Improving Educational Outcomes

Kirkpatrick is often criticized. But rarely fully understood. Let's change this 👇 The model is simple. It describes four levels of evaluating learning impact: Level 1 — Reaction How participants experience the learning. Level 2 — Learning What knowledge and skills they acquire. Level 3 — Behavior How their on-the-job behavior changes. Level 4 — Results What organizational outcomes improve. That’s it. Four levels. And yet, it is frequently dismissed as outdated or simplistic. Why? Because we often treat it as a measurement checklist, instead of a design framework. Kirkpatrick is not just about evaluating training. It’s about thinking in cause-and-effect logic. Instead of asking, “Was the training good?” we should be asking a sequence of strategic questions. When designing: – What business outcome must change? – What behavior must shift to deliver that outcome? – What knowledge and skills are required? – What learning experience will enable mastery? And when evaluating: – How did participants evaluate the experience? – How well did they acquire the knowledge and skills? – How did behavior change at work? – What changed in the targeted business indicators? Planning must start from the top (Results). Measurement must begin from the bottom (Reaction). Think forward. Measure backward. Of course, the model has nuances - leading and lagging indicators, performance environment, manager accountability, isolation factors. But beneath the complexity lies a simple and powerful logic. The pyramid is not a hierarchy of surveys. It’s a chain of impact. That’s why I created this visual, to show the model not as theory, but as a practical thinking framework. How do you approach Kirkpatrick in your projects? #designforclarity #LearningAndDevelopment #InstructionalDesign #LearningStrategy #Kirkpatrick #LearningImpact #LXD #CorporateLearning

Rethinking Access: What Japan’s Mobile Study Buses Teach Us about Education in India In Japan, there is a grassroots innovation: mobile study buses that traverse neighbourhoods lacking libraries or dedicated study spaces for teens. Equipped with WiFi, books/tables/seating, and staffed by volunteer tutors, these buses offer post-school support - especially for students whose home environment may not afford quiet study or who have working parents. Meanwhile, India’s data reveals a troubling trend: according to official figures, from 2014-15 to 2023-24, the number of government schools dropped by 89,441 (an 8 % decline) while private schools increased by ~42,944. Why this matters: Schools are not just classrooms-they are access points: for mentorship, peer learning, supportive infrastructure, safe environments. A reduction in public school infrastructure can translate into lost opportunity for millions - especially in underserved zones. Claims of being a “Vishwaguru” must be matched with inclusive access and innovative outreach. What we can learn from the mobile-bus model: Deploy mobile learning hubs in areas where built infrastructure is weak. Integrate tutoring, mentoring and peer-group study into community outreach rather than rely solely on brick-and-mortar. Provide quiet spaces, connectivity and resource access to students whose home setups may not allow for focused study. Prioritise equity of access, not just numbers of institutions. For leaders in education, policy & industry: It is time to ask: Are we ensuring our youth have the spaces and resources to learn effectively? How can organisations (public/private/civic) collaborate to bring learning-on-wheels or similar outreach to underserved zones? Can we shift our metrics from “number of schools” to “effective access to learning and mentorship”? I believe: the infrastructure we build today must include mobility, flexibility, and equity. Let’s model systems not just for those who already have access-but for those who don’t. #EducationReform #SkillDevelopment #Mobility #IndiaEducation #InnovationInLearning #Leadership

Scaffolding techniques are vital for supporting students with learning disabilities, as they provide structured, personalized pathways to understanding while honoring each learner’s unique needs. For students with dyslexia, tools like phonemic awareness activities, color-coded texts, and audio books can reinforce decoding and comprehension, allowing them to engage with content without being hindered by reading challenges. Those with dyscalculia benefit from hands-on manipulatives, visual models, and real-life math applications that make abstract concepts more concrete and accessible. Students with dysgraphia thrive when given graphic organizers, typing options, and chunked writing tasks that reduce cognitive overload and promote expression. For learners with ADHD, scaffolding might include clear routines, visual schedules, movement breaks, and task segmentation to maintain focus and reduce impulsivity. Meanwhile, students with auditory processing disorders need multimodal instruction such as written directions, visual supports, and opportunities for repetition to fully grasp spoken information. These scaffolds not only enhance student confidence and independence but also help teachers create inclusive environments where every learner can flourish. #AccessibleEducation

