This isn’t going to be a tirade of criticism like the last post but more of a reflection of how I think most people uses the Four Levels of Kirkpatrick, namely wrong. I’ve heard the following quite a few times:
“Yeah, we do course evaluation but we’ve only come as far as Level 1 and 2.”
So what’s wrong with this? Of course it’s very much easier to just measure what people think of the course (Level 1) and what they’ve learned (Level 2) than mess with change of behavior (Level 3) and result (Level 4). And of course people tend to do what’s easy instead of doing what they should do. Continue reading
In a comment to Niklas Angmyr’s post on the subject of learning, corporate learning and the article Making Corporate Learning work by Shlomo Ben-Hur and Nik Kenley, Niklas get one of the authors to comment, namely Nik Kenley, and a very interesting point is made:
Corporate learning has behavioral change as its main goal – not learning. The clinch is that the L&D departments across the globe DO have learning as its main goal – not behavioral change.
Why does this matter? It’s similar to leaving your car at the mechanic’s expecting a tune-up and getting it washed, because the mechanic didn’t have tune-up as her main goal but to get your car as good looking as possible. Not only will the car malfunction as before, but you’d probably still get charged for the washing you didn’t ask for.