Assessment Interview Analysis 1

Assessment Interview Analysis

Team A:

Pleshetta Williams, David Obiora, & Lynn E. Black

CUR528

April 4, 2016

Laura Armer

Assessment Interview Analysis 2

Team A conducted 5 interviews with people involved in training in different industries. The group comprised a wide-range of orientations and learning environments. Paula Marentette is an assessment coordinator for the University of Alberta. Keith Bennett is a professor of Curriculum Development and Instructional Design at the University of Phoenix and a full-time corporate trainer for Oregon Health Services. Nicholas Troutt is an EFL instructor at the American University of the Caribbean. Janice Brown and Kimberly Campbell are program coordinators for the U.S. Armed Forces.

The questionnaire was composed of ten questions; one of which was deleted due to

redundancy. (See Appendix A) The questions survey a range of assessment issues such as

program goals and success, program monitoring, stakeholder identification, client/employee

satisfaction, and the benefits of a learning management/employee tracking system among others.

Unfortunately, it was impossible to conduct face-to-face interviews with some of the individuals

due to the physical distance between us and scheduling difficulties. For instance, Paula

Marentette is Canadian and was on medical leave from the University and therefore could not

support a face-to-face interview. Keith Bennett is engaged in various activities that did not

permit a face-to-face interview.

Observations:

The first and most notable observation was the difference in the approach of Dr. Bennett,

the Instructional Designer and Corporate Trainer. His answers to the questions were precise and

comprehensive in terms of learning outcomes. The theoretical framework employed covered

several areas of corporate and individual development: performance improvement, change

management, coaching, and knowledge management. This was in contrast to the responses from

the program coordinators who were more program focused. The EFL instructor also delineated

specific goals in his approach to assessment: differentiated instruction, academic reading

development, and vocabulary improvement.

Another contrast in the approach to assessment was the facilitator’s perspective versus

the hands-on approach. Dr. Marentette in her role as a professional development coordinator

Assessment Interview Analysis 3

facilitates discussion about the goals and objectives of assessment with other faculty members

and discusses best practices in both student learning and program development. It was clear that

for teaching EFL and corporate training, training/development goals are needs-driven. It was

difficult to ascertain if a scientific approach to assessment is employed by the military. By

scientific approach, it is meant that the needs and goals of the training/program are assessment-

driven versus artificially manufactured.

A very interesting contrast with the Canadian educational system is that there does not

appear to be strong governance over institutions of higher education in Canada based on Dr.

Marentette’s response to question #9. The same situation exist in Haiti where there is little

governance of institutions of higher education. This is in contrast to the American system of

higher education regulation. Also, the U.S. Armed Forces strongly regulates/supervises the

operation of their programs.

Each respondent identified some form of monitoring the progress of individuals or of

their program’s success. Dr. Bennett and Mr. Troutt monitors progress as often as daily, but

summative assessments are also utilized. For Ms. Brown and Ms. Campbell monitoring is on a

session by session basis. Program assessment is monitored statistically. For Dr. Marentette,

assessment monitoring occurs annually.

Learning management systems or employee tracking systems appear to be limited

primarily to corporate training environments in this particular survey. Dr. Bennett uses a

Learning Management System at the University of Phoenix as well as an employee monitoring

system at Oregon Health Services. Ms. Brown, the sexual assault coordinator, has a client system

primarily for statistical purposes to track harassment and assault cases. However, their does not

appear to be any program monitoring apart from case tracking.

Assessment Interview Analysis 4

Interestingly, client satisfaction appears to be high on the list where instructors and

program facilitators are working directly with their populations. This is clearly seen with the

classroom instructor and the corporate trainer. All of the instructors/facilitators encourage client

participation through classroom participate and other forms of feedback.

Program success for the instructor and trainer was measured by individual performance

while program facilitators measured program success through program indicators. Interesting,

Dr. Bennett used a combination of methods and techniques for measuring program effectiveness.

Assessment Interview Analysis 5

Appendix A: Interview Data

Note: Entire document can be viewed by double-clicking the image.

Assessment Interview Analysis 6

Assessment Interview Analysis 7

Assessment Interview Analysis 8

Assessment Interview Analysis 9

Assessment Interview Analysis 10

Assessment Interview Analysis 11