Reaction to training results: a comparative study between two
distance education courses
University of Brasilia
Authors:
Clara Cantal
André Wogel
Instite of Psychology
Lidia Parachin
Annelise Soares
Amanda Mourão
Impacto: Research on Training and Organizations of Work
Gardênia Abbad
Vanessa Brixi
ABSTRACT
RESULTS
The aim of this study is to compare learners’ reaction to training results in two
 Both courses were very well-evaluated, as the descriptives reveal (see Table 1).
distance education courses. Participants from two web-based courses answered to a
questionnaire containing 3 items about results. The main findings showed that there
was significant difference in the evaluation of the courses for the three items in the
Descriptives
questionnaire, pointing to the importance of considering some characteristics of the
Both programs
Program ‘MA’
Program ‘FC’
learners when planning an educational program.
Highest mean
8.87
8.77 (Sd=1.07)
9.21 (Sd=0.90)
INTRODUCTION
Lowest mean
8.78
8.66 (Sd=1.25)
9.18 (Sd=0.85)
Organizational environments are more and more dynamic,
Table 1: Highest and Lowest Means
demanding new organizational and individual competences each
day. Because employees need to learn continuously in order to keep their abilities in a
 According to the T-tests, results from the course ‘FC’ were perceived as more positive than
reproduction cycle, training programs must reach every single individual effectively.
those from the course ‘MA’ for the three items (see Table 2).
One common way to evaluate such effectiveness is to measure learners’
satisfaction with the various aspects of a course. According to Borges-Andrade (2002),
T-tests
Program ‘MA’
reaction measures may be based on the evaluation model known as MAIS (Borges-
Knowledge assimilation (mean)
8.74 (Sd=1.32)
9.21 (Sd=0.90)
Andrade, 1982), which postulates that one should consider the specific context of the
Ability to put knowledge into practice (mean)
8.76 (Sd=1.07)
9.19 (Sd=0.88)
organization of work and of the course itself before constructing a survey to measure
Capability of transferring (mean)
8.66 (Sd=1.24)
9,18 (Sd=0.86)
reaction.
Program ‘FC’
Table 2: T-tests results for both courses
Many different aspects may be taken into account when evaluating reaction, for
DISCUSSION
example, the course’s utility, the quality of the didactic material, the training results,
and the tutor’s competence, to name a few (Pilati & Borges-Andrade, 2006). Learners’
 The significant difference between the two courses may be
perceptions about the training results provide the instructional system with further
due to participants’ characteristics, and on the difference in
information about knowledge assimilation, ability to put such knowledge into practice,
nature
and capability of transferring knowledge to peers.
between
the
courses
(content,
criteria
for
participating, and so on).
 The significant difference between the two courses may be due to participants’
METHOD
characteristics, and on the difference in nature between the courses (content, criteria for
MSD Tecnologia Educacional
participating, and so on).
Questionnaire:
Organization (MSD Educational Technology): founded in 3 items;
1993, develops multimedia products to
of Work
Likert scale:
education,
training
and
entertainment.
C
0 (none) – 10 (total)
O
Program ‘MA’:
N
 Knowledge assimilation
Estimated study-time: 60h at distance;
T
40h at presence
Ability to put knowledge
E
Participants: 710
acquired in the course into
Programs
X
Evaluated
T
practice
Program ‘FC’:
Estimated study-time : 60h at distance
Capability of transferring
Participants: 223
knowledge acquired in the
Total number of respondents: 933
course to different people.
 The major implications of such results point to the importance of considering some
characteristics of the learners when planning any educational program, especially when it
comes to goals, needs, and previous experience.
RECOMMENDATIONS
 The questionnaire used in this work should be improved and used in future research in
order to develop deeper investigation of the topic.
REFERENCES
Borges-Andrade, J.E. (1982). Avaliação somativa de sistemas instrucionais: integração de
três propostas. Tecnologia Educacional, 46, 29-39.
Borges-Andrade, J.E. (2002). Desenvolvimento de Medidas em Avaliação de Treinamento.
Procedures:
 Participants received an electronic mail containing a link to
the questionnaire
Estudos de Psicologia, 7 (Número Especial), 31-43.
Borges-Andrade, J.E. & Piltati, R. (2006). Construção de Medidas e Delineamentos em
Avaliação de TD&E. J.E. Borges-Andrade, G.S. Abbad, L. Mourão (Org). Treinamento,
 Data analysis took place with use of the software SPSS
Desenvolvimento e Educação em Organizações e Trabalho: fundamentos para a gestão de
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)
pessoas. 1. ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
 Data analysis: descriptives, and T-Tests
PRONEX
Fubra