Donald Kirkpatrick coined this model in 1975 and it could most probably be outdated. He talks about the four levels of evaluation of a course:
Level1: Reaction-Observe and record learner reaction to a training.
Level2: Learning-The extent to which learners change attitudes, increase knowledge, and/or increase skills.
Level3: Behavior-The extent to which change in behavior occurs on the job.
Level4: Results-The final outcomes that occur as a result of training.
I find this interesting though not surprising as the levels seem to be quite obvious.
The model says you need to use 2-3 tools to evaluate each level and you need to define the measurement at the beginning of every project. The figure gives a matrix of the measurement required at each level.
Another thing he says is if you don't get past level 2, you aren't using Kirkpatrick. Also he claims that using this model will cause a minimum wastage in your training investment.
I would like to try this out when I have a chance, and I'm not willing to comment about it till I know, but this seems to be very generic and I'm not very sure about how practical it is in a corporate scenario.
Some additional links. This table is also quite useful. Please leave your comments if you have tried using this in your setup, or if you have an opinion on this.
Level1: Reaction-Observe and record learner reaction to a training.
Level2: Learning-The extent to which learners change attitudes, increase knowledge, and/or increase skills.
Level3: Behavior-The extent to which change in behavior occurs on the job.
Level4: Results-The final outcomes that occur as a result of training.
I find this interesting though not surprising as the levels seem to be quite obvious.
The model says you need to use 2-3 tools to evaluate each level and you need to define the measurement at the beginning of every project. The figure gives a matrix of the measurement required at each level.
Another thing he says is if you don't get past level 2, you aren't using Kirkpatrick. Also he claims that using this model will cause a minimum wastage in your training investment.
I would like to try this out when I have a chance, and I'm not willing to comment about it till I know, but this seems to be very generic and I'm not very sure about how practical it is in a corporate scenario.
Some additional links. This table is also quite useful. Please leave your comments if you have tried using this in your setup, or if you have an opinion on this.
Hello Sreya,
ReplyDeleteI have tried to incorporate the 4 levels in my instructional design practice. It is very valuable if you don't have any other plans in place. ( - In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king!). The good part about it is less that you can make a better product than that it gives you a framework to know what went wrong when it does go wrong - or someone is unhappy with the results.
Thanks for posting the link and table - it is a useful source of information!
John Pasinosky - USCS Santa Cruz CA>
I agree with John, Kirkpatrick's Evaluation has been the proverbial "Andhoon mein kana raja" for the learning and training world! While this is a great foundation, like all other methodologies, this too should evolve to fit the changing needs of the training industry. This model (in the classical sense) does not help measure the ROI from training. (http://elearning.kern-comm.com/?p=114) This model also emphasizes on "post training evaluation" while evaluation should be an ongoing process.
ReplyDeleteAt Kern, we have evolved an evaluation methodology that has worked well for us and our clients:
http://elearning.kern-comm.com/?p=156
Thanks Geeta. That was really useful.
ReplyDeleteI've just found another link Beyond Kirkpatrick by Tom Werner
I think this is interesting too.
Hello Sreya! It is definitely practical. It all depends on how you market it. If managers & other decision-makers see the value, they'll definitely agree. I have gone into meetings where managers have come in late and start a meeting saying they have to leave it early and then have them say at the scheduled end, "Can we extend this meeting? Would you have the time?" If you cannot add value AND make others see the value you add, getting any work done will be difficult.
ReplyDelete@John, Richeek, Thanks so much for sharing your views. I haven't seen this model getting implemented and I wanted to hear from you all. Richeek is right in saying that management has to see value in it and we have to make that possible.
ReplyDeleteThanks all of you!
For the most accurate information about the Kirkpatrick model, please visit the REAL Kirkpatrick website at kirkpatrickpartners.com.
ReplyDeleteFor any of you that think that the model is outdated, please register on the site and download our latest white paper on the topic.
Thanks!
Want to hear from the REAL Kirkpatricks? Go to http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com.
ReplyDeleteYou will find out what information here is correct and incorrect.
Hi Sreya,
ReplyDeleteI created the presentation on Don's behalf, so thanks for checking it out.
Just to clarify a few facts, the model was created in the 1950s.
For the most accurate of the latest updates, please visit our website at http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com.
Hi Sreya,
ReplyDeleteI created the presentation on Don's behalf, so thanks for checking it out.
Just to clarify a few facts, the model was created in the 1950s.
For the most accurate of the latest updates, please visit our website at http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com.
I have found that the most beneficial part of this model is to work with senior management to identify the financial benefit that would result from specific outcomes. You can then work backwards by identifying the behaviors that would most likely lead to those outcomes. Use the 80/20 rule and root cause analysis to id these behaviors. Then train to modify those behaviors. It is really a way to attempt to tie the front line to the bottom line. For more info visit http://www.whowearecounts.com
ReplyDelete