Learning Objectives and Evaluation in Change
Learning objectives in change are statements of what people will know, be able to do or value after training, written so that the result can be observed and checked. Learning objectives cover knowledge, skills and attitudes. Evaluation then tests whether they were met, often with Donald Kirkpatrick's four levels: reaction, learning, behavior and results.
Quick facts
- Type
- Practice (learning design and evaluation)
- Origin
- Bloom et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956); Robert F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives (1962); Donald L. Kirkpatrick, four levels (1959)
- Used when
- Planning training for a change and checking that it worked
- Related models
- Gagné's nine events · Know–Feel–Do · Adoption metrics
- Exam relevance
- APMG CM Practitioner, People & Change (PC0211); not in the Foundation syllabus
What are knowledge, skills and attitude objectives?
Learning objectives are usually grouped into three domains, which go back to Benjamin Bloom's team and its taxonomy of educational objectives (cognitive, psychomotor and affective):
- Knowledge: what people need to know or understand, such as the new approval limits.
- Skills: what they need to be able to do, such as creating a route plan in the new system.
- Attitudes: what they need to value or be willing to do, such as reporting a data error rather than working around it.
Most change training over-weights knowledge. Skills need practice, and attitudes are shaped more by leaders, peers and consequences than by a course, so attitude objectives are usually checked through behavior.
Learning objectives are therefore stronger when each change role has the right mix of the three, not a list of topics to cover.
What makes a good learning objective?
Robert Mager argued that a useful objective describes what the learner will do, not what the trainer will cover. His approach has three parts: the performance, the conditions under which it is done and the criterion for success.
Good objectives are:
- Observable: they use action verbs such as list, demonstrate or complete, not "understand" or "be aware of".
- Measurable: someone can check whether they were met.
- Relevant: they match what the role must do differently after the change.
- Achievable: they can be reached within the time and support available.
At Larchfield Logistics, "understand the new dispatch system" becomes: "using the new system and a sample order, create a route plan for ten deliveries in under 15 minutes, with no errors". The revised Bloom's taxonomy helps pitch the verb at the right level, from remembering to creating (Krathwohl, 2002).
A good learning objective is therefore one that a trainer, a learner and a line manager would all assess the same way.
How do you evaluate learning in change?
Donald Kirkpatrick's four levels are a common model for evaluating training:
| Level | Question | Typical evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Reaction | Did participants find it relevant and useful? | Feedback forms, short polls |
| 2. Learning | Did they gain the knowledge, skills or attitudes? | Tests, observed tasks, confidence ratings |
| 3. Behavior | Do they apply it on the job? | Observation, system data, manager check-ins |
| 4. Results | Did the organization get the intended outcomes? | Error rates, cycle times, service measures |
Plan the evaluation when writing the objectives, and agree a baseline before training starts. Jack Phillips later added return on investment as a fifth level.
Evaluating learning is therefore a chain from the session to the business result, with each level asking a different question.
What are common mistakes with learning objectives and evaluation?
Kirkpatrick's model is simple and widely understood, which makes it a useful shared language. Its weak point is the assumption that the levels follow from each other: a meta-analysis by Alliger and colleagues (1997) found that reaction measures relate only weakly to learning and to on-the-job behavior.
Common mistakes:
- Stopping at level 1: satisfied participants are not proof of learning.
- Writing objectives about content covered rather than learner performance.
- Measuring behavior too soon, before people have had a chance to apply the skill.
- Blaming training when behavior does not change, when the cause is a system, process or manager issue.
Learning objectives and evaluation are therefore most useful when they connect training to how the change is adopted at work.
Learning evaluation vs. adoption metrics: what is the difference?
| Learning evaluation | Adoption metrics | |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Did people learn what they need, and do they apply it? | Is the change being used and delivering its benefits? |
| Scope | Training and other learning activities | The whole change, across all interventions |
| Typical measures | Assessments, observed tasks, on-the-job behavior | Usage, proficiency, readiness and benefit indicators |
| Overlap | Kirkpatrick levels 3 and 4 | Adoption and benefits measures |
Learning evaluation tells you whether training did its part; adoption metrics tell you whether the change as a whole is taking hold, and the two should share data at the behavior and results levels.
Exam focus
Learning objectives and their evaluation are assessed at Practitioner level (PC0211), by application to a case study: expect to judge whether objectives for a scenario are observable and measurable, whether they cover knowledge, skills and attitudes, and how learning should be evaluated. A common weakness evaluates only participants' reactions.
FAQ
What is an example of a good learning objective?
"Using the new system and a sample order, create a route plan for ten deliveries in under 15 minutes with no errors." It states what the learner will do, the conditions and the standard. "Understand the new system" is weaker, because no one can observe understanding directly.
What are Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation?
The four levels are reaction (did participants value the training), learning (did they gain knowledge, skills or attitudes), behavior (do they apply it on the job) and results (did the organization get the intended outcomes). Each level needs its own evidence and timing.
Why is "understand" a weak verb for a learning objective?
Understanding happens inside the learner's head, so it cannot be observed or measured directly. Objectives work better with verbs that describe visible performance, such as explain, list, demonstrate or complete, so that trainers, learners and managers agree on what success looks like.
How do you measure attitude change after training?
Attitudes are hard to measure directly. Common approaches combine self-reported confidence or commitment with observed behavior, such as whether people report issues, use the new process unprompted or help colleagues. Behavior over several weeks is usually more reliable than a survey taken at the end of a session.
Sources
- Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. David McKay.
- Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing Objectives for Programmed Instruction. Fearon. Later Preparing Instructional Objectives (3rd ed. 1997, Center for Effective Performance).
- Kirkpatrick, D. L. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
- Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
- Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Traver, H. & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 341–358.
- Last reviewed