case study quiz mrs kirkpatrick

Michele's Reflections on OD and Change

Just another Sites At Penn State site

Lesson 4: Applying Kirkpatrick’s Model to Case Study

Using a model helps build in structure and align the elements of the OD process. Kirkpatrick’s Four Level Training Model is a popular model to identify and measure training efforts and can provide structure to my proposed case study change effort and process. The four levels of Kirkpatrick’s Training Model are: reaction, learning, behavior and results or financial return. Like any model it also has limitations. Although I am still formally defining specifics within my case study, I know that it has levels of complexity, and potentially have objectives that go beyond Kirkpatrick’s four levels.

The main goal of my case study is understand how the flow down of 747/767 program communications and perceptions of communication efforts affect the opportunity for factory production employees and multiple levels of leadership to be engaged and involved in a common vision of continuous improvement that support the Boeing Vision. Applying what I know about my case study to each level of Kirkpatrick’s model would reveal the following at each level.

The first level is Reaction and it is based on understanding how well people like your change effort. The case study focuses upon manufacturing employees and multiple levels of leadership who will need to change current communication flow and impact to create better alignment and engagement. We would want to include some type of training to ensure consistency and meeting communication needs of manufacturing employees that receive the communications. These are the people who will be most impacted by the changes of better aligned communication and increasing continuous engagement to meet on time and first quality production goals. Reaction and potential culture change can be measured through baseline and periodic 1:1 interviews, focus groups, surveys, communication artifacts, HR artifacts such as hourly employee absenteeism.

The second level is Learning and it is based on understanding on how much people learned from the training and overall program communication expectations. To determine the if training supported the objectives I would use a criteria / scorecard to compare outgoing communication artifacts and well as a survey and 1:1 feedback from leadership. I would also want to use a pulse survey with communication recipients and the leaders to determine understanding and impact.

The third level is Behavior and it is based on how much people changed on-the-job behavior as a result of the change effort. Will the five levels of leadership change their behavior after training? Unfortunately, statistics often tell us the answer is no to long term change. Yet I am hopeful that due to the sheer amount of leaders that enough leaders will recognize the benefits of the change and develop a better habit of creating more alignment and engagement as their teams are more engaged, which can be measured by artifacts such as absenteeism rates, team projects focusing upon continuous development which improves first time quality and overall production goals. The bottom line being recognizing some type of correlation between communication and impact and thereby continuing to take action to better communicate flow down and align it to the team needs. Unfortunately there are always multiple initiatives happening in this complex environment that may also affect these items and it is difficult to arrive at direct proof of one initiative.

The final and fourth level is Results and it is based how much change benefited the organization. As stated above the results of the behaviors can be increased alignment to a common goal and increased continuous team engagement which improves first time quality and overall production goals. A program communication plan to share big and small “wins” and stories could be helpful in creating increased awareness and focus upon the sustaining implementation of the desired behaviors with the leaders and potentially create a pull from the first line leaders from more senior levels of leadership.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Provide details on what you need help with along with a budget and time limit. Questions are posted anonymously and can be made 100% private.

Studypool matches you to the best tutor to help you with your question. Our tutors are highly qualified and vetted.

Your matched tutor provides personalized help according to your question details. Payment is made only after you have completed your 1-on-1 session and are satisfied with your session.

• Homework Q&A
• Become a Tutor

All Subjects

Mathematics

Programming

Health & Medical

Engineering

Computer Science

Foreign Languages

Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Quiz 6 mrs. kirkpatrick.

Sign up to view the full document!

24/7 Homework Help

Stuck on a homework question? Our verified tutors can answer all questions, from basic  math  to advanced rocket science !

Similar Documents

working on a homework question?

Studypool is powered by Microtutoring TM

Copyright © 2024. Studypool Inc.

Studypool is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.

Ongoing Conversations

Access over 20 million homework documents through the notebank

Get on-demand Q&A homework help from verified tutors

Read 1000s of rich book guides covering popular titles

Sign up with Google

Sign up with Facebook

Already have an account? Login

Login with Google

Login with Facebook

Don't have an account? Sign Up

• Register/Login

30 Examples of Successful Kirkpatrick Model Implementation

Looking for a case study or two on how to successfully implement the  Kirkpatrick Model ? We’ve created a Case Studies Guide to help people locate the perfect case study for their situation. Some of these case studies can be found in our books, while others are taught in our programs. They range across different topics and types of organizations.  Click here to view our new Case Studies Guide . 

