Recent research indicates that most companies conduct level 1 evaluations, and many conduct level 2 evaluations. However, organizations infrequently conduct evaluations at levels 3 and 4. Describe several possible reasons why companies conduct few evaluations at the higher levels, and explain how you would attempt to increase the use of level 3 and 4 evaluations.
First, it is helpful to define terms, so we both understand what you mean by levelled evaluations from 1 to level 4. From the following resource: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/kirkpatrick.html
This resource presents Don Clark discussing Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation in education, which are:
Step 1: Reaction - How well did the learners like the learning process?
Step 2: Learning - What did they learn? (the extent to which the learners gain knowledge and skills)
Step 3: Behavior - (What changes in job performance resulted from the learning process? (capability to perform the newly learned skills while on the job)
Step 4: Results - What are the tangible results of the learning process in terms of reduced cost, improved quality, increased production, efficiency, etc.?
Clark discusses that he considers Kirkpatrick's model is "upside down," in that it relegates the two most important aspects, levels three and four, to the end of the process. His article explains that a much more functional, effective, and useful model results from flipping Kirkpatrick's model thusly:
The model is upside down as it places the two most important items last—results, and behavior, which basically imprints the importance ...
This solution provides two web-based resources that suggest why companies seldom perform evaluations of training/education programs at levels three and four of Kirkpatrick's model. One resource suggests a reordering of the levels to provide a more effective planning and evaluative tool than the original model.