The Kirkpatrick Model of Curriculum Evaluation

I. Introduction to the Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation

The Kirkpatrick Model stands as one of the most enduring and widely recognized frameworks for evaluating the effectiveness of training and educational programs. Its longevity and widespread adoption across various sectors, including corporate training, K-12 education, higher education, and vocational training, attest to its perceived utility and foundational principles. This report provides an in-depth analysis of the Kirkpatrick Model, examining its historical development, the intricacies of its four-level structure, its evolution into the New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM), its strengths and limitations, and its application within the specific context of curriculum evaluation.

A. Donald Kirkpatrick’s Contribution

The Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model was conceived by Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick in the 1950s, originating from his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Wisconsin. It was first introduced to the professional world through a series of articles published in the U.S. Training and Development Journal in 1959, and later more comprehensively detailed in his 1975 book, “Evaluating Training Programs”. This historical context is significant because it firmly places the model’s origins within the realm of corporate training evaluation, designed to help organizations assess the value and impact of their employee development initiatives. Understanding this genesis is crucial for appreciating its initial design focus and for critically examining its subsequent adaptations and the challenges encountered when applied to broader educational and curriculum evaluation contexts. The socio-educational milieu of the 1950s, with its prevailing behaviorist learning theories, likely influenced the model’s initial linear, outcome-focused structure.

Despite its corporate roots, the model’s influence has been profound and lasting, often described as the “most recognized method of evaluating the effectiveness of training programs” on a global scale. Its widespread adoption speaks to a fundamental appeal in its structured approach.

The Kirkpatrick Model has not remained static. It has undergone significant evolution, most notably through the work of Jim and Wendy Kirkpatrick (Donald Kirkpatrick’s son and daughter-in-law), who introduced the “New World Kirkpatrick Model” (NWKM). The updated version, made public in 2016, was developed to address criticisms of the original model and to enhance its relevance and applicability in contemporary, complex work and learning environments. This evolution underscores the model’s capacity for adaptation in response to identified limitations and the changing landscape of learning and development, a key theme in its ongoing utility.

B. Training and Curriculum Effectiveness

The fundamental purpose of the Kirkpatrick Model is to offer a structured, four-level approach for assessing the effectiveness and impact of training or educational programs. It guides evaluators to look beyond immediate participant reactions to consider learning gains, subsequent behavioral changes, and ultimately, the tangible results or outcomes achieved.

Originally designed for organizational training, the Kirkpatrick framework has been extensively adapted for evaluating a wide array of educational programs and curricula. These applications span diverse settings, including K-12 schools, higher education institutions, and vocational training centers. The model’s adaptability is a notable strength; however, this versatility also necessitates careful consideration of how “Results” (Level 4) are defined and measured in non-corporate educational contexts, where outcomes are often more multifaceted and less easily quantifiable than business ROI.

The enduring popularity of the Kirkpatrick Model in both corporate and educational sectors, despite its origins and acknowledged criticisms, points to a universal requirement for frameworks that systematically attempt to connect learning interventions with demonstrable outcomes. The four-level structure—moving from Reaction to Learning, then to Behavior, and finally to Results—offers an intuitively logical pathway for demonstrating value and ensuring accountability. This structured approach appeals to a common need in both business and public sectors to justify investments and show impact. Educational institutions, much like corporate entities, face increasing demands for accountability and evidence of program effectiveness. The model’s perceived simplicity makes it accessible, even if its higher levels present significant implementation challenges. Consequently, its widespread adoption often reflects a pragmatic choice for a structured evaluation approach, even if this means navigating inherent limitations, particularly when “results” are complex and varied, as is common in educational settings.

II. Deconstructing the Four Levels of Evaluation (Original Model)

The Kirkpatrick Model is characterized by its hierarchical four-level structure. Each level represents a distinct stage in the evaluation process, building upon the previous one to provide a progressively deeper assessment of a program’s impact.

Table 1: The Four Levels of the Kirkpatrick Model (Original)

Level Number	Level Name	Key Question Addressed	Focus of Evaluation	Common Assessment Methods
1	Reaction	How did participants react to the training/curricul?	Satisfaction, engagement, perceived relevance	Surveys (“smile sheets”), feedback forms, informal interviews
2	Learning	What did participants learn?	Acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence	Pre/post-tests, quizzes, skill demonstrations, observations
3	Behavior	Did participants change their behavior on the job?	Application of learning in the workplace or practice	Observations, interviews, performance data, 360-degree feedback
4	Results	What tangible outcomes resulted from the training?	Organizational/institutional impact, ROI, achievement of goals	KPIs, financial data, productivity measures, quality metrics

A. Level 1: Reaction (Gauging Participant Satisfaction and Engagement)

Level 1 evaluation measures participants’ immediate reactions to the training or curriculum. It assesses how they felt about the program, including their satisfaction with the content, instructor, materials, learning environment, and the overall experience. It also gauges their perceived relevance of the training to their jobs or learning needs and their level of engagement during the program. The primary focus is on the learner’s takeaways and their subjective experience.

This level is often referred to as measuring “smile sheet” data. While frequently criticized for its superficiality, Level 1 evaluation is important because positive reactions can foster a more conducive learning environment and enhance learner motivation. Conversely, negative reactions can indicate immediate problems with the training’s design, delivery, or relevance, which can hinder learning and subsequent application. Due to its simplicity and low cost, Level 1 evaluation is the most commonly implemented, with some estimates suggesting that approximately 80% of training events include this level of assessment.

Assessment at Level 1 typically involves post-training surveys, feedback forms, questionnaires, and sometimes informal interviews conducted immediately after the learning event. These tools often ask participants to rate various aspects of the training, such as the venue, presenter, materials, and the overall perceived value of the program. Practical examples in curriculum evaluation include assessing student reactions to a new teaching methodology, the relevance of course materials, or the quality of the learning environment. Typical questions might be, “Was the presentation engaging?” or “Did you feel the training was worth your time?”.

The common critique that Level 1 data (participant satisfaction) exhibits a low correlation with actual learning (Level 2) or subsequent behavior change (Level 3) points to a significant challenge in evaluation practice: easily measurable metrics are not always the most meaningful or predictive of deeper impact. This limitation was a key driver for the evolution of the model. The New World Kirkpatrick Model attempts to make Level 1 data more robust and indicative of potential higher-level outcomes by expanding its focus beyond mere satisfaction to include measures of ‘engagement’ and ‘relevance’. The rationale is that if learners are not actively engaged or do not perceive the content as relevant to their needs, the likelihood of meaningful learning and application diminishes significantly. Thus, these additions aim to increase the predictive validity of Level 1 assessments.

