Meaningful instructional design requires meaningful evaluation. However, evaluation, like organizational development itself, requires buy-in at many levels. This buy-in’s necessary…
- To identify meaningful metrics
- To collect data
- To react to data, making appropriate improvements
- To undertake change management necessary for these improvements
If you’ve been in this field for any length of time, you’ve probably come across Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation (reaction, learning, performance, & results). Kirkpatrick’s approach has come under fire for a number of reasons (e.g., emphasis on training events, implied linearity and causality, and more) and many articles have provided thoughtful critiques.
- From Harold Jarche: Training’s a mug’s game
- From Dan Pontefract: Dear Kirkpatrick’s: You still don’t get it
- From Jane Bozarth: Nuts and Bolts: How to evaluate e-learning
- From Donald Clark: Kirkpatrick 4-levels of evaluation: Happy sheets? Surely past its sell-by-date?
However, in this series of posts, I haven’t come to bury Kirkpatrick’s approach or to praise…
View original post 485 more words