For years, we have used the Kirkpatrick-Katzell Four-Level Model to evaluate workplace learning. With this taxonomy as our guide, we have concluded that the most common form of learning evaluation is learner surveys, that the next most common evaluation is learning, then on-the-job behavior, then organizational results.
The truth is more complicated.
In some recent research I led with the eLearning Guild and Jane Bozarth, we used the LTEM model to look for further differentiation. We found it.
Here’s some of the insights from the graphic above:
- Learner surveys are NOT the most common form of learning evaluation. Program completion and attendance are more common, being done on most training programs in about 83% of organizations.
- Learners surveys are still very popular, with 72% of respondents saying that they are used in more than one-third of their learning programs.
- When we measure learning, we go beyond simple quizzes and knowledge checks.
- Tier 5 assessments, measuring the ability to make realistic decisions, were reported by 24% of respondents to be used in more than one-third of their learning programs.
- Tier 6 assessments, measuring realistic task performance (during learning), were reported by about 32% of respondents to be used in more than one-third of their learning programs.
- Unfortunately, we messed up and forgot to include an option on Tier 4 Knowledge questions. However, previous eLearning Guild research in the 2007, 2008, and 2010 found that the percentage of respondents who reported that they measured memory recall of critical information was 60%, 60%, and 63% respectively.
- Only about 20% of respondents said their organizations are measuring work performance.
- Only about 16% of respondents said their organizations are measuring the organizational results from learning.
- Interestingly, where the Four-Level Model puts all types of Results into one bucket, the LTEM framework encourages us to look at other results besides business results.
- About 12% said their organizations were looking at the effect of the learning on the learner’s success and well-being.
- Only about 3% said they were measuring the effects of learning on coworkers/family/friends.
- Only about 3% said they were measuring the effects of learning on the community or society (as has been recommended by Roger Kaufman for years).
- Only about 1% reported measuring the effects of learning on the environs.
The biggest opportunity—or the juiciest low-hanging fruit—is that we can stop just using Tier-1 attendance and Tier-3 learner-perception measures.
We can also begin to go beyond our 60%-rate in measuring Tier-4 knowledge and do more Tier-5 and Tier-6 assessments. As I’ve advocated for years, Tier-5 assessments using well-constructed scenario-based questions are the perfect balance of power and cost. They are aligned with the research on learning, they have moderate costs in terms of resources, and learners see them as challenging and interesting rather than punitive and unhelpful like they often see knowledge checks.
We can also begin to emphasize more Tier-7 evaluations. Shouldn’t we know whether our learning interventions are actually transferring to the workplace? The same is true for Tier-8 measures. We should look for strategic opportunities here—being mindful to the incredible costs of doing good Tier-8 evaluations. We should also consider looking beyond business results—as these are not the only effects our learning interventions are having.
Finally, we can use LTEM to help guide our learning-development efforts and our learning evaluations. By using LTEM, we are prompted to see things that have been hidden from us for decades.
The Original eLearning Guild Report
To get the original eLearning Guild report, click here.
The LTEM Model
To get the LTEM Model and the 34-page report that goes with it, click here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.