Learning measurement & evaluation
Building a learning measurement strategy.
I created a strategy for Kirkpatrick Levels 1 to 3: reaction, learning, and behavior. I also conducted a mixed-method study of workplace application after 90 days. The team revised and adopted its evaluation strategies across Levels 1 to 4.
Read this case
Start with the brief or explore the method and artifacts.
Executive brief
How could we understand what people applied after training?
What the study surfacedLearners and leaders described gaps in post-training support, limited peer capacity, curriculum that did not always fit field work, and difficulty finding current information.
- My contribution
- I created the Levels 1–3 strategy and conducted a mixed-method study after 90 days, using surveys, learner and leader interviews, and stratified sampling.
- Strategy adoption
- The team implemented a buddy system and improved monitoring. Instructional designers designed job aids and training for rollout. The wider evaluation approach was revised and adopted across Levels 1–4, as described in my project account.
- Outcome and evidence
- Synthetic examples illustrate the measurement method. An improvement in business performance or ROI is not verified here.
Follow the evidence
How the evidence fits.
Select a step to inspect its source and what it supports.
Strategy scope
I created the Levels 1–3 strategy and contributed to the wider Levels 1–4 revision.
- Source basis
- My strategy work and the team’s revised evaluation approach.
- What to inspect
- See how I connected reaction and learning with workplace application.
01 / The question
How could we understand what people applied after training?
In my Allstate learning measurement role, I created a strategy covering learner reaction, learning, and behavior transfer. The team revised and adopted the evaluation strategies across Levels 1–4. This workplace study was separate from my qualitative doctoral dissertation. For Level 3, I conducted a mixed-methods study after 90 days to understand workplace behaviors and how learners and leaders understood the learning after training.
Leadership & practice
I connected measurement strategy with workplace research.
I created the Levels 1–3 measurement strategy and conducted the Level 3 study. I used stratified sampling, surveys, and interviews with learners and leaders to investigate behavior and understanding after training. I brought the findings into recommendations for reinforcement, leader support, peer learning, and monitoring. The team revised and adopted the wider Levels 1–4 strategy. The displayed materials are later reconstructions with synthetic examples.
Create the strategy
I designed the Levels 1–3 measurement approach and connected the evaluation questions to workplace application.
Conduct the follow-up study
I used surveys and interviews with learners and leaders after 90 days, with stratified sampling.
Revise the wider approach
The team updated and adopted its strategies across Levels 1 to 4.
Study themes
What got in the way of application.
Leader support
Learners described gaps in the guidance and support they needed from managers after training.
Peer capacity
Experienced colleagues had limited capacity for the buddy system, and other peers were helping newer colleagues.
Fit with field work
Managers and learners questioned how closely parts of the curriculum matched what people faced in the field.
Knowledge access
The knowledge base was described as outdated and disjointed, making useful information difficult to find.
These themes reflect my account of the study. The original readout is not displayed here.
02 / The approach
How I approached the work.
- 01
Frame the evaluation
I created the strategy for reaction, learning, and behavior transfer, with attention to what people applied at work.
- 02
Plan the follow-up
The Level 3 study looked at behavior and understanding after 90 days, using stratified sampling.
- 03
Hear both perspectives
Surveys and interviews with learners and leaders gave the study quantitative and qualitative evidence.
- 04
Review the findings
I brought together the findings on leader support, peer capacity, curriculum fit, and access to current information.
Watch the process
How a finding could guide the next step.
This synthetic handoff example shows the behavior I would look for and the evidence I would collect. The response depends on what the evidence supports.
A closer look · 32 seconds
How I would measure learning transfer
A handoff example that connects a behavior to evidence and a leadership decision.
Loading the motion demo…
Make the handoff clear. Use the job aid to name an owner, the next step, and a due date.
I created this example to explain my measurement approach. The handoff and findings are synthetic, and the decision is conditional.
Read the complete story
- 01 / Define the behavior
Make the handoff clear.
Use the job aid to name an owner, the next step, and a due date.
- 02 / Plan the evidence
Look at the work over time.
Compare work samples before and after learning. Observe the work and ask follow-up questions.
- 03 / Understand the gap
Find out why the gap remains.
In this synthetic example, the owner is missing. Does the workflow make responsibility clear?
- 04 / Choose the next step
Use the findings to choose a response.
If responsibility is unclear, work with the process owner to clarify it. Review another handoff to see what happens.
This is a practice example. Measured improvement, adoption, and return on investment have not been established.
03 / Selected work
Look at the work more closely.
Each example includes a caption explaining what it shows and how I prepared it. Select a visual to enlarge it.
Measurement architecture
What each measure can tell us
Each level answers a different question. To understand transfer, I would look for people using the learning in their work. A positive course rating gives us information about the learning experience.
An illustration of the questions I use to connect learning and workplace application.Worked example
A plan for checking learning transfer
The behavior in this example is using a job aid during a handoff. The plan connects that behavior to the evidence we would collect and the decision it could support.
A handoff scenario that shows how I would plan the evidence.Interface concept
A dashboard for the next decision
The concept puts the behavior and available evidence first. Questions about barriers help the leader work out what needs attention.
A dashboard concept for exploring a finding and the next decision.From findings to action
What I recommended, and what followed.
I recommended support that continued after the course: accessible job aids, focused refreshers, leader reinforcement, peer support, and recognition. The purpose was to help people keep using the skills as time passed.
Make support available in the work.
For gaps in curriculum fit and knowledge access, I recommended job aids and short refresher learning, with particular attention to support around 90–120 days. Instructional designers designed job aids and training for rollout; this account does not establish that every resource was launched.
Give reinforcement an owner.
To address gaps in leader and peer support, I recommended manager one-on-ones, mentoring, and recognition for applying skills. The buddy system was implemented, and leaders had opportunities to recognize employees through organizational rewards and public acknowledgment.
Keep the follow-up visible.
I recommended stronger monitoring so the team could track the support and application measures. Dashboard and monitoring changes were implemented immediately. A sustained improvement in behavior transfer or business results is not quantified here.
04 / What the findings support
What the strategy changed.
Strategy adoption
A revised evaluation approach
The team revised and adopted the strategies across Levels 1 to 4. My work connected reaction and learning measures with a closer look at workplace application.
Workplace research
Hear from learners and leaders
I combined surveys and interviews after 90 days, using stratified sampling. The findings identified gaps in support, peer capacity, curriculum fit, and knowledge access.
Have a question about this work?
Email Dennis