Click here  to view the IU Healthcare case study. You must log in to view the case study, which is located in our Resources Library in the “Kirkpatrick White Papers” module. Join the Discussion How are these case studies helping you to implement the Kirkpatrick Model in your organization? Here are some ways to join the discussion. 

Log in and leave a comment

Comment on this feature in  Facebook

Start a  LinkedIn discussion Don’t Miss a Feature Register with us  to receive Kirkpatrick Quick Tips delivered to your inbox each Wednesday.  Additional Resources Kirkpatrick Four Levels ®  Evaluation Certification Program – Bronze Level Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation   Have You Seen the New Additions to Our Resources Library? Why Did the Army’s Maneuver Center Choose the Kirkpatrick Model for Their Training Program?

Read our latest white papers and get quick access to our best free resources.

Kirkpatrick Model: Four Levels of Learning Evaluation

The Kirkpatrick Model is probably the best known model for analyzing and evaluating the results of training and educational programs. It takes into account any style of training, both informal or formal, to determine aptitude based on four levels criteria.

Level 1 Reaction measures how participants react to the training (e.g., satisfaction?). Level 2 Learning analyzes if they truly understood the training (e.g., increase in knowledge, skills or experience?). Level 3 Behavior looks at if they are utilizing what they learned at work (e.g., change in behaviors?), and Level 4 Results determines if the material had a positive impact on the business / organization.

This model was developed by Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick (1924 – 2014) in the 1950s. The model can be implemented before, throughout, and following training to show the value of training to the business.

As outlined by this system, evaluation needs to start with level one , after which as time and resources will allow, should proceed in order through levels two , three, and four. Data from all of the previous levels can be used as a foundation for the following levels’ analysis. As a result, each subsequent level provides an even more accurate measurement of the usefulness of the training course, yet simultaneously calls for a significantly more time-consuming and demanding evaluation.

Undoubtedly, the most widely used and in-demand method for the assessment of training in businesses nowadays is Kirkpatrick’s system based around the four levels as guidelines. The Kirkpatrick model has been used for over 30 years by many different types of companies as the major system for training evaluations. It is evident that Kirkpatrick’s vision has made a positive impact to the overall practice of training evaluation.

See also: Instructional design models

Listed below is an in-depth look into the four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model:

Level 1 Evaluation – Reaction

In what ways participants liked a particular program / training? How participants feel?

The objective for this level is straightforward, it evaluates how individuals react to the training model by asking questions that establishes the trainees’ thoughts. Questions will figure out if the participant enjoyed their experience and if they found the material in the program useful for their work. This particular form of evaluation is typically referred to as a “smile sheet.”

As outlined by Kirkpatrick, each program needs to be assessed at this level to help improve the model for future use. On top of that, the participants’ responses is essential for determining how invested they will be in learning the next level. Even though an optimistic reaction does not ensure learning, an unfavorable one definitely makes it less likely that the user will pay attention to the training.

Examples of resources and techniques for level one :

• Online assessment that can be graded by delegates/evaluators.
• Can be done immediately after the training ends.
• Are the participants happy with the instructor(s)?
• Did the training meet the participant’s needs?
• Are the attendee’s happy with the educational tools employed (e.g., PowerPoint, handouts etc)
• Printed or oral reports provided by delegates/evaluators to supervisors at the participants’ organizations.
• “Smile sheets”.
• Comment forms determined by subjective individual reaction to the training course.
• Post-training program questionnaires.
• Verbal responses that can be taken into consideration and considered.
• Especially encourage written comments
• Try to get honest responses and feedbacks

Read more…

Level 2 Evaluation – Learning

New skills / knowledge / attitudes? What was learned? and What was not learned?

Evaluating at this level is meant to gauge the level participants have developed in expertise, knowledge, or mindset. Exploration at this level is far more challenging and time-consuming compared to level one.

Techniques vary from informal to formal tests and self-assessment to team assessment. If at all possible, individuals take the test or evaluation prior to the training ( pre-test ) and following training ( post-test ) to figure out how much the participant comprehended.

Examples of tools and procedures for level two:

• Measurement and evaluation is simple and straightforward for any group size.
• You may use a control group to compare.
• Exams, interviews or assessments prior to and immediately after the training.
• Observations by peers and instructors
• Strategies for assessment should be relevant to the goals of the training program.
• A distinct clear scoring process needs to be determined in order to reduce the possibility of inconsistent evaluation reports.
• Interview, printed, or electronic type examinations can be carried out.
• An interview can be carried out before and after the assessment, though this is time-consuming and unreliable.

Level 3 Evaluation – Transfer

Was the leaning being applied by the attendees? 

This level analyzes the differences in the participant’s behavior at work after completing the program. Assessing the change makes it possible to figure out if the knowledge, mindset, or skills the program taught are being used the workplace.

For the majority of individuals this level offers the truest evaluation of a program’s usefulness. Having said that, testing at this level is challenging since it is generally impossible to anticipate when a person will start to properly utilize what they’ve learned from the program, making it more difficult to determine when, how often, and exactly how to evaluate a participant post-assessment.

This level starts 3–6 months after training.

Examples of assessment resources and techniques for level three:

• This can be carried out through observations and interviews.
• Evaluations have to be subtle until change is noticeable, after which a more thorough examination tool can be used.
• Were the learned knowledge and gained skills used?
• Surveys and close observation after some time are necessary to evaluate significant change, importance of change, and how long this change will last.
• Online evaluations tend to be more challenging to integrate. Examinations are usually more successful when incorporated within present management and training methods at the participant’s workplace.
• Quick examinations done immediately following the program are not going to be reliable since individuals change in various ways at different times.
• Assessments can be developed around applicable scenarios and distinct key efficiency indicators or requirements relevant to the participant’s job.
• Observations should be made to minimize opinion-based views of the interviewer as this factor is far too variable, which can affect consistency and dependability of assessments.
• Taking into consideration the opinion of the participant can also be too variable of a factor as it makes evaluation very unreliable, so it is essential that assessments focus more defined factors such as results at work rather than opinions.
• Self-assessment can be handy, but only with an extensively designed set of guidelines.

Level 4 Evaluation – Results

What are the final results of the training?

Commonly regarded as the primary goal of the program, level four determines the overall success of the training model by measuring factors such as lowered spending, higher returns on investments, improved quality of products, less accidents in the workplace, more efficient production times, and a higher quantity of sales.

From a business standpoint, the factors above are the main reason for the model, even so level four results are not usually considered. Figuring out whether or not the results of the training program can be linked to better finances is hard to accurately determine.

Types of assessment strategies and tools used for level four:

• It should be discussed with the participant exactly what is going to be measured throughout and after the training program so that they know what to expect and to fully grasp what is being assessed.
• Use a control group
• Allow enough time to measure / evaluate
• No final results can be found unless a positive change takes place.
• Improper observations and the inability to make a connection with training input type will make it harder to see how the training program has made a difference in the workplace.
• The process is to determine which methods and how these procedures are relevant to the participant’s feedback.
• For senior individuals in particular, yearly evaluations and regular arrangements of key business targets are essential in order to accurately evaluate business results that are because of the training program.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1996). Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level-model. Training & Development, 1, 54-57.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: the four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

I am a professor of Educational Technology. I have worked at several elite universities. I hold a PhD degree from the University of Illinois and a master's degree from Purdue University.

Similar Posts

Constructivist learning theory.

The constructivist theory is based around the idea that learners are active participants in their learning journey; knowledge is constructed based on experiences. As events occur, each person reflects on their experience and…

Theory of Multiple Intelligences – Gardner

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences was first presented in 1983 by Howard Gardner, a psychologist, when he published his book Frames of Mind. He declared that learning occurred through many types of intelligences,…

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding

Vygotsky created the concept of the zone of proximal development, often abbreviated as ZPD, which came to be a central part of his theory. Language is the way that a child communicates with…

Social Learning Theory: Albert Bandura

Albert Bandura’s “Social Learning Theory” and Its Impact on Teachers and Learning Think back to your childhood. Do you remember learning to ride a bike, how to play checkers, and do simple addition…

Flipped Classroom

What is a flipped classroom? A flipped classroom is an instructional strategy. “Flipping” a classroom entails switching up the usual model through which students encounter new knowledge. In a flipped classroom, students have…

Connectivism Learning Theory

In the field of education, three predominant learning theories have long been at the forefront of theorists’ minds. These are behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Countless research frameworks have been tied to these three…

Kirkpatrick’s Model: Case Study

Anticipated business results, kirkpatrick’s model, reflection on the findings and recommendations.