B. Level 2: Learning (Measuring Knowledge, Skills, and Attitude Acquisition)

Level 2 evaluation moves beyond participants’ feelings to assess the extent to which they have actually acquired the intended knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment as a result of the training or curriculum. The primary objective here is to determine if the specific learning objectives of the curriculum were met. This level provides direct evidence of learning, which is considered a necessary precursor for any subsequent behavior change or impact on results.

A variety of assessment methods and tools are employed at Level 2. Pre- and post-tests are commonly used to measure the change in knowledge or skills before and after the intervention. Other methods include formal exams, quizzes, interviews, direct observations of skill demonstrations, role-playing exercises, case studies, and self-assessments. It is crucial to establish a clear and consistent scoring process to ensure the reliability of these assessments.

In curriculum evaluation, practical examples of Level 2 assessment include administering a content knowledge test before and after a science unit in a K-12 classroom, observing a vocational student perform a specific technical skill (e.g., welding, coding) after a training module, or using detailed rubrics to assess student projects, essays, or presentations in a higher education course to gauge their understanding and application of concepts.

C. Level 3: Behavior (Assessing Transfer of Learning and On-the-Job Application)

Level 3 evaluation focuses on the critical question of whether participants apply what they learned during the training or curriculum when they return to their job or relevant environment. This level assesses the transfer of learning into actual behavior and practice. It is often considered one of the most crucial steps in the evaluation model because learning that is not applied has limited practical value. A lack of behavior change may not solely indicate ineffective training; it can also point to issues within the work environment, such as lack of opportunity, inadequate support systems, or a culture that doesn’t encourage the new behaviors.

Assessment methods for Level 3 typically include on-the-job observations, interviews with participants and their supervisors or peers, analysis of performance data, 360-degree feedback mechanisms, and self-report surveys administered some time after the training, often 3 to 6 months later to allow time for behavior change to manifest.

Measuring behavioral change is inherently challenging because behavior is complex and influenced by a multitude of factors beyond the training itself. These factors include individual motivation, the workplace climate (such as support from supervisors and peers), the opportunity to apply the learned skills, and the presence of reward and reinforcement systems. Kirkpatrick himself identified four essential conditions for change: the individual must have the desire to change, know what to do and how to do it, work in the right climate, and be rewarded for changing.

Practical examples of Level 3 evaluation in a curriculum context include observing whether teachers implement new pedagogical strategies (e.g., inquiry-based learning, differentiated instruction) in their classrooms after participating in a professional development program, or assessing if students effectively use newly taught problem-solving skills in subsequent complex assignments or real-world projects. For vocational students, it might involve assessing the correct application of new safety procedures in a workshop setting post-training.

D. Level 4: Results (Determining Tangible Outcomes and Organizational Impact)

Level 4 evaluation aims to measure the degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training program and the subsequent reinforcement of behavior, focusing on the overall impact on the business, organization, or institution. This level often involves assessing the Return on Investment (ROI) or, in the New World Kirkpatrick Model, the Return on Expectations (ROE). This is often considered the ultimate level of evaluation as it attempts to link the training or curriculum directly to the overarching goals of the organization or institution.

Assessment methods at Level 4 involve tracking Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). In a corporate context, these might include reduced costs, improved quality, increased efficiency, higher productivity, better employee retention, increased sales, or improved morale. Pre- and post-training measurement of these metrics is often necessary to establish a baseline and determine the extent of change.

The complexities in attributing results solely to the training or curriculum are significant. Isolating the impact of a specific educational intervention from a myriad of other influencing organizational or environmental factors is a major challenge. This requires careful evaluation design, robust data collection, and often long-term measurement. The use of control groups can be beneficial for comparison but is frequently impractical in real-world settings.

In the context of curriculum evaluation, Level 4 results can be translated into metrics such as improved graduation rates, higher standardized test scores for a school or district, increased student enrollment in specific programs, enhanced employability of graduates, or greater alumni success and satisfaction.

The profound difficulty in robustly demonstrating Level 4 impact and attributing it definitively to a specific training or educational program was a significant catalyst for the development of the New World Kirkpatrick Model. The original model provided limited guidance on how to bridge the gap between individual behavior change (Level 3) and broader organizational or institutional results (Level 4). The NWKM addresses this by introducing concepts like “leading indicators” and the “chain of evidence.” Leading indicators are short-term, observable measures suggesting that critical behaviors (instilled by the training) are being performed and are on track to positively influence the desired long-term results. This provides more immediate feedback and a way to monitor progress towards ultimate goals. The “chain of evidence” involves systematically collecting and presenting data from all four levels to construct a compelling narrative of the program’s contribution to outcomes, rather than seeking an often-elusive direct causal proof of ROI. This evolution reflects a pragmatic shift, acknowledging that in complex systems, a well-supported narrative of influence and plausible contribution can be more practical and persuasive than a potentially futile search for perfect, isolated causal attribution. This makes the demonstration of value at Level 4 more achievable.

III. Strengths and Practical Benefits of the Kirkpatrick Model

The Kirkpatrick Model, in both its original and evolved forms, offers several practical benefits that have contributed to its widespread and enduring use in evaluating training and educational programs.

• A. Structured and Systematic Approach: A primary strength is its provision of a clear, logical, and sequential four-level framework (Reaction, Learning, Behavior, Results). This structure breaks down the complex task of evaluation into more manageable steps, making the process appear less daunting and more accessible, particularly for practitioners who may not be specialist evaluators. The systematic nature of the model facilitates a methodical examination of a program’s impact, from initial participant perceptions to ultimate outcomes. This clarity is appealing and aids in standardizing evaluation efforts across different programs or departments.

• B. Versatility Across Contexts: The model demonstrates considerable versatility. It can be applied to evaluate a wide range of learning interventions, including traditional classroom-based instruction, digital learning programs, formal training sessions, and even aspects of informal learning. Its adaptability has allowed for its use in diverse settings such as corporate businesses, government agencies, military training, and various levels of educational institutions. This broad applicability has been a key factor in its widespread adoption and sustained relevance over several decades.
• C. Facilitating Continuous Improvement: The Kirkpatrick Model inherently supports continuous improvement by encouraging the collection of feedback at each of its four levels. The data gathered can be used formatively to refine and enhance current training programs and curricula, as well as to inform the design of future initiatives. For example, feedback from Level 1 (Reaction) can lead to adjustments in teaching style or materials, while Level 2 (Learning) data can pinpoint areas where content needs clarification or reinforcement. Analyzing data across levels also helps to understand the relationships between different stages of the learning and transfer process, allowing for targeted interventions. This aligns with modern quality assurance principles where evaluation is not merely for summative judgment but serves as a tool for ongoing development.
• D. Insight for Leaders and Stakeholders: The model provides a framework for demonstrating the value and impact of training and educational initiatives to managers, administrators, funding bodies, and other key stakeholders. By attempting to link training to behavioral changes (Level 3) and tangible results (Level 4), it helps to justify training investments and secure ongoing support and resources. In an era of increasing demand for accountability, the Kirkpatrick Model offers a recognized structure for reporting on the outcomes of educational expenditures.

IV. Critical Perspectives: Limitations and Challenges of the Original Model

Despite its popularity and practical benefits, the original Kirkpatrick Model has been subject to numerous criticisms and faces several challenges in its application, particularly when scrutinized through the lens of contemporary evaluation theory and learning science.

• A. The Assumption of Linear Causality: A fundamental criticism is the model’s implied linear and causal progression through the four levels: the assumption that positive reactions (Level 1) lead to learning (Level 2), which in turn leads to behavior change (Level 3), ultimately resulting in desired outcomes (Level 4). Evaluation theorists and researchers have pointed out that this relationship is often not so direct or guaranteed. For instance, participants might enjoy a training session (positive Level 1) but learn very little (low Level 2), or they might learn new skills (positive Level 2) but fail to apply them on the job due to external constraints (no Level 3 change). This oversimplification of the complex interplay between learning, behavior, and results can lead to flawed interpretations of evaluation data if a positive outcome at a lower level is incorrectly assumed to ensure success at higher levels.
• B. Resource Intensiveness (Time and Cost): While Level 1 and Level 2 evaluations are relatively easy and inexpensive to conduct, assessing Level 3 (Behavior) and particularly Level 4 (Results) is significantly more resource-intensive, demanding considerable time, budget, and expertise. This practical constraint often leads to evaluations stopping at the lower, more easily measured levels, thereby failing to capture the program’s full impact. This limitation prevents a complete understanding of true program impact and return on investment.
• C. Difficulties in Isolating Training Impact (especially Level 4): Attributing specific organizational or institutional results solely to a particular training program or curriculum intervention is notoriously difficult. Many confounding variables, such as economic conditions, organizational changes, market trends, or other simultaneous initiatives, can influence outcomes. This makes it challenging to definitively “prove” the value of training in purely quantitative or causal terms, which is often an expectation from stakeholders seeking justification for training expenditures.
• D. Potential Overemphasis on Lower Levels or Satisfaction: The relative ease of collecting Level 1 (Reaction) data can lead to an overemphasis on participant satisfaction. However, research has shown that trainee satisfaction often has little to no correlation with actual learning (Level 2) or subsequent behavior change (Level 3). This focus on “smile sheets” can misdirect resources and provide a misleadingly positive sense of training effectiveness if not critically contextualized with higher-level data.
• E. Limitations of Self-Reported Data: Data collection at Levels 1, and sometimes Levels 2 and 3, often relies on self-reported information from participants through surveys or interviews. Such data can be prone to various biases, including social desirability bias or recall bias, which can compromise the validity and reliability of the evaluation findings.
• F. Primarily Post-Training Focus: The original Kirkpatrick Model is largely summative in its application, typically employed after the training program is completed. This makes it less useful for providing formative feedback or making adjustments while the program is still in progress, limiting its utility for timely program improvements.
• G. Neglect of Context and Pre-Training Conditions: A significant criticism of the original model was its insufficient attention to the broader learning context and pre-training conditions, such as learner readiness, motivation, and the organizational environment. These factors, which exist outside the training event itself, profoundly influence learning transfer and overall effectiveness.
• H. Lack of Theoretical Underpinning/Ignoring Learning Science: Some critics argue that the model lacks a robust theoretical foundation in learning science and that its four-level structure does not adequately reflect contemporary understandings of how learning occurs and transfers to performance. For example, the importance of cognitive processes like memory and retrieval practice in instructional design is not explicitly addressed.

The collective weight of these criticisms highlights a fundamental tension in the field of evaluation: the desire for a simple, universally applicable model versus the reality of complex, context-dependent learning and performance. The Kirkpatrick Model’s enduring popularity, despite these well-documented limitations, suggests that practitioners often prioritize its simplicity and structured approach. This preference may arise from the ease of communicating the model’s logic to stakeholders or from constraints on resources that preclude more complex evaluation designs. This situation points to a systemic challenge in evaluation practice concerning the balance between pragmatic feasibility and methodological comprehensiveness. The evolution towards the New World Kirkpatrick Model can be seen as an attempt to bridge this gap by enhancing the model’s robustness while endeavoring to retain its core accessible structure.

V. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM): Addressing the Criticisms

In response to the evolving landscape of learning and development and the various critiques of the original framework, Jim and Wendy Kirkpatrick introduced the New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM). This updated version seeks to honor the foundational four levels while incorporating new elements and perspectives to make the model more actionable, results-focused, and relevant to contemporary organizational and educational challenges. The NWKM aims to shift the focus from merely measuring training to strategically leveraging training to drive behavior change and achieve measurable results that align with organizational goals.

A. Rationale and Development by Jim and Wendy Kirkpatrick

The rationale behind the NWKM is to move beyond a simple post-training assessment to a more holistic and integrated approach to evaluation. It emphasizes that training’s value is realized not just in the learning that occurs, but more importantly, in how that learning is applied on the job and how that application contributes to desired organizational outcomes. The NWKM was developed to provide a more practical roadmap for achieving these higher-level impacts, addressing common pitfalls such as the “transfer problem” (where learning doesn’t translate to behavior) and the difficulty of demonstrating tangible results.

B. Key Revisions and Enhancements

The NWKM introduces several key revisions and enhancements to the original four levels, aiming to increase the model’s utility and address its limitations.

