As the theoretical base of this study, this chapter explores the monitoring systems for trainings authored and popularized by Kaplan and Norton(Balanced Score),David Bushnell(IPO Approach) and Elwood Holton III (Learning Transfer System Inventory). In spite of the number of available taxonomies in monitoring the quality of trainings, only three of the most commonly used frameworks will be discussed and used as a guide in developing a monitoring system for trainings. This chapter also covers the definition of terms used, rationale, characteristics, and elements of these frameworks. The terms monitoring system, topics and indicators have more emphasis in the discussions, as these concepts form the core of the study. Monitoring system
What is a monitoring system? What is the purpose of a monitoring system? What are the different structures orientations and/or classifications of a monitoring system? What factors should be considered in designing in a monitoring system for trainings? The subsequent discussions will answer these questions leading to a thorough understanding on the subject. What is monitoring system?
According to Leithwood, Aitken and Jantzi (2001), a monitoring system Is defined as a concise description of what should be (objectives) and a process to determine to what is (procedural and status report). It is further explained that it is a framework within which to select or define, interpret and use a wide array of indicators. On a similar ground, Fitz Gibbon (1996) cites that monitoring is a way of examining quality of performance, largely by the use of performance indicators not only regularly collected but also being reported back to the units responsible. This definition often concepts such as performance, outcomes and feedback.
Greany and Kellaghan (1996) also consider monitoring as systematic and regular procedures for the repeated collection and interpretation of assessment data of important aspects of the subject under study. It is not necessarily restricted to outcome variables, but can also involve contextual information and measures of inputs and processes (Husen and Tuijaman, 1994; and Scheerens et al., 1988).
After considering the abovementioned definitions, it can be summarized that the monitoring system may be referred to as a strategy used to periodically track quality by recording inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes for purposes and trainings programs. Results of the monitoring system must also be fed back to all concerned units within the organization. A monitoring system encompasses a number of relevant indicators and sub-indicators, the standards by which quality measurements are based from, and the data gathering instruments of the subject being monitored. Integrated in theses definitions are the purposes of monitoring to organizations. The use of indicators will be discussed in the later part of this chapter. What is the purpose of a monitoring system?
When relating to trainings, a monitoring system serves as a mechanism that provides a user or number of users with several sources of information pertaining to the process being investigated, providing feedback and signaling and diagnosing problems (Jansen, 1996);. Identify problem areas in determining the best allocation of resources; and motivate and create awareness among administrators and trainers to improve quality and stimulate self-regulatory mechanisms (Willms,1992). It is also used to diagnose deviations from policy, determine organizational strengths and weaknesses in accomplishing specific goals, and then launch remedial actions. What are the most- common classifications of monitoring systems?
Basically, this study adopts at least two classifications of monitoring systems according to purpose and stages.
Willms (1992) classified monitoring systems for trainings according to purpose expressed in the forms of compliance, performance and diagnostic monitoring systems. First, compliance, compliances monitoring is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document