Although the full evaluation plan my classmate and I created for EDCI 577, Strategic Assessment and Evaluation, is offered as evidence of an additional competency (click here to access), this project also fulfills the competency “Select or create an instructional design process based on the nature of the project.” The evaluation project was created using the Kirkpatrick Four Levels of Evaluation framework, and thus, is evidence of my ability to utilize a formal process to complete project objectives.

The Kirkpatrick model is utilized in a broad range of industries and fields to determine the effectiveness and often, ultimately, the organizational value of an instructional program. Its clearly defined levels of evaluation span numerous areas of impact (course reaction, content learning, behavior impact, and results), allowing users to identify areas of strength, opportunities for improvement, and the overall effectiveness of a training program. Especially in the corporate training field, which is from where the bulk of my experience is derived, the knowledge of which training programs are effective and to what degree is an incredibly powerful tool. This knowledge helps instructional designers maximize the value of their contributions to the company.

Our evaluation plan walks through each step of the Kirkpatrick model, providing evaluation instruments at every level – not just assessing the learners, but also gathering and analyzing feedback from facilitators and corporate information systems (such as human resources data and employee satisfaction surveys). Additionally, what made this project unique was that the subject of the evaluation plan evaluated an actual leadership development training program I created for a previous client. This training program consisted of a five-module eLearning course followed by a one-hour workshop. As of spring 2025, the eLearning modules were still in use (however, the workshop was not currently running). However, through designing this evaluation plan, I was able to refine the learner assessment, which was required a minimum score for successful completion. For the purpose of the evaluation plan , the learner assessment (which represents Kirkpatrick’s Level 2) was rewritten to specifically address the key learning objectives and the key evaluation metrics that were identified at the beginning of the evaluation. This produced a greater alignment between the evaluation plan, the objectives, and the in-course assessment. If this evaluation plan were implemented (the data included here are hypothetical), there is a higher degree of confidence in the outcome effectively addressing the metrics, as the entire program and evaluation plan were aligned.

This was my first experience designing an evaluation plan. However, my approach to learning design has been permanently impacted. Even in cases when a full evaluation plan will not be implemented (as a full Four Level evaluation is not always necessary, efficient, or an optimal use of organization resources), I am more careful now to consider how a training program could or would be evaluated. I ask questions during the analysis phase, write learning objectives that align with both the project goals and how successful completion of those goals would be evaluated. This has resulted in my designs featuring greater overall alignment and enhancing the organizational value, even when the program will not be officially and systematically evaluated using a structured process. Going forward, I plan to continue to seek out projects that allow for a more structured evaluation process. In addition to strengthening my skills in a real-world environment, the project deliverables benefit from the application of an ID model such as Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation.