Last time, I shared Jim Kirkpatrick's story of 'red pants (trousers) syndrome' to illustrate how difficult it can be to get people to change the way they do things if they are unsupported after a training event.
The Kirkpatrick four levels are all about minimising outbreaks of 'red trousers syndrome'. They encourage you to start at the end of the learning process, identify the results you want to achieve and figure out what kind of learning needs to take place to make that happen.
Key to all this is not taking the 'sheep dip' approach to learning. In other words, the 'figuring out' of what you need has to take account of the fact that traditional approaches to designing learning are not necessarily the most effective.
This is borne out by some astonishing results Jim shared with us. They are from long-term research carried out by Rob Brinkerhoff, comparing the benefits of a fairly traditional approach to training (emphasis on a one-off event) with a more collaborative approach (more balance between a training event and follow up activities). Here's a summary of the results.
In a traditional approach to training design, 90% of the time is spent on design and development of the training event and only 10% on pre and post development activity. In this approach, typically the following happens to learners:
There's no question this is a more complex approach. It involves the co-operation of colleagues and managers who may not be taking part in the training event. But look at the results.
The good news, (as I've mentioned in previous emails) - we think some of the pain of getting colleagues involved can be minimised through some aspects of mobile learning. This has the potential to provide quite personalised follow-up for learners and to enable virtual support networks and communities without taking up vast amounts of colleagues' time.
If you are interested in discovering more about effectively evaluating your learning, check out our courses and services.
The Kirkpatrick four levels are all about minimising outbreaks of 'red trousers syndrome'. They encourage you to start at the end of the learning process, identify the results you want to achieve and figure out what kind of learning needs to take place to make that happen.
Key to all this is not taking the 'sheep dip' approach to learning. In other words, the 'figuring out' of what you need has to take account of the fact that traditional approaches to designing learning are not necessarily the most effective.
This is borne out by some astonishing results Jim shared with us. They are from long-term research carried out by Rob Brinkerhoff, comparing the benefits of a fairly traditional approach to training (emphasis on a one-off event) with a more collaborative approach (more balance between a training event and follow up activities). Here's a summary of the results.
In a traditional approach to training design, 90% of the time is spent on design and development of the training event and only 10% on pre and post development activity. In this approach, typically the following happens to learners:
- 15% do not try the new skills
- 70% try to implement the learning but fail
- 15% achieve and sustain the new learning
- 5% do not try the new skills
- 10% try to implement the learning but fail
- 85% achieve and sustain the new learning
There's no question this is a more complex approach. It involves the co-operation of colleagues and managers who may not be taking part in the training event. But look at the results.
The good news, (as I've mentioned in previous emails) - we think some of the pain of getting colleagues involved can be minimised through some aspects of mobile learning. This has the potential to provide quite personalised follow-up for learners and to enable virtual support networks and communities without taking up vast amounts of colleagues' time.
If you are interested in discovering more about effectively evaluating your learning, check out our courses and services.
