Learning
Post-training survey
A survey that only asks whether people enjoyed a session can't say much about whether any of it gets used, so this one leans towards relevance and plans to apply it.
Opens this survey in Gists as a draft you can edit. Sign in with Slack, Google or your work email. 30 days free. No card needed.
The decision it helps with
Should you run this session again, change it, or drop it?
Running it
Send within a day. This measures reactions, and a survey at the end of a session can't show whether anyone's work changed, so plan a check with managers a few weeks later.
What the results might look like
These are made-up examples to show the patterns, not real data.
Relevant, but few plan to use it
4.2 on relevance with only 30% “Yes, definitely” on applying it.
- What it means
- Something at work is getting in the way.
- What it doesn't mean
- It doesn't mean the session was bad.
- What to do
- Ask attendees what stands between the session and the work.
Split between too slow and too fast
35% too slow and 30% too fast.
- What it means
- The audience was mixed.
- What it doesn't mean
- It doesn't mean the trainer got the pace wrong.
- What to do
- Group by experience next time.
What to tell people afterwards
Send trainers the written comments, and tell attendees what will change next time.
What to measure next, and when
Three to six weeks later, ask managers whether anyone has used it.
Send within a day of the session
How relevant was this session to your day-to-day work?
1 = not relevant, 5 = highly relevant
How was the pace of the session?
Pick one
- Too slow
- About right
- Too fast
- Not sure
Do you plan to apply something from this session in the next two weeks?
Pick one
- Yes, definitely
- Probably yes
- Unsure
- Probably not
- No, definitely not
Would you recommend this session to a colleague?
Yes or no
What was the most useful part of the session?
Written answer, optional
What is one thing you would change about the session?
Written answer, optional
We wrote these questions for this survey and they are not a validated scale. You can edit them once the survey opens in Gists. If you copy them into another tool, check what it records about who answered.
The usefulness argument, with a caveat
In a meta-analysis of 34 studies, Alliger and colleagues found utility-type reactions were more strongly related to learning and on-the-job transfer than reactions about enjoyment. A later meta-analysis by Sitzmann and colleagues found no difference between the two for learning outcomes (Alliger et al., 1997; Sitzmann et al., 2008). So we would lean on questions 1 and 3 without throwing the rest away.
That same later study found reactions mainly reflect the course itself, with instructional style and human interaction the strongest predictors. Trainee characteristics and organizational support had moderate effects too (Sitzmann et al., 2008). Reactions are good for improving a course. They are poor evidence of whether anyone's work changed.
A survey at the end of a session can only do so much
Holton argued in 1996 that the familiar four-level model is a list of outcomes, and falls short as an evaluation method (Holton, 1996). Keep that in mind if someone asks you for “level 4 results” from this form.
Whether training gets used is related to what happens back at work, among other factors. A meta-analysis of 89 studies found a supportive work environment among the factors positively related to transfer (Blume et al., 2010). So ask managers, a few weeks later, whether they have talked to the person about it.
Different job
This form judges one session. The 30-day new hire survey looks at how someone is settling into the whole job.
Who sees the comments
Results show only when 5 or more people answer. A team below 5 rolls up into the team above it. A group is also held back when comparing it with another group could reveal a small team. HR and named leaders see every team with 5 or more answers. Each manager sees only their own team. Employees see no team scores. Themes only by default. Word-for-word answers are a company setting, off unless turned on, and employees see a notice before they write.
Related
Sources
- 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, 341-358. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00911.x
- Sitzmann, T., Brown, K. G., Casper, W. J., Ely, K., Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). A review and meta-analysis of the nomological network of trainee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 280-295. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.280
- Holton, E. F. (1996). The flawed four‐level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 5-21. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920070103
- Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Management, 36, 1065-1105. doi:10.1177/0149206309352880