dc.contributor.author	Meade, Shannon
dc.coverage.spatial	United States	en_US
dc.coverage.temporal	2018-2020	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2021-01-06T14:22:37Z
dc.date.available	2021-01-06T14:22:37Z
dc.date.issued	2020-09
dc.identifier.other	4A477857-3619-482B-B4B1-E961BB57FB51	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	https://hdl.handle.net/10428/4607
dc.description.abstract	This applied research study contributes to the understanding of the application of the Kirkpatrick Model to the Joint Special Operations University’s (JSOU) educational programs. This study examined the rationale for evaluating training and education programs, the four essential elements of the Kirkpatrick Model, the industry application of the Kirkpatrick Model and compares and contrasts the Kirkpatrick Model with the other leading evaluation program, Phillips Return on Investment (ROI) Model. The Kirkpatrick Method, along with its hybrid associate, the Phillips ROI Model, is the standard for evaluating most government and private industry training programs, as evidenced by numerous industry and government documents that reference Kirkpatrick and ROI as the models to emulate. Though initially designed for evaluating training programs, the Kirkpatrick Model can be readily adapted to higher education, thus providing stakeholders vital information to better assess the value of the education provided. Adaptation of the Kirkpatrick Model in higher education helps to not only clarify criteria for what should be taught but also the assessment of what is being taught concerning desired educational outcomes. Prior to academic year (AY) 2018, JSOU relied almost exclusively on the Kirkpatrick Model’s Level 1 surveys to ascertain the effectiveness of JSOU’s mission. This research evaluates how full implementation of the Kirkpatrick Model at JSOU can provide leadership of an open adaptive system with more relevant information that aids in determining the effectiveness of JSOU in performing its mission. A case study approach was utilized with AY 2018 JSOU data on hand. All four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model of evaluating the effectiveness of training and education programs ii were used to evaluate JSOU’s AY 2018. The data analysis was reviewed within the context of the singularity of this specific academic year at JSOU. Both qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed so that the complexities of a real-life situation would be studied from multiple perspectives. The data showed a quantitatively minor correlation between the Kirkpatrick Model’s Level 1 surveys and JSOU’s Level 3 surveys. Qualitatively, JSOU was shown to have an effective process to ensure students were being tested for the desired teaching outcomes (Level 2). Level 4 evaluation was also qualitatively conducted by reviewing surveys and interviews of Special Operations Forces (SOF) senior leaders from JSOU’s 2020 Strategic Vision Project. This mixed methods approach, utilizing all four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model, yielded an overall assumption that JSOU is meeting the SOF unique education needs of its primary customer, the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Keyword 1: Kirkpatrick Keyword 2: Military Keyword 3: Special Operations Keyword 4: Education Keyword 5: Training Keyword 6: Evaluation	en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents	Chapter I: INTRODUCTION 1 -- The Research Site 10 -- Purpose of the Study 15 -- Research Questions 16 -- Rationale, Relevance and Significance of the Study 16 -- Rationale 17 -- Relevance 18 -- The Significance of the Study 19 -- Nature of the Study 19 -- Definition of Terms 20 -- Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations 21 -- Assumptions 21 -- Limitations 22 -- Delimitations 22 -- Organization of the Remainder of the Study 23 -- Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW 25 -- Professional Military Education 25 -- History of JSOU 27 -- Kirkpatrick’s Levels of Evaluation 39 -- Level 1: Reaction 41 -- Level 2: Learning 46 -- Level 3: Behavior 53 -- -- Level 4: Results 55 -- The Return on Investment (ROI) Methodology 63 -- Summary 66 -- Chapter III: METHODOLOGY 69 -- Applied Research 71 -- Why Program Evaluation? 72 -- The Joint Special Operations University Data 73 -- Level 1: Reaction 74 -- Level 2: Learning 75 -- Level 3: Behavior 77 -- Level 4: Results 82 -- Validity and Reliability of this Study 85 -- Summary 86 -- Chapter IV: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 87 -- Level 1: Reaction 88 -- Level 2: Learning 96 -- Level 3: Behavior 102 -- Level 4: Results 110 -- The Value of JSOU 116 -- Summary 119 -- Chapter V: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION 120 -- Introduction 120 -- Summary of the Study 120 -- -- Problem Overview and Purpose of the Study 122 -- Research Questions 122 -- Methodology 122 -- Level 1 123 -- Level 2 124 -- Level 3 126 -- Level 4 128 -- Findings Related to Literature 131 -- Conclusions 132 -- Recommendations 133 -- Final Remarks 138 -- REFERENCES 140 -- APPENDIX A: JSOU’s ACCET Certificate of Accreditation 151 -- APPENDIX B: IRB Exemption Letter 153 -- APPENDIX C: JSOU Level 1 End-of-course Survey 155 -- APPENDIX D: JSOU’s Level 3 Survey 157 -- APPENDIX E: SOF Senior Leader Education Questionnaire 160 -- APPENDIX F: Illustration from the 2018 JSOU Faculty and Staff Handbook 165	en_US
dc.format.extent	1 electronic document, 180 pages	en_US
dc.format.mimetype	application/pdf	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.rights	This dissertation is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, revised in 1976). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of the materials for financial gain with the author's expressed written permissions is not allowed.	en_US
dc.subject	Armed Forces	en_US
dc.subject	Dissertations, Academic--United States	en_US
dc.subject	Evaluation	en_US
dc.subject	Joint Special Operations University (U.S.)	en_US
dc.subject	Military education	en_US
dc.subject	Special operations (Military science)	en_US
dc.title	Case Study of the Application of the Kirkpatrick Model to the Joint Special Operations University’s Educational Programs	en_US
dc.type	Dissertation	en_US
dc.contributor.department	Department of Political Science of the College of Arts and Science	en_US
dc.description.advisor	McCabe, Peter
dc.description.committee	Lonas, Amie W.
dc.description.committee	Yehl, Robert
dc.description.degree	D.P.A.	en_US
dc.description.major	Public Administration	en_US