Course Evaluation Report Template (Kirkpatrick Levels)

Course Evaluation Report: [Course title]

End-of-course evaluation report template for a training course, workshop series or academic course. It organises evidence by the four levels associated with Donald Kirkpatrick (reaction, learning, behaviour and results), states the limits of the data, and ends with findings and a dated action plan. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

Approvals

Revision history

Contents

1. Summary
2. Course and evaluation design
3. Level 1: Reaction
4. Level 2: Learning
5. Level 3: Behaviour
6. Level 4: Results
7. Limitations
8. Findings and action plan
9. Glossary and references
10. Standard and licence note

1. Summary

Example: Ninety of 96 enrolled learners completed the course (93.8%). Learners rated it as relevant (mean 4.4 of 5) but found the pace fast (3.6). Mean test scores rose from 48 to 79, a normalised gain of about 0.60, and 90.0% passed the post-test. At 60 days, managers reported that 71.9% of learners used a baseline schedule, against 35.9% before the course. Projects in trained teams overran their schedule by more than 10% less often than before, and the drop was larger than in teams not yet trained, but the comparison is not randomised. The main actions are to extend the critical-path session and add a manager follow-up guide.

2. Course and evaluation design

The diagram shows the four levels and the main measure used at each.

3. Level 1: Reaction

Comment themes:

4. Level 2: Learning

The normalised gain compares the gain made with the gain that was possible:

Example: $g = (79 - 48) / (100 - 48) = 31 / 52 \approx 0.60$.

5. Level 3: Behaviour

Enablers and barriers reported: [Example: Learners whose manager reviewed the first schedule with them reported applying the method sooner; several teams lacked licences for the scheduling tool.]

6. Level 4: Results

Example interpretation: the share of overrunning projects fell by 11.2 percentage points more in trained teams than in teams not yet trained. Teams were not assigned to training at random, and a new project intake process started in the same period, so the result supports a contribution by the course but does not prove it caused the full change.

7. Limitations

• Example: 21% of completers did not answer the reaction survey; their views may differ from those who did.
• Example: Managers completing the Level 3 checklist knew their staff had been trained.
• Example: The comparison group was not randomised and was smaller.
• [Limitation]

8. Findings and action plan

9. Glossary and references

References:

• Kirkpatrick, D. L. and Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 3rd edition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
• Kirkpatrick Partners, "The Kirkpatrick Model": https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/the-kirkpatrick-model/
• Related templates: education/course-design, education/training-needs-analysis, education/assessment-blueprint, education/curriculum-map.

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with the four evaluation levels described by Donald Kirkpatrick (reaction, learning, behaviour and results), cited by name; no text from the published books or from Kirkpatrick Partners materials is reproduced. Survey responses are personal data where people can be identified: follow your institution's policy and the data protection law that applies to you. This is a documentation format, not legal advice. This template is original text written for this collection; the example course, figures and comments are illustrative. Template licence: MIT.