Kirkpatrick’s model is a framework that is widely used to measure learning outcomes. It features five levels, each of which represents a category that can be evaluated, including participants’ emotions, learning, behavior, results, and the return of investment (ROI).

This paper features a case study of a training program conducted in Braun Oral B Ireland. It presents the goals and anticipated business results of the program and discusses how the results were evaluated using Kirkpatrick’s model. Moreover, the report features the reflection on the findings and suggests recommendations for evaluation of the impact and value of training. The paper concludes that the used model shows effective results and may be improved by considering more aspects during calculation.

The selected case study is the one performed in Braun Oral B Ireland. The case study involves the development of a pilot training program with the company’s employees. The program was implemented in the Lens Filter area, which was responsible for the processes of thermoforming and packaging. The section involved 30 employees, 18 of which worked there directly, while the rest of the individuals were engaged in the process remotely (Ward, 2005).

The primary challenges for this unit were enhancing efficiency, maintaining workers’ key performance indicators (KPI), and improving quality, material usage, machine utilization, and overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). The design of the training program was determined by these issues, as well as the need to implement a multifunctional approach to teamwork and increase employees’ ability to find solutions to possible problems quickly.

Moreover, other needs, such as the effective management of meetings, the implementation of the cross-fertilization of ideas, and the direct engagement of the technical group, were considered. The pilot group included 8 participants who received training for five and a half days (Ward, 2005).

The organization’s objectives related to the training program were to achieve higher KPIs, elevate technicians’ roles, and enhance Material Usage Variance (MUV) savings. The goals of trainees were to increase their engagement in the working process, gain an understanding of business needs and the significance of KPIs, acquire strong problem-solving skills, and learn to conduct productive meetings. Moreover, the program aimed to improve interpersonal relationships within the group, enhance participants’ commitment, implement cross-fertilization of ideas, and help the employees to see the “bigger picture” (Ward, 2005).

Currently, Kirkpatrick’s model is considered one of the most credible evaluation methodology (Bailey, n.d.). To perform the evaluation, the questionnaires for the first two levels were used; the other data was obtained through observation. The analysis of the first level, reaction, showed that participants received the training well, reporting 4 points out of 5 (Ward, 2005). Employees considered coaches’ approach impressive; they admitted that the proposed techniques were relatable and useful. The evaluation of the second level, learning, revealed that participants gained the necessary knowledge related to problem-solving and management and were able to practice their skills. Tutors noted the full participation of trainees and provided positive feedback.

The analysis of behavior, the third level, showed tangible developments; the team learned to have productive meetings and implement problem-solving skills. Moreover, a significant enhancement of technicians’ engagement was observed as they developed an innovative recording system. In addition, all members of the personnel, including supervisors and human resources staff, were involved in the teamwork. To analyze the results, the fourth level of Kirkpatrick’s model, the contributors of loss, were analyzed. The evaluation revealed improvements in the use of materials and the reduction of scrap levels.

To calculate the ROI of the training, which is a fifth level of the model, the analysis was performed using the data that could be converted to a monetary value. The first data item was scrap levels, which, before training, had been estimated at around €23,200 per month (Ward, 2005). After the intervention, the figure decreased to approximately €3,100, which allowed for the saving of €20,100 a month. The projected annual saving was about €241,600 (Ward, 2005).

Notably, apart from the training program, no other factors could affect the variables. The second data item that was analyzed is a trend line associated with scrap levels. It showed that the scrap level had fluctuated before the training, but the projected monthly scrap value would be stable and would reach around €23,000. When compared to the actual numbers, the data showed a significant increase in monthly and annual savings. The total cost of the training program was around €30,000, and the lowest projected saving was approximately €239,000 (Ward, 2005). Thus, the ROI calculation showed a 695% of investment return.

