Evaluation - lloyddavis/ckop GitHub Wiki

Typically, organisations loosely follow the Kirkpatrick (1975) Evaluation Model, which advocated four levels of evaluation; reaction, learning, behaviour, and results. Whether much effective evaluation actually takes place beyond an end of course questionnaire is unclear. The fourth step of the systematic training model is traditionally referred to as 'validation, evaluation or review of training', although one might consider the three activities to be very different. In practice however, it is not unreasonable to question whether 'evaluation' is simply used to justify the value of a course or activity, and by implication, the retention of so many ‘evaluators’. What may be missing is the ability to ratify or confirm that any learning intervention actually delivers value to an organisation, and value defined by the ‘customer’. Furthermore, it might be suggested that too little distinction is made between ‘formative’ (improve quality of learning), and ‘summative’ (improve overall effectiveness of learning, and its value to the organisation) evaluation, or of the precise evaluation role of a Training Requirements Authority.

Whatever 'step' of a training model, one might consider 'validation, evaluation or review of training' to be, it is potentially the most contentious step. Personally, I'd welcome greater consideration being given to 'learning assurance', which goes far beyond the satisfaction of learners, return on investment, and pass rates; and considers such attributes as the alignment of learning with the mission, objectives and culture of an organisation for example. In some instances, this may require the adoption of new techniques to measure the impact of learning on business outcomes, and to switch the focus of evaluation from the learner to the organisation.