HR410 Training Evaluation: Analyzing the End of Term Evaluation

This report provides a comprehensive training evaluation of a university's End of Term Evaluation (ETE). It assesses the ETE's level, strengths, and weaknesses, and proposes improvements. The evaluation considers the test's design, accuracy, and relevance, suggesting changes to question distribution, complexity, and clarity. The report highlights the ETE's flexibility and objectivity but also points out its difficulties and ambiguities. Recommendations include balancing question types, simplifying language, and offering more optional questions to enhance the assessment process and ensure it effectively measures student understanding. The analysis uses the evaluation model and the Kirkpatrick evaluation model. Desklib provides a platform for students to access this and similar solved assignments.

Running head: TRAINING EVALUATION 1
Training Evaluation
Name
Institution

TRAINING EVALUATION 2
Training Evaluation
Introduction
Teaching and learning is a lengthy process that does not end with the dissemination of
knowledge. This means that it is necessary for the instructors to administer and evaluate
formative and summative assessments to the learners at different points of the term. That is
exactly what is done in this university where we, as learners have to undertake a rigorous End of
Term Evaluation (ETE) at the end of the semester. In this paper, I would like to give a crucial
and in-depth evaluation of the ETE that we took.
Evaluation: Level of Evaluation
From my own assessment, I would like to point out that the ETE was, indeed, for the
university level. A thorough analysis of the test reveals that it was designed for the university
students. The questions that were asked were drawn from the course content that had been taught
throughout the semester. The design and organization of the questions also matched the
university level (Muñoz & Guskey, 2015). The reliability, accuracy, practicality, validity, and the
diversity of the test make it appropriate for the university learners.
I have made this decision because the ETE is made up of a wide range of different kinds
of questions. There is a combination of simple, complex, intermediate, short, and long essay
queries. This is exactly how a typical ETE for a university level should be. It should be
composed of different levels of queries each of which designed to test a particular understanding
and mastery of the content by the learners (Hambach, Diezemann, Tisch & Metternich, 2016).
The other thing I would like to point out is that the test has got the desired accuracy. The

TRAINING EVALUATION 3
questions are relevant and accurate. They test the right content that had been taught. The number
of questions is appropriate because they resonate with the available time. The tests did not go
beyond three hours which are the standard recommendation. So, in my opinion, I do not think
that there is anything that should be changed in as far as the level of ETE is concerned.
Evaluation: Changes
The ETE was of the tight level. The design, formulation, and administration of the test
were appropriately done. It conforms to the acceptable standards. However, despite all this, the
truth is that the test was not perfect. There are some loopholes that need a rectification. So, if I
were in a position to recommend or implement some changes, I would gladly do so.
The most conspicuous change that I would agitate for is the alteration of the questions.
As earlier stated, the test was diverse because it comprises of simple, intermediate, and complex
questions. Although this is how it should be, I have a strong conviction that there are some
changes that must be made to these queries in order to make the test perfect. The distribution of
the questions was not done well (Muñoz & Guskey, 2015). There were so many complex
queries. This is unnecessary because it scares the learners. Some of the complex and tough
questions should be eliminated. At the same time, short questions should be minimized as well.
Instead, what needs to be done is that there should be more application questions in which the
learners are supposed to argue and give their views regarding various matters (DeLuca, LaPointe-
McEwan & Luhanga, 2016). Lastly, the organization, wording, and structure of the questions
should be revised so as to do away with any ambiguities that might hinder the understanding the
queries.
Evaluation: Strength and Weaknesses

TRAINING EVALUATION 4
The ETE was a success because of the strengths that it displayed. From my own
assessment, the test had some strong areas that it capitalized on. First, it was flexible because it
comprised of different kinds of queries. The use of simple, intermediate, and complex queries
made the test to be suitable for the learners. The variation of the questions made it possible for
the test to be doable by all the learners (Pereira, Flores & Niklasson, 2016). At least, no learner
would completely fail because they had an opportunity to take advantage of the type of question
that they understand well. Secondly, the test was accurate and relevant because it only comprises
of queries drawn from the curriculum content that had been taught to the learners during the
semester (Dixson & Worrell, 2016). Lastly, the test was objective because it was designed to test
the learners’ understanding and capabilities.
Despite all its strengths, the ETE did not come out as he best one ever. It was imperfect
because of some weaknesses that were observed. The most outstanding weakness in the test is
that it was a bit difficult. Although there were essay, short answer, and multiple choice queries,
the truth is that the test was largely difficult (Taras, 2005). The examiners were somewhat
intending to frustrate and scare away the learners. The other weakness is that there were lots of
ambiguities. Most of the questions lacked clarity. This made it quite easy for the learners to
misinterpret the queries and answer the wrongly.
Evaluation: Improvements
The ETE was largely successful. However, it was not perfect. Meaning, it had some
loopholes that should be sealed. In this regard, if I were to propose any improvements, I would
emphasize that there is need to avail a balanced test. Although the test was relevant, it appeared
to be a bit complex. There was an imbalance in the distribution of queries. Most of them were

TRAINING EVALUATION 5
tough. So, there is need to ensure that the easy questions are also enough. Besides, the language
used in the questions should be improved (Schoenfeld, 2015). The complexities in the language
made the questions to be ambiguous and difficult to understand. So, the language must be
polished and simplified as much as possible. Lastly, the paper should contain many optional
questions. Additional questions need to be added in order to give learners an opportunity to make
a choice on the exact questions to answer (Cleveland, Rojas-Méndez, Laroche & Papadopoulos,
2016). That is what should be expected of a standard university test.
Conclusion
The learners must be tested because assessment plays a key role in the teaching and
learning process. Indeed, a good instructor is the one that issues a test to the learners to
determine the extent to which the learning objectives are accomplished. From my evaluation, the
ETE was objective, relevant, accurate, and reliable. However, in order to make it better, all the
identified weaknesses such as complexity, imbalance, and ambiguity must be improved.

TRAINING EVALUATION 6
References
Cleveland, M., Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2016). Identity, culture,
dispositions and behavior: A cross-national examination of globalization and culture
change. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1090-1102.
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom.
Theory into practice, 55(2), 153-159.
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A
review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and
Accountability, 28(3), 251-272.
Hambach, J., Diezemann, C., Tisch, M., & Metternich, J. (2016). Assessment of students’ lean
competencies with the help of behavior video analysis–are good students better problem
solvers? Procedia CIRP, 55, 230-235.
Muñoz, M. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2015). Standards-based grading and reporting will improve
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(7), 64-68.
Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., & Niklasson, L. (2016). Assessment revisited: a review of research in
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 41(7), 1008-1032.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). Summative and formative assessments in mathematics supporting the
goals of the common core standards. Theory Into Practice, 54(3), 183-194.
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment–summative and formative–some theoretical reflections. British
journal of educational studies, 53(4), 466-478.

TRAINING EVALUATION 7