Table 2: Key Enhancements in the New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM)

Evaluation Aspect/Level	Original Model Approach/Limitation	NWKM Enhancement/Addition	Rationale/Impact of Enhancement
Overall Strategy	Often applied bottom-up (Level 1 to 4); focus on post-event measurement	Start with Level 4 (Results) and work backward; emphasis on partnership and continuous measurement.	Ensures strategic alignment of training with organizational goals from the outset; promotes proactive evaluation planning.
Level 4: Results	Difficult to attribute outcomes solely to training; often measured late.	Introduction of Leading Indicators (short-term measures suggesting progress toward desired results).	Provides more immediate feedback on impact; makes Level 4 more actionable and demonstrable.
Level 3: Behavior	Lack of guidance on ensuring transfer; context often ignored.	Definition of Critical Behaviors (key on-the-job actions) and Required Drivers (support systems like coaching, rewards).	Makes behavior change more targeted and supported; addresses the “transfer problem” by focusing on enabling factors.
	Formal training focus.	Formal recognition of On-the-Job Learning and personal responsibility/motivation.	Broadens the scope of evaluation beyond formal training events; acknowledges the importance of informal learning and workplace context.
Level 2: Learning	Primarily focused on knowledge/skill acquisition.	Expanded to include Confidence (belief in ability to apply) and Commitment (intention to apply).	Provides better leading indicators for behavior change; addresses motivational aspects of learning transfer.
Level 1: Reaction	Often limited to satisfaction (“smile sheets”).	Expanded to include Engagement (active involvement) and Relevance (perceived applicability to job).	Makes Level 1 data more meaningful and predictive of higher-level outcomes; emphasizes the importance of learner buy-in.
Overall Evidence	Often presented as discrete level data; implied linear causality.	Emphasis on building a “Chain of Evidence” across all levels (quantitative and qualitative data, stories, testimonies).	Creates a more holistic and persuasive narrative of training’s value and contribution to results; moves away from simplistic linear assumptions.
Cultural Aspect	Less emphasis on organizational culture and support.	Increased focus on Culture, Motivation, and Partnership between L&D, managers, and learners.	Recognizes that training effectiveness is a shared responsibility and highly dependent on the organizational environment.

1. Strategic Starting Point: Beginning with Level 4 Results: A cornerstone of the NWKM is the directive to begin the evaluation planning process by defining the desired Level 4 Results. By first identifying the organizational outcomes that the training or curriculum initiative is intended to support, all subsequent evaluation efforts (and indeed, the design of the intervention itself) can be strategically aligned. This “reverse engineering” approach ensures that training is not an isolated activity but a means to achieve specific, high-level goals. This directly counters the criticism that the original model was often applied as a reactive, bottom-up measurement exercise.

2. Introducing Leading Indicators for Proactive Measurement: To address the difficulty of measuring and attributing long-term Level 4 Results, the NWKM introduces the concept of “leading indicators”. These are defined as short-term observations and measurements that suggest critical behaviors are being performed correctly and consistently, and are on track to create a positive impact on the desired final results. Leading indicators provide more immediate feedback on progress towards Level 4 goals and allow for timely adjustments if the program appears to be off-course. This makes the pursuit of Level 4 outcomes more manageable and actionable.

3. Defining Critical Behaviors and Required Drivers for Level 3: The NWKM places significant emphasis on making Level 3 (Behavior) more operational and effective.

• Critical Behaviors: These are the few (typically 2-3) specific, observable on-the-job actions that, if performed consistently by participants, will have the most significant impact on achieving the desired Level 4 Results. Identifying these behaviors sharpens the focus of both the training and the evaluation.

Required Drivers: These are the processes, systems, and conditions within the work environment that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward the performance of these critical behaviors. Examples include manager coaching, peer support, job aids, recognition programs, and performance management alignment. By identifying and implementing these drivers, organizations can actively support the transfer of learning and increase the likelihood of sustained behavior change. This directly addresses the “transfer problem” often cited as a weakness of training initiatives.

4. Incorporating On-the-Job Learning and Support: Level 3 in the NWKM formally acknowledges that a substantial portion of learning (often cited as up to 70%) occurs informally on the job, rather than solely within formal training events. It also emphasizes the role of personal responsibility and motivation in conjunction with external support systems. This broadens the concept of “training” to encompass a wider ecosystem of learning and performance support, moving beyond the isolated training event.

5. Expanding Level 2 (Confidence, Commitment) and Level 1 (Engagement, Relevance): The NWKM enriches the lower levels to provide more meaningful data.

• Level 2 (Learning) is expanded to explicitly include the measurement of participant Confidence (their belief in their ability to apply what they learned) and Commitment (their intention to use the learning on the job). These psychological factors are seen as crucial leading indicators for behavior change.
• Level 1 (Reaction) is broadened beyond simple satisfaction to include Engagement (the degree to which participants were actively involved in the learning) and Relevance (the degree to which they perceived the training as applicable and valuable to their work). Measuring relevance at Level 1 is considered particularly critical, as a lack of perceived relevance is a major barrier to application. These additions aim to make Level 1 and 2 data more predictive of higher-level outcomes.

6. The “Chain of Evidence”: Building a Compelling Case for Impact: Instead of relying on a potentially flawed assumption of linear causality between the levels, the NWKM advocates for building a “Chain of Evidence”. This involves systematically collecting both quantitative and qualitative data across all four levels. This body of evidence, when presented cohesively, creates a persuasive narrative that demonstrates the value and contribution of the training initiative to organizational results. This approach acknowledges the complexity of proving direct causation and instead focuses on demonstrating a strong, evidence-based linkage.

7. Emphasis on Partnership, Culture, and Motivation: The updated model places a stronger emphasis on the learning environment, the organizational culture, and the role of motivation in driving performance and behavior change. It promotes a partnership between learning professionals, managers, and learners themselves to create a supportive ecosystem for learning transfer and sustained performance. This acknowledges that training effectiveness is not achieved in isolation but is a shared responsibility, highly dependent on the broader organizational context.

C. How the NWKM Improves Utility and Addresses Original Limitations

The NWKM significantly enhances the utility of the Kirkpatrick framework by making it more strategic, actionable, and aligned with the complexities of modern organizations and educational institutions. By advocating a results-first approach, it ensures that training and evaluation efforts are purposeful and directly linked to overarching goals. The introduction of concepts like leading indicators, critical behaviors, and required drivers provides practical tools for not only measuring but also managing the learning transfer and behavior change process, thereby addressing a key weakness of the original model.

The explicit inclusion of on-the-job learning, confidence, commitment, engagement, and relevance makes the lower levels of evaluation more insightful and better predictors of higher-level impact. Furthermore, the “chain of evidence” concept offers a more robust and credible method for demonstrating the value of training, moving away from simplistic causal claims towards a more nuanced, evidence-based narrative of contribution.

The NWKM’s emphasis on “Required Drivers” and “On-the-Job Learning” at Level 3 marks a particularly important paradigm shift. The original model was often criticized for not adequately explaining how behavior change occurs or what factors beyond the training event itself support or hinder this change. By explicitly incorporating systemic supports (Required Drivers) and informal learning contexts (On-the-Job Learning), the NWKM acknowledges that what happens outside the formal training classroom—such as manager coaching, peer collaboration, opportunities to practice, and supportive organizational policies—is critical for the successful transfer and application of learning. This shifts the focus from evaluating training as an isolated event to assessing it as part of a larger performance improvement ecosystem, making the model more holistic and practical for achieving real-world impact.

VI. Applying the Kirkpatrick Model in Diverse Educational Settings

While originating in corporate training, the Kirkpatrick Model’s structured approach has found application in various educational contexts, from K-12 schools to higher education and vocational training. However, its effective use in these settings requires careful adaptation, particularly in defining and measuring outcomes at the higher levels.

A. Considerations for K-12 Curriculum Evaluation

In K-12 education, the Kirkpatrick Model can be adapted to evaluate the effectiveness of new curricula, teaching methodologies, or specific educational programs.

• Level 1 (Reaction): This would involve assessing student engagement with new learning materials, their perception of the relevance of the curriculum to their interests or future, and their overall satisfaction with teaching approaches. Teacher reactions to new curriculum training are also pertinent.
• Level 2 (Learning): This level aligns with measuring students’ acquisition of knowledge and skills as outlined in curriculum learning standards. Assessments could include standardized tests, classroom-based assessments, project evaluations, and performance tasks.
• Level 3 (Behavior): This could involve observing whether students apply learned concepts and skills in subsequent units, in different subject areas (transfer), or in problem-solving activities. For teachers, it would mean observing if they implement new pedagogical strategies consistently and effectively in their classrooms after professional development.
• Level 4 (Results): In a K-12 context, results might be defined as improvements in school-wide standardized test scores, higher student retention and graduation rates, increased college acceptance or readiness indicators, or positive changes in school climate.

B. Application in Higher Education Program Assessment

Higher education institutions utilize the Kirkpatrick Model for evaluating individual courses, entire academic programs, and faculty development initiatives. Praslova (2010) proposed a systematic adaptation of the model to align criteria for educational effectiveness with specific indicators in higher education.

• Level 1 (Reaction): Standard student course evaluations often capture this level, focusing on perceptions of instructor effectiveness, course organization, and material relevance.
• Level 2 (Learning): This is assessed through exams, essays, capstone projects, presentations, and other assignments designed to measure the achievement of specific learning outcomes.
• Level 3 (Behavior): For students, this could mean the application of learned theories and skills in internships, research projects, advanced coursework, or their ability to engage in critical thinking and complex problem-solving. For faculty, it might be the adoption of new teaching methods or technologies.
• Level 4 (Results): Programmatic results in higher education can include graduate employment rates in relevant fields, alumni career success and satisfaction, program reputation and rankings, successful accreditation reviews, or contributions to research and societal well-being.

C. Relevance for Vocational Training and Skills Development

Vocational training is a domain where the Kirkpatrick Model aligns very closely with its original intent in workforce development.

• Level 1 (Reaction): Trainees’ reactions to the practicality of the training methods and the direct relevance of the skills taught to their job tasks.
• Level 2 (Learning): Demonstrated mastery of specific vocational skills, technical knowledge, and safety procedures.
• Level 3 (Behavior): Consistent and correct application of learned skills and safety protocols in the actual workplace or simulated work environments.
• Level 4 (Results): Measurable improvements in job performance, such as increased efficiency, reduced errors, better safety records, attainment of certifications, or positive employer feedback.

D. Translating Kirkpatrick Levels to Meaningful Curriculum Impact Metrics

A key challenge in applying the Kirkpatrick Model to education is the translation of its levels, especially Level 4 (Results), into meaningful and measurable curriculum impact metrics. Unlike the often clear-cut financial ROI sought in corporate training, educational “results” are typically more multifaceted and can include academic achievement, skill development, changes in attitudes or values, long-term learning retention, student well-being, and broader societal contributions.

Educators can leverage frameworks like Bloom’s Taxonomy in conjunction with the Kirkpatrick Model to define learning objectives with greater precision at Level 2 (Learning) and to inform the types of behaviors and cognitive skills to assess at Level 3 (Behavior). For Level 4, educational institutions must carefully define what “value” and “impact” mean in their specific context. This may involve a combination of quantitative data (e.g., test scores, completion rates) and qualitative data (e.g., student portfolios, alumni testimonials, employer feedback).

The application of the Kirkpatrick Model in educational settings necessitates a nuanced interpretation of “Results.” While corporate evaluations might prioritize financial return on investment, educational evaluations must often consider a broader spectrum of outcomes. These can range from individual student growth (academic, personal, social-emotional) to programmatic success (e.g., meeting accreditation standards, improving retention) and longer-term societal benefits (e.g., producing informed citizens, skilled professionals). This requires evaluators to be creative and context-sensitive in identifying relevant leading indicators and defining what constitutes a valuable “result.” The multifaceted nature of educational outcomes makes the direct, quantifiable linkage often sought in business settings more challenging, pushing for a broader definition of impact.

VII. Contextualizing Kirkpatrick: A Brief Comparative Overview

To fully appreciate the nuances of the Kirkpatrick Model, it is helpful to compare it with other prominent evaluation frameworks used in education, such as Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model and Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model.

Table 3: Comparative Overview of Kirkpatrick, Tyler, and CIPP Models

Feature	Kirkpatrick Model (Original/NWKM)	Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model	Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model
Primary Focus	Measuring training/program effectiveness across four levels: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, Results; demonstrating impact.	Determining the extent to which pre-defined educational objectives are achieved.	Providing information for decision-making and program improvement through a systematic examination of Context, Input, Process, and Product.
Theoretical Basis/Approach	Originally more reductionist/behaviorist; NWKM incorporates more systemic and results-oriented thinking.	Rational, linear, objectives-driven; often seen as behavioristic.	Systems theory, complexity theory; decision-oriented, improvement-focused; accommodates both formative and summative evaluation.
Key Stages/Components	Level 1: Reaction<br>Level 2: Learning<br>Level 3: Behavior<br>Level 4: Results	1. State objectives<br>2. Select learning experiences<br>3. Organize learning experiences<br>4. Evaluate achievement of objectives	Context Evaluation (goals, needs)<br>Input Evaluation (resources, strategies)<br>Process Evaluation (implementation monitoring)<br>Product Evaluation (outcomes, impact)
Strengths in Curriculum Context	Provides a clear hierarchy for assessing impact; NWKM offers tools for linking training to results and supporting transfer.	Simple, logical structure; clear focus on learning outcomes; widely understood.	Comprehensive; systematic; flexible; strong for formative evaluation and continuous improvement; considers context thoroughly.33
Limitations in Curriculum Context	Original model’s linearity and causality assumptions; difficulty in measuring/attributing Level 4; resource-intensive for higher levels.	Can be rigid; may neglect unintended outcomes or process; developing behavioral objectives can be challenging.	Can be complex and resource-intensive; potential for evaluator bias if not managed; clear distinction between components can sometimes be blurred.
Starting Point of Evaluation	Original: Level 1 (Reaction)<br>NWKM: Level 4 (Results)	Defining Objectives	Context Evaluation (Needs Assessment)
Emphasis on Improvement vs. Proof	Original: More summative/proving<br>NWKM: Stronger emphasis on improvement and demonstrating value through chain of evidence.	Primarily summative (proving objectives met).	Strong emphasis on formative evaluation for improvement, but also serves summative accountability.

A. Kirkpatrick vs. Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model

Ralph Tyler’s model (circa 1949) is fundamentally objectives-centered, focusing on evaluating the extent to which predetermined instructional objectives are achieved by students. It follows a linear, four-step process: defining objectives, selecting learning experiences, organizing those experiences, and finally, evaluating student performance against the initial objectives. The evaluation process in Tyler’s model is thus primarily concerned with the congruence between intended and actual learning outcomes.

The Kirkpatrick Model, while also hierarchical and often applied linearly in its original form, differs in its starting point and scope. The original Kirkpatrick model typically started with Level 1 (Reaction), assessing the audience’s immediate perceptions. While Level 2 (Learning) in Kirkpatrick’s framework aligns with Tyler’s focus on objective achievement, Kirkpatrick extends the evaluation to Level 3 (Behavior – the application of learning) and Level 4 (Results – the broader impact). The New World Kirkpatrick Model further distinguishes itself by advocating a “results-first” or backward-design approach, starting the planning process with the desired Level 4 outcomes and then determining the necessary behaviors, learning, and reactions to achieve them. This contrasts with Tyler’s primary focus on pre-set instructional objectives as the starting point. Understanding these distinctions helps evaluators select the model that best aligns with their evaluation questions and philosophical stance—whether it’s a tight focus on objective attainment (Tyler) or a broader assessment of impact from reaction through to results (Kirkpatrick).

B. Kirkpatrick vs. Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model

Stufflebeam’s CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product) Model is a decision-focused and improvement-oriented framework. It aims to systematically provide information for program management and operation, viewing the program as an open system with dynamic interactions, often grounded in complexity theory. CIPP is designed for both formative evaluation (guiding ongoing development) and summative evaluation (assessing overall merit and worth).

The original Kirkpatrick Model was more outcome-focused and often described as having a reductionist theoretical basis, although the NWKM incorporates more systemic thinking. Traditionally, Kirkpatrick evaluations were conducted at the end of a program primarily to “prove” effectiveness, whereas the CIPP model is explicitly designed to provide useful information to decision-makers throughout all phases of program development, including the initial planning stages.

The New World Kirkpatrick Model’s shift towards considering context more explicitly (e.g., through “required drivers” for behavior change) and its results-first planning approach brings it conceptually closer to some aspects of the CIPP model. CIPP inherently emphasizes Context and Input (planning, resources, needs assessment) from the outset, and its Product evaluation aligns with Kirkpatrick’s Results focus. The NWKM’s introduction of “Required Drivers” and “On-the-Job Learning” at Level 3 reflects an acknowledgment of contextual and input-like factors that are crucial for behavior change. This evolution in the Kirkpatrick framework suggests a convergence in evaluation thinking towards more holistic, context-sensitive, and results-oriented models, mirroring the comprehensive, systems-thinking approach inherent in frameworks like CIPP. This indicates a broader trend in the field towards more integrated evaluation models that recognize the complexity of learning and performance.

VIII. Conclusion: The Enduring Value and Future of the Kirkpatrick Model in Curriculum Evaluation

The Kirkpatrick Model, from its inception in the 1950s to its contemporary iteration as the New World Kirkpatrick Model, has maintained a significant presence in the field of training and educational program evaluation. Its enduring value lies in its structured, hierarchical approach that attempts to link learning experiences to tangible outcomes, a pursuit critical for accountability and continuous improvement in any educational endeavor.

A. Synthesizing the Model’s Utility for Modern Educational Challenges

For modern educational challenges, the Kirkpatrick Model, particularly the NWKM, offers a valuable framework for demonstrating the impact and accountability of educational investments. In an era where evidence-based practice is increasingly demanded, the model’s focus on behavior change (Level 3) and results (Level 4) resonates with the need to show that curricula are not only delivering knowledge but are also fostering applicable skills and leading to meaningful, measurable achievements. The NWKM’s enhancements, such as the emphasis on leading indicators and the chain of evidence, provide more practical and nuanced ways to navigate the inherent complexity of measuring long-term educational impact, which is often multifaceted and influenced by numerous contextual variables.

