When there are at Least 4 Levels to Evaluate Learning, Why do We Usually Only Measure 1?

In looking for collaborative articles that looked valuable to contribute to, I found the following: What are the benefits and challenges of using Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation?

To be honest, I didn't know of Kirkpatrick's model prior to seeing this collaborative article. But, I had developed a 4 strata model of educational outcomes that aligned fairly closely with Kirkpatrick's 4 Levels, so I had thought much about this general topic previously.

Level 1: Reaction

For those of us in K-12 education, we know that students' reaction and feelings about what and how they were taught is rarely measured. Maybe there will be an annual student survey, but does this really tell the students you care about their thoughts and feelings?

Yet every teacher or staff member who has attended some type of professional development, had inevitably received a survey at the end of their course... Shouldn't we do the same courtesy for our students?

And of greater importance, shouldn't we use this student feedback to improve what and how we are teaching???

Level 2: Learning

In K-12 education, we spend most of our time and focus on trying to understand what students learned in their class. But, this is so inward looking, that without also evaluating the real life impact of students ultimate behavior after they leave the school (Level 3) and what results they have in their life from their learning (Level 4), we are not able to really be sure that our measurements of learning in the class is valid.

Level 3: Behavior

In business, this level is to see how the student behaves at their job after their class, but we don't usually do this in K-12 or higher education. This lack of measurement causes a major gap in knowing how we are doing as educators. There are reasons why we don't measure this: While in a business, there can be an evaluation of this from the manager, this isn't something that can usually be done after a student leaves school.

But, there are 2 ways we can measure this in K-12/higher education:

1. We can see how students behave in a higher class in their current school.
2. We can ask for self-evaluations on a regular basis after they leave.

These both have limitations, but would be better to measure, than not measuring at all.

Level 4: Results

This is the most vital measurement, yet in K-12, the least measured. How can we know if our education systems are truly effective if we don't measure the results of the education in the real world. For example:

• Did the education help students to earn more in their lifetime?
• Did it help them to be better parents?
• Did it help them to make better choices in their lives?

While there are many confounding variables beyond just education, that will affect these answers, there are also statistical methods that can help isolate them. And without measuring these, can we really know how well we are doing?

Here’s what else to consider

There is another level that Kirkpatrick doesn't include, but I hope it is not one we ever endeavor to measure commonly. That is the physiology of the learning, in the neural changes to the brain. This may seem science fiction, but brain scanners combined with AI now can determine a lot more of this than ever before... But, even thinking about this possibility has a very dystopian feel.