# 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*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Plan the evaluation before the course runs, ideally in the course design
  document (`education/course-design`), so the data you need are collected.
- Report what the data show and how strong they are. A high satisfaction
  score is not evidence of learning, and an improvement in results after a
  course is not proof the course caused it.
- Keep respondents anonymous. Do not report comments or breakdowns for
  groups so small that individuals could be identified.
- The worked example evaluates a fictional two-day course on project
  scheduling run for three cohorts (96 enrolled). Replace it with your own.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Identify the course, the delivery period covered and who receives the report. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Report ID | [CER-2026-005] |
| Course | [Project Scheduling Fundamentals] |
| Course owner | [@course-owner] |
| Delivery period | [YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD, cohorts 1 to 3] |
| Evaluator | [@evaluator] |
| Audience | [Sponsor, course team, learning committee] |
| Version | [1.0] |
| Status | [Draft / In review / Final] |
| Classification | [Internal] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Course owner | [@name] | [Accepted; actions agreed] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Sponsor | [@name] | [Accepted] | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@evaluator] | Levels 1 and 2 drafted |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@evaluator] | *Example:* Level 3 and 4 data added at 60 days and two quarters |

## Contents

<!-- Guidance: Keep this list in step with the headings. -->

1. [Summary](#1-summary)
2. [Course and evaluation design](#2-course-and-evaluation-design)
3. [Level 1: Reaction](#3-level-1-reaction)
4. [Level 2: Learning](#4-level-2-learning)
5. [Level 3: Behaviour](#5-level-3-behaviour)
6. [Level 4: Results](#6-level-4-results)
7. [Limitations](#7-limitations)
8. [Findings and action plan](#8-findings-and-action-plan)
9. [Glossary and references](#9-glossary-and-references)
10. [Standard and licence note](#standard-and-licence-note)

## 1. Summary

<!-- Guidance: Write this last. Five or six sentences: what was evaluated, the headline result at each level, the main limitation and the top actions. -->

*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

<!-- Guidance: Describe the course briefly and how each level was measured, by whom and when. State response numbers for every source. -->

| Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Course goal | *Example:* Project coordinators build and maintain realistic schedules |
| Audience | *Example:* Project coordinators and junior project managers |
| Delivery | *Example:* Two days, virtual instructor-led, three cohorts |
| Enrolled / completed | *Example:* 96 / 90 (93.8%) |
| Comparison group | *Example:* Teams scheduled for training next year |

| Level | Question | Measure | Source and timing | Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Reaction | Did learners find it relevant and engaging? | Anonymous survey, 1 to 5 scale, plus comments | End of day 2 | *Example:* 71 of 90 completers (78.9%) |
| 2 Learning | Did learners gain the knowledge and skills? | Pre-test and post-test, same blueprint | Start of day 1 and end of day 2 | *Example:* 90 paired scores |
| 3 Behaviour | Do learners apply it at work? | Manager checklist on scheduling practices | Before course and 60 days after | *Example:* 64 of 90 (71.1%) |
| 4 Results | Did the organisational outcome improve? | Share of projects with schedule variance above 10% | Two quarters before and after | *Example:* Project records |

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

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  L1["Level 1 Reaction: survey"] --> L2["Level 2 Learning: pre and post test"]
  L2 --> L3["Level 3 Behaviour: manager checklist at 60 days"]
  L3 --> L4["Level 4 Results: schedule variance"]
```

## 3. Level 1: Reaction

<!-- Guidance: Report means with the number of responses, and the main themes from comments. Pitfall: treating satisfaction as success. Use it to diagnose the experience. -->

| Item (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) | Mean | n |
|---|---|---|
| The content is relevant to my job *(Example)* | 4.4 | 71 |
| The facilitation helped me learn *(Example)* | 4.5 | 71 |
| The materials were clear and easy to use *(Example)* | 3.9 | 71 |
| The pace was right for me *(Example)* | 3.6 | 71 |
| I would recommend this course to a colleague *(Example)* | 4.2 | 71 |

Comment themes:

| Theme | Mentions | Example comment (paraphrased) |
|---|---|---|
| Critical path session too rushed *(Example)* | 19 | Wanted more practice before the case study |
| Case study realistic *(Example)* | 15 | Close to the projects learners run |
| Templates hard to find after the course *(Example)* | 8 | Links in the workbook did not work |

## 4. Level 2: Learning

<!-- Guidance: Compare pre and post scores on tests built from the same blueprint (see `education/assessment-blueprint`). Report the gain and the pass rate, and look at which objectives remained weak. -->

| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Mean pre-test score *(Example)* | 48 of 100 |
| Mean post-test score *(Example)* | 79 of 100 |
| Normalised gain *(Example)* | 0.60 |
| Post-test pass rate, pass mark 70 *(Example)* | 81 of 90 (90.0%) |
| Weakest objective *(Example)* | Calculating float on a network with parallel paths |

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

$$
g = \frac{\text{post} - \text{pre}}{100 - \text{pre}}
$$

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

## 5. Level 3: Behaviour

<!-- Guidance: Measure specific, observable practices the course taught. Ask managers or use work records. Note what helped or blocked application, for example tools, time or manager support. -->

| Practice (manager checklist) | Before course | 60 days after |
|---|---|---|
| Builds a baseline schedule before work starts *(Example)* | 23 of 64 (35.9%) | 46 of 64 (71.9%) |
| [Practice] | [Count and share] | [Count and share] |

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

<!-- Guidance: Report the outcome measure with a comparison where possible, and state clearly how far the result can be attributed to the course. Other changes in the same period (new tools, staffing, policy) can explain part or all of a change. -->

| Group | Before: projects over 10% variance | After: projects over 10% variance | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trained teams *(Example)* | 24 of 58 (41.4%) | 17 of 62 (27.4%) | -14.0 points |
| Teams not yet trained *(Example)* | 19 of 49 (38.8%) | 18 of 50 (36.0%) | -2.8 points |
| **Difference** *(Example)* | | | **-11.2 points** |

*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

<!-- Guidance: List the weaknesses of the evidence so readers weigh it correctly. -->

- *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

<!-- Guidance: Each action should follow from a finding above, with an owner, a date and how you will know it worked. Review the plan at the next evaluation. -->

| ID | Finding | Action | Owner | By | Measure of success |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-01 *(Example)* | Pace rated low; critical path weakest objective | Extend the critical-path session by 45 minutes with a second practice network | [@course-owner] | YYYY-MM-DD | Pace item at least 4.0; float items pass rate up |
| ACT-02 *(Example)* | Application faster with manager review | Publish a one-page manager follow-up guide | [@course-owner] | YYYY-MM-DD | Baseline schedule use at least 80% at 60 days |
| ACT-03 *(Example)* | Broken workbook links | Move templates to the course page and check links each cohort | [@coordinator] | YYYY-MM-DD | No link complaints in next survey |
| [ACT-NN] | [Finding] | [Action] | [@owner] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Measure] |

## 9. Glossary and references

<!-- Guidance: Define evaluation terms for readers outside the learning team. -->

| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Response rate | Responses received divided by the people invited |
| Normalised gain | The share of the possible improvement that learners achieved |
| Comparison group | People who did not take the course, used to judge what would have happened anyway |
| Percentage point | The arithmetic difference between two percentages |

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.