B. The Importance of Strategic and Adapted Implementation

The effectiveness of the Kirkpatrick Model in curriculum evaluation hinges on its strategic and adapted implementation. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Evaluators and curriculum developers must clearly define what constitutes “results” within their specific educational context—be it student academic achievement, skill competency, program completion rates, post-program success, or broader societal impacts. Metrics must be carefully selected, and the model’s application should be tailored to the unique characteristics of the curriculum, the learners, and the institutional goals. A crucial aspect of strategic implementation, particularly emphasized by the NWKM, is that not all four levels need to be exhaustively evaluated for every program. The choice of which levels to focus on should be driven by stakeholder needs, the specific evaluation questions, and the program’s objectives.

The evolution from the original Kirkpatrick Model to the NWKM mirrors a broader and significant shift in organizational and educational philosophy—a move away from viewing training or curriculum delivery as discrete, isolated events toward a more systemic understanding of learning and performance improvement. This implies that effectively using the Kirkpatrick Model for curriculum evaluation today is not merely about applying a four-level measurement tool. Instead, it requires embedding the evaluation process within a culture that values continuous learning, strategic alignment with overarching goals, and shared accountability for outcomes among all stakeholders (educators, learners, administrators, and the wider community). The future relevance and utility of the Kirkpatrick Model will likely depend on its continued adaptability to increasingly complex and interconnected learning ecosystems. Its capacity to provide actionable, evidence-based insights that demonstrate not just return on investment in a narrow financial sense, but broader educational and societal value, will be paramount.

IX. Recommendations for Effective Implementation

To effectively implement the Kirkpatrick Model, particularly the New World Kirkpatrick Model, in curriculum evaluation, evaluators and curriculum developers should consider the following practical guidance:

A. Practical Guidance for Evaluators and Curriculum Developers

1. Begin with Level 4 (Results): Start by defining the desired ultimate impact and outcomes of the curriculum. What does success look like for the students, the institution, and potentially the community? This ensures that the curriculum and its evaluation are strategically aligned with meaningful goals.
2. Identify Critical Behaviors (Level 3): Determine the specific, observable behaviors that learners must demonstrate to achieve the Level 4 results. These are the key actions that the curriculum aims to instill or change.
3. Design for Learning (Level 2): Develop learning experiences and content that effectively build the necessary knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment required for learners to perform the critical behaviors.
4. Ensure Positive Reaction (Level 1): Create a learning environment and deliver the curriculum in a way that is engaging, relevant, and perceived favorably by learners, as this can influence their motivation and openness to learning.
5. Implement Required Drivers: Actively plan for and implement “required drivers”—such as manager/teacher support, peer reinforcement, necessary resources, and supportive policies—to encourage and sustain the desired behavioral changes (Level 3) in the learners’ actual environment.
6. Employ Mixed Methods: Utilize a combination of quantitative (e.g., test scores, performance metrics) and qualitative (e.g., interviews, observations, case studies) data collection methods across all levels to gain a comprehensive understanding.
7. Involve Stakeholders: Engage relevant stakeholders (students, teachers, administrators, parents, community members, employers) throughout the evaluation process to ensure relevance, buy-in, and utilization of findings.

B. Leveraging the NWKM for Enhanced Evaluation Outcomes

1. Focus on the “Chain of Evidence”: Systematically collect and connect data from all four levels to build a compelling narrative that demonstrates the curriculum’s journey from initial reactions to tangible results. This holistic story is often more persuasive than isolated metrics.
2. Utilize Leading Indicators: Identify and track leading indicators at Level 4 to monitor progress towards long-term goals and make formative adjustments to the curriculum or its implementation as needed. This proactive approach can improve the likelihood of achieving desired ultimate outcomes.
3. Foster Partnership and Culture: Emphasize the collaborative roles of curriculum developers, instructors, learners, and institutional leaders in creating a supportive culture for learning, behavior change, and the achievement of results. Recognize that evaluation is not solely the responsibility of the evaluator but a shared endeavor aimed at continuous improvement.

By strategically applying these recommendations, drawing on the strengths of the New World Kirkpatrick Model, evaluators and curriculum developers can move beyond superficial assessments to gain deeper insights into the effectiveness of educational programs and drive meaningful improvements. The model’s adaptability, when thoughtfully applied, allows it to serve as a robust tool for enhancing educational quality and demonstrating the value of curriculum initiatives.

