I’m almost scared to say it, but I have a problem with the Kirkpatrick model.
Specifically, I have a problem with the structure of the four steps of evaluation.
The steps are:
Level 1: Learner Reaction
Level 2: Learning
Level 3: Behavior Change
Level 4: Results
Here’s my problem: I think the order should be flipped.
Think about it this way:
1️⃣ Level 1: Learner reaction - I don’t care that much about learner reaction.
- Learners aren’t experts in gap analysis.
- They don’t know your needs analysis.
- They aren’t instructional designers.
Sure, it’s nice to know what they thought, but it’s not vital. It shouldn’t be the foundation of evaluation.
2️⃣ Learning - Of course, knowledge is important.
But, KNOWING without DOING is a huge problem in leadership dev.
I don’t care if my leaders KNOW about GROW coaching, if they’re not APPLYING it.
3️⃣ Behavior Change - This is where it gets interesting.
Look at the before and after: Have leaders’ behaviors changed? Have leaders improved?
This is a more accurate reflection of “learning” anyways.
4️⃣ Impact - This is the “why” behind leadership development.
Really, you should START here. You should begin with the end in mind.
What is it that you’re trying to affect? And why?
---
Don’t start with your learners’ reactions. Start with the results you want to achieve.
Then, measure your effectiveness at changing those behaviors.
Then move to learners’ reactions.
Flip the model and get results!
That's how we do it at LEADx! [ Ссылка ]
