employees apply learned skills on
the job. Key factors for successful transfer include organizational support, a conducive learning environment, and opportunities to practice. Transfer is critical; without it, training yields limited organizational benefits.
Advantages of transfer as a lens in evaluation include assessing formal learning and aligning it with organizational goals. Disadvantages include overemphasis on learner motivation, neglect of informal learning, and overlooking
unexpected outcomes. Both articles focus on effectiveness of training; Botke on soft skill transfer and Salas on general training design. Both articles emphasize post training transfer. Both articles emphasize organizational
support; Botke on specific (social, organization etc.) and Salas a general supportive climate.
4 Guba Paradigms are sets of worldviews and beliefs that guide how we understand and act in the world (of research). Being aware of this while writing or reading papers is essential; reflexivity. Paradigms can shift, however
most of the time the foundations are too different. Only if the current paradigm can’t explain reality, a new one emerges. Change and learning is a continuous, ongoing process, non-linear, iterative and in order to
improve. Positivist; to explain/control/predict, constructivist; to understand/reconstruct
Sofo Action learning is a type of learning (iterative!) that draws on concrete experience and critical reflection on that experience trough dynamic dialogue (based on reflexive and discovery questions, see table) on
complex organizational issues. Learning in action learning occurs on three different levels. Individual (learning always starts here!), team and organization. Action research is different because it solves a problem,
while in AL the problem is a vehicle for learning. Also, AR aims to contribute to shared knowledge, AL personal learning. Very important is the action learning coach; ALC. Responsible for reflection, asking questions and
move through the levels of learning. Also responsible for maintaining focus on action and learning and critical thinking. Although the focus is often on action, the learning part is equally important! The ALC helps with
this balance. How to optimize outcomes of AL? 1. Encourage deeper reflection. 2. Facilitate learning at all levels. 3. Foster a culture of learning (just like Botke and Salas said). Challenges to consider are resistance to
deep reflection, time constraints and the lacking expertise of the ACL.
Verd Evaluation research aims to understand and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and can lead to double and triple loop learning when asking reflective questions! Evaluation is often focused on results and
on outcome, and ER focuses on the process of learning from it. ER aims to explain how organizations can learn from evaluation, not only from the results, but also from the process itself. Generative moments are
schot moments where people experience energy, creativity and new ideas. It is stupid. GM’s occur often during three activities; making impact maps, in depth interviews and presentations of findings. Success case
method (SCM): a mixed-method approach using surveys and interviews to assess the impact of interventions, identifying successful and unsuccessful cases to understand workplace behavior changes. Involving
stakeholders from collaboration improves learning potential. Mixed methods are preferred when it comes to ER, since it has concrete evidence and answers to the ‘why-question?’
Barriers to learning in ER are focus on accountability, time constraints, lack of stakeholder involvement and resistance to change. Also, hard to measure the long term effect of GM’s. Enhancements for learning in ER are
thus shifting to learning instead of accountability, engage stakeholders, encourage reflectivity and use mixed methods.
Similarities; both Sofo and Verdonschot focus on learning from experience. Both articles heavily emphasize critical reflection, Sofo with reflective questions, Verdonschot with generative moments. Stakeholder involvement is also
seen as important in both articles, as Sofo highlights the social aspect of learning and Verdonschot emphasizes involving as many stakeholders as possible. Differences; the articles differ on their focus on learning. Verdonschot
focuses of the learning potential of evaluation, while Sofo focusses on learning by doing, and solving real-world problems. Action learning focuses on group discussion, trial and error, and critical reflection on real-world experiences,
whereas cognitive learning emphasizes mental models, behavioral learning stresses reducing errors, experiential learning centers on knowledge transformation through experience, organizational learning aims for
continuous improvement, and problem-based learning seeks collaborative problem solving. These theories overlap in their concern for reflection, but action learning uniquely integrates group learning with action and critical
reflection.
5 Hand Situated learning theory is in it’s core a bundling of critiques on cognitivist views on learning. Knowledge can’t be ‘obtained’/’acquired’ without dependence on the context. It challenges the idea that learning works
ley best in a training instead of a realistic context, although nobody ever said this. Learning is embedded in everyday and social practice, and impossible to separate from this. They argue that people learn from
participation (from peripheral to fully immerged), and shape their identity in this process. SLT knows multiple methodological challenges, and is infamous for how hard to do research on it is. Since the theory
argues that learning happens throughout the day in the flow of work, interactions and feelings, it is hard to identify or isolate as a distinct process. To mitigate these methodological challenges, researchers
recommend a combination of interviewing and observing, especially in transition periods, like switching jobs for example. Identity work and identity regulation.
Professionalism is defined by the nature of work, context, clients and outcomes. Core components; technical base, normative guidelines, professional association and autonomy. Participation = negotiation! SLT;
observing, imitating, model. adapt. reject.
Iman Affordances are (un)intentional opportunities for learning on the job. Imants an colleagues aim to explore how teachers’ perceptions of their workplace influence their views on reform in their school. They identify four
ts categories for workplace conditions; isolation, hope for the future, work in progress, and professional community. These conditions affect teachers' professional learning experiences. For example, isolated teachers
often experience autonomy negatively due to a lack of feedback and collaboration. In contrast, teachers in professional communities benefit from shared goals, collaboration, and feedback, fostering a supportive
environment for implementing reforms. The study finds a correlation between the type of workplace conditions and teachers' attitudes toward ASL. Professional development should focus not only on the content of
reforms but also on enhancing the overall work environment to support continuous teacher learning.
Imants concludes that teachers perspectives are based on perceptions of the reform goal, coherence with beliefs and common practices ánd workplace conditions; autonomy, collaboration, feedback and shared
responsibility, goals and norms.