References

1. Kirkpatrick’s Model – Educational Technology – CUNY, accessed May 9, 2025, https://commons.hostos.cuny.edu/edtech/faculty/teaching-with-technology/course-evaluation/kirkpatricks-model/
2. trainingindustry.com, accessed May 9, 2025, https://trainingindustry.com/wiki/measurement-and-analytics/the-kirkpatrick-model/#:~:text=Donald%20Kirkpatrick%20developed%20the%20Kirkpatrick,the%20effectiveness%20of%20training%20programs.
3. The Kirkpatrick Model: 4 Levels Of Training Evaluation, accessed May 9, 2025, https://epiloguesystems.com/blog/the-kirkpatrick-model/
4. The Kirkpatrick Model – Training Industry, accessed May 9, 2025, https://trainingindustry.com/wiki/measurement-and-analytics/the-kirkpatrick-model/
5. What is the Kirkpatrick Model? Learn the 4 Levels of Evaluation – Ardent Learning, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.ardentlearning.com/blog/what-is-the-kirkpatrick-model
6. The Kirkpatrick Model of Training Evaluation: Guide – Valamis, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.valamis.com/hub/kirkpatrick-model
7. The Kirkpatrick Training Model: New Strategies for a New Age, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.learningeverest.com/the-kirkpatrick-training-model-new-strategies-for-a-new-age/
8. Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation Resumo gratuito …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.getabstract.com/pt/resumo/kirkpatricks-four-levels-of-training-evaluation/40798
9. www.kirkpatrickpartners.com, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Introduction-to-The-New-World-Kirkpatrick%C2%AE-Model.pdf
10. Crash Course in the Updated Kirkpatrick Model, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/blog/crash-course-in-the-updated-kirkpatrick-model/
11. 3 Major Differences Between The Kirkpatrick’s Original and New …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://victorlozadarivera.com/original-kirkpatrick-and-new-world-kirkpatrick-model/
12. The New World Kirkpatrick Model, accessed May 9, 2025, https://docs.mastertoolrepair.com/index.jsp/scholarship/114004/TheNewWorldKirkpatrickModel.pdf
13. Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model: Examples & Effectiveness, accessed May 9, 2025, https://cloudassess.com/blog/kirkpatrick-evaluation-model/
14. How to Master Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation | Kodosurvey, accessed May 9, 2025, https://kodosurvey.com/blog/how-master-kirkpatrick-model-training-evaluation
15. Kirkpatrick Partners, LLC. What is The Kirkpatrick Model? / Kirkpatrick, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/the-kirkpatrick-model/
16. The Kirkpatrick Model: Essential Insights for Effective Training, accessed May 9, 2025, https://lemonlearning.com/blog/kirkpatrick-model
17. accessed December 31, 1969, https://trainingindustry.com/articles/measurement-and-evaluation/is-the-kirkpatrick-model-still-relevant-for-training-evaluation/
18. The Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model [+ Benefits & FAQs], accessed May 9, 2025, https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/kirkpatrick-training-evaluation-model/
19. Kirkpatrick Model: Four Levels of Learning Evaluation – Educational …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://educationaltechnology.net/kirkpatrick-model-four-levels-learning-evaluation/
20. Analyzing the Use of the Kirkpatrick Model in Higher Education …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=stemresources
21. EJ891515 – Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s Four Level Model of Training Criteria to Assessment of Learning Outcomes and Program Evaluation in Higher Education, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 2010-Aug – ERIC, accessed May 9, 2025, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ891515
22. Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model of Training Criteria to Evaluate Training Programmes for Head Teachers – MDPI, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/3/116
23. Kirkpatrick’s Training Model Rationalizes Teaching Efforts – Seismic, accessed May 9, 2025, https://seismic.com/enablement-explainers/the-kirkpatrick-model/
24. Employing Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Framework to Determine the …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3070232/
25. Curriculum Evaluation Models: Types, Pro & Cons • Teachers Institute, accessed May 9, 2025, https://teachers.institute/education-nature-purposes/curriculum-evaluation-models-overview/
26. 5 Powerful Models for Effective Curriculum Evaluation – Distance …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://distancelearning.institute/curriculum-development/effective-curriculum-evaluation-models/
27. Curriculum Evaluation – Kenneth White UR Graduate Program, accessed May 9, 2025, https://kennethwhitesite.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/curriculum-evaluation/
28. Kirkpatrick Model: 4 Levels of Training Evaluation to Know – Yoodli, accessed May 9, 2025, https://yoodli.ai/blog/kirkpatrick-model
29. How to Use the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model – Lucidchart, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.lucidchart.com/blog/how-to-use-the-kirkpatrick-evaluation-model
30. www.ardentlearning.com, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.ardentlearning.com/blog/what-is-the-kirkpatrick-model#:~:text=Level%201%3A%20Reaction,students%20to%20rate%20their%20experience.
31. How Do I Use The Kirkpatrick Model In Evaluation? — Eval Academy, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.evalacademy.com/articles/how-do-i-use-the-kirkpatrick-model-in-evaluation
32. The Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model: A Guide for L&D Pros – Watershed LRS, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.watershedlrs.com/blog/learning-evaluation/kirkpatrick-training-evaluation-model/
33. Evaluating Training Effectiveness: A Comprehensive Look with Top Models (Part 1), accessed May 9, 2025, https://clevercontrol.com/ga/6-best-training-evaluation-models-pt-1/
34. How to Use Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels of Evaluation – The L&D Academy, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.thelndacademy.com/post/how-to-use-the-kirkpatrick-4-levels-of-evaluation
35. The Compact Guide to Kirkpatrick model (for Busy People) | Kodosurvey, accessed May 9, 2025, https://kodosurvey.com/blog/compact-guide-kirkpatrick-model-busy-people
36. Using the Kirkpatrick Model to Evaluate Training – Lucidea, accessed May 9, 2025, https://lucidea.com/blog/using-the-kirkpatrick-model-to-evaluate-training/
37. Kirkpatrick evaluation: kill it – happy sheet nonsense, well past its sell-by-date, accessed May 9, 2025, http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2017/10/kirkpatrick-evaluation-kill-it-happy.html
38. Kirkpatrick Model: A Step-by-Step Approach to Maximize ROI, accessed May 9, 2025, https://learnexperts.ai/blog/maximizing-roi-with-kirkpatrick-model-a-step-by-step-approach/
39. Kirkpatrick Model Good or Bad? The Epic Mega Battle! » Work-Learning Research, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.worklearning.com/2015/03/25/kirkpatrick-model-good-or-bad-the-epic-mega-battle/
40. www.ardentlearning.com, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.ardentlearning.com/blog/what-is-the-kirkpatrick-model#:~:text=Level%202%3A%20Learning&text=Learning%20can%20be%20evaluated%20through,exams%20or%20interview%2Dstyle%20evaluations.
41. (PDF) Kirkpatrick Model and Training Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis 1982 To 2021, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369972325_Kirkpatrick_Model_and_Training_Effectiveness_A_Meta-Analysis_1982_To_2021
42. Kirkpatrick Level 3 – Free Evaluation Examples – Kodo survey, accessed May 9, 2025, https://kodosurvey.com/blog/kirkpatrick-level-3-free-evaluation-examples
43. accessed December 31, 1969, https.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5856911/
44. Measuring training change and Kirkpatrick Level 3 Behaviour, accessed May 9, 2025, https://tribalhabits.com/measuring-kirkpatrick-level-3-behaviour/
45. Kirkpatrick Model: Four Levels of Training Evaluation – Whatfix, accessed May 9, 2025, https://whatfix.com/blog/kirkpatrick-model/
46. Comparing Kirkpatrick’s original and new model with CIPP …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5856911/
47. www.watershedlrs.com, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.watershedlrs.com/blog/learning-evaluation/kirkpatrick-training-evaluation-model/#:~:text=Another%20criticism%20of%20Kirkpatrick%20is,that%20needs%20to%20be%20measured.
48. accessed December 31, 1969, https://www.knowledgehut.com/tutorials/project-management/kirkpatrick-model
49. Expanding scope of Kirkpatrick model from training effectiveness review to evidence-informed prioritization management for cricothyroidotomy simulation, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10407669/
50. The CIPP Model of Evaluation | Lucidea, accessed May 9, 2025, https://lucidea.com/blog/the-cipp-model-of-evaluation/
51. accessed December 31, 1969, https://www.td.org/atd-blog/kirkpatrick-model-is-it-still-valid
52. Comparing Curriculum Development Models: Which One Fits Your Needs? – Hurix Digital, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.hurix.com/blogs/comparing-curriculum-development-models-which-one-fits-your-needs/