Foreign Studies

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