# Integrating Rapid Application Development Courses into Higher Education Curricula
## 2 Related Work  
Training or course evaluation and its effectiveness are widely researched. There are 414,417 papers that can be found in the Web of Science database (WoS) when the search query \"(training OR course) AND (effectiveness OR evaluation)\" is used (Figure 1). For this scoping and quantitative review, WoS has been chosen, since it is suggested as the principal search system in [32] and allows the acquisition of a sufficient volume of bibliometric data and is suitable for quantitative analysis [33]. Moreover, WoS is among 1 of 14 well-suited academic search systems for systematic literature review (SLR) and contains more than 73,000,000 publications in multidisciplinary subjects. As scoping and quantitative review here is used as an auxiliary tool for choosing the most suitable model for course evaluation, WoS is selected because it is recognized as the one having the highest quality standards and used by various authors [34,35]. Over the past 20 years, training evaluation has become a more popular research field due to the rising possibilities of e-learning and online trainings that digital transformation has enabled. Moreover, it is needed to explore the effectiveness of training or courses and how to prevent or minimize dropout. While in 2004 the number of papers considering training effectiveness of evaluation was less than 1% of all papers published in WoS, this number increased by 2.23% in 10 years and by 8.78% in 20 years. Such an increase shows that evaluation of the courses or trainings are significant. According to [36], evaluation is a very important part and cannot be excluded when determining whether the training or course objectives have been accomplished. The author has not only discussed the need for training evaluation but has also provided a review of different training evaluation models. Although there are many various models for evaluating the trainings, ref. [37] also discussed similar models as [36], explaining their advantages and disadvantages. The most common models for evaluating trainings, courses or educational programs are summarized in Table 1. Also, in the scientific literature, some other methods exist, like [PERSON]'s ROI model, [PERSON]'s Five model evaluation, [PERSON]'s Five Domain Evaluation model and [PERSON]'s model [36, 37, 38]. But, they are not analyzed here because of their specificity and narrow applications. Consequently, Table 1 consists of the following columns: (1) model, defining the name of the model; (2) levels, showing what is evaluated in the model; (3) usage, specifying the field in which the model is applied; (4) data collection tool, indicating how the data for evaluation are collected; and (5) purpose, defining the evaluation objective of the model. Among the chosen models, [PERSON]'s taxonomy also is presented, but it does not measure the effectiveness of training, it just helps to determine the level that students or trainees have achieved after the course or training. As presented in Table 1 Column (4), most models, like [PERSON]'s model, CIPP or CIRO models, collect data by using questionnaires, while some of them (Brinkerhoff's Success Case Method (SCM) or IPO model) use interviews in addition to surveys. For example, in [PERSON]'s SCM, the survey helps to identify two groups: one, of successful cases; second, of unsuccessful cases. Later, these individuals are interviewed to acquire a deeper understanding of what worked for them and what did not. Several other models,  
Figure 1: The number of publications in 1988–2024 related to training or course evaluation. e.g., IPO model, focus also on the cost of trainings and can be more appropriate for business organizations or companies. Authors of [36; 37] concluded their review that [PERSON]'s model is a universally recognized and accepted framework for training evaluation. The Kirkpatrick Four-Level Training Evaluation Model is designed to objectively measure the effectiveness of training.