Besides the presented significant benefits of the training program, there were several other advantages not included in the evaluation. During training sessions, the multifunctional team was established, the tool room became highly involved, employees gained knowledge about materials, and the new recording systems for sorting and scrap were developed. It means that the program allowed for multidimensional changes within the organization.

The findings of the evaluation show that the problem-solving training program was effective and allowed the organization to achieve its goals. The results reveal that Braun Oral B Ireland was able to increase its savings by investing in training, as well as establish close relationships between its employees and motivate them to achieve better results in their work. Notably, the intervention not only allowed for improvements in the processes of packaging and thermoforming but also enhanced participants’ productivity.

It means that before training, the company might have lacked the necessary knowledge on how to create an environment in which individuals will generate effective business ideas. Moreover, the findings may show that the organization had probably lacked a strong corporate culture. However, all of these problems were solved during the training program, which means that the investment was reasonable.

There are several recommendations that can be suggested to enhance the analyzed approach to evaluation and measure the impact and value of training sessions. First, it is vital to not only conduct personal interviews with the participants but also to analyze their performance. Employees’ reactions to training may be different from the knowledge they can apply to practice. For example, after the educational session, many individuals may feel inspired or motivated, but this effect is temporary.

To gain evidence-based findings on the efficiency of training, it is vital to observe the long-term changes in workers’ performance. In my opinion, it may be feasible to perform an evaluation not only three months after the training program but after 12 months too. The obtained results may reveal stable changes in employees’ performance and allow for a precise estimation of their KPI in the future. Moreover, since some workers may leave the job during a one-year period, the organization can also evaluate what knowledge from the program the team uses to train new workers.

Another recommendation that would enhance the measurement process would be the consideration of intangible variables that cannot be converted into monetary benefits. The reason to include them in the calculation is that these items may improve employees’ or customers’ satisfaction, which would, indirectly, improve the monetary profit too. For example, one of these variables can be stress reduction for the organization’s workers. If a training program allows employees to decrease their stress levels, their performance can be enhanced too (Scott et al., 2015). Similarly, the elimination of complaints as a result of training can improve the organization’s position in the market and, consequently, enhance monetary gains.

Finally, I believe that a vital recommendation for measurement would be to collect follow-up surveys of employees that can be performed after a one-year period. Such a measure would allow the organization to get a different perspective on the benefits and limitations of the training program. For example, participants may report on what challenges related to new working strategies they encounter and how these may be eliminated. Moreover, their responses will be based on the observed facts, not emotions, compared to the feedback collected during and immediately after the training. Such an approach would also allow for the enhancement of employees’ dedication and involvement in the organization’s decision-making process.

The presented case study reveals that the training program enhanced employees’ performance, knowledge, and skills significantly. It suggests that due to this effective intervention, the company was able to enhance its savings and obtain a high level of investment return. The possible recommendations for evaluation may be the consideration of intangible variables, detailed analysis of employees’ performance based on observation of long-term changes, and the implementation of follow-up surveys after a one-year period.

Bailey, A. (n.d.). The Kirkpatrick/Phillips model for evaluating human resource development and training . Web.

Scott, S. B., Graham-Engeland, J. E., Engeland, C. G., Smyth, J. M., Almeida, D. M., Katz, M. J.,… Sliwinski, M. J. (2015). The effects of stress on cognitive aging, physiology, and emotion (ESCAPE) project. BMC Psychiatry , 15 (1). Web.

Ward, B. (2005). Applying an ROI analysis to a pilot problem-solving training program. Case studies from the Skillnets pilot project . Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, July 14). Kirkpatrick’s Model: Case Study. https://studycorgi.com/kirkpatricks-model-case-study/

"Kirkpatrick’s Model: Case Study." StudyCorgi , 14 July 2021, studycorgi.com/kirkpatricks-model-case-study/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Kirkpatrick’s Model: Case Study'. 14 July.

1. StudyCorgi . "Kirkpatrick’s Model: Case Study." July 14, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/kirkpatricks-model-case-study/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Kirkpatrick’s Model: Case Study." July 14, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/kirkpatricks-model-case-study/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Kirkpatrick’s Model: Case Study." July 14, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/kirkpatricks-model-case-study/.

This paper, “Kirkpatrick’s Model: Case Study”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: July 28, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.