Removing standardized tests has been a disaster for many top colleges. Seven years ago, the University of California system appointed an 18-member committee to study the use of standardized tests in its undergraduate admissions. The committee included professors from all 10 campuses and a range of disciplines. They spent a year studying the issue and published a 225-page report full of evidence and recommendations. The committee concluded that scores on the SAT and ACT, the main standardized tests for college admissions, did a better job measuring student readiness for college than high school grades. High test scores were particularly good at finding talented students from low-income families and underrepresented minority groups. For these reasons, the committee recommended the system continue to require applicants to submit SAT or ACT scores. The university’s leaders disregarded the report. A few months after its release, early in the Covid-19 pandemic, the system’s Board of Regents voted to stop using the tests in undergraduate admissions. Initially, the university planned to make the submission of SAT and ACT scores optional, as many other colleges did during the pandemic. Almost immediately, though, the University of California began refusing to accept SAT or ACT scores, even from students who wanted to submit them. The policy was known as “test blind.” University leaders wrongly claimed that it would make admissions fairer and more equitable. The results have been terrible. At the University of California, San Diego, a faculty group last year reported “a steep decline in the academic preparation” among entering students. Last fall, for example, nearly 12 percent of first-year U.C.S.D. undergraduates were not qualified to take pre-calculus, a low-level class, up from only 0.5 percent in 2020. “The key problem is that many of the students coming in do not know algebra,” said Mina Aganagic, a Berkeley physics professor. More than half of entering Berkeley students who took a math placement test incorrectly answered basic questions (such as solving for x in x²> 4). https://lnkd.in/gzjSDyUY

Most L&D professionals learned the Kirkpatrick Model early on. Fewer have seen it applied beyond Level 1. Here's what each level can actually look like when you put it into practice, not just the textbook definition. ✨ Level 1: Reaction 🔹 Textbook version: Did learners find the training engaging and worth their time? ✅ In practice: Instead of "Did you enjoy this session?", ask "Was this relevant to the work you do?" and "Could you apply this right away?" ✅ Metric to track: Relevance and applicability ratings, not just satisfaction scores. ✨ Level 2: Learning 🔹 Textbook version: Did learners gain the intended knowledge or skills? ✅ In practice: Replace recall-based quizzes with scenario-based checks. Can the learner apply the concept to a situation they'd actually face? ✅ Metric to track: Pre/post assessment scores on scenario-based questions, not just "did you pass the quiz." ✨ Level 3: Behavior 🔹 Textbook version: Are learners applying what they learned on the job? ✅ In practice: 30/60/90-day check-ins, manager observations, or peer feedback on whether the new behavior is showing up in real work. ✅ Metric to track: % of participants demonstrating the target behavior, based on manager or peer input, not self-reported confidence. ✨ Level 4: Results 🔹 Textbook version: Did the training impact business outcomes? ✅ In practice: Pick one business metric the program was meant to influence, before you build it, not after, and track the change. ✅ Metric to track: Movement in that specific KPI (error rates, time-to-productivity, conversion rates, retention) compared to a baseline. Most programs are measured thoroughly at Level 1 and barely at all beyond it. But Levels 3 and 4 are where the "did this actually matter" conversation happens, and they are also where L&D earns a seat at the table. Which level does your organisation measure consistently, and which one do you wish you could measure better? #LearningAndDevelopment #LnD #KirkpatrickModel #TrainingEvaluation #InstructionalDesign #LearningMeasurement #TrainingAndDevelopment #LnDStrategy

The Inconvenient Truth About Education Elite educational institutions often present themselves as neutral pathways to opportunity, yet their underlying structures tend to reproduce existing social and economic hierarchies. The dominant meritocratic narrative suggests that access is determined by talent and effort. In reality, access is shaped long before admissions by early exposure to enriched learning environments, private tutoring, and high‑quality preparatory schools. These advantages correlate strongly with household income and parental educational attainment. As a result, admissions processes frequently reward accumulated privilege rather than isolate innate ability. Entrance examinations are widely regarded as objective assessments, but they largely measure the long‑term effects of unequal resource distribution. By the time students reach the testing stage, disparities in nutrition, literacy development, school quality, and parental availability have already influenced their academic trajectories. The exam functions as a symbolic equalizer that obscures the structural inequities embedded in the educational pipeline. Policymakers often rely on this symbolism to justify existing systems, despite consistent evidence that opportunity gaps emerge years before formal schooling begins. For individuals who succeed within this architecture, achievement reflects both genuine effort and the presence of enabling conditions that many students never experience. These conditions include stable households, functional schools, psychological safety, and access to mentors who can translate potential into performance. Many equally capable individuals are excluded from the competition long before selection occurs. Their absence is not a reflection of lower ability but of systemic barriers that restrict participation. A policy‑informed response requires interventions across multiple stages of the educational pipeline. Early childhood programs must be expanded to ensure that foundational skills are not determined by socioeconomic status. Public investment in teacher quality, school infrastructure, and community‑based learning resources can reduce disparities in basic education. Admissions processes should incorporate contextual indicators that recognize structural disadvantage rather than relying solely on standardized tests. Targeted scholarships, mentoring programs, and bridge curricula can support high‑potential students who lack preparatory advantages. Without such reforms, elite education will continue to reproduce inequality while maintaining the appearance of fairness.

The antidote to academic dishonesty isn’t stricter monitoring—it’s deeper engagement. After more than 30 years in education, I’ve learned that students cheat when they see no purpose in their learning. But when we bridge the gap between curriculum and real-world application, something remarkable happens: students become invested in their own growth. Key strategies that work: • Connect every lesson to tangible outcomes • Share stories of how past students used these skills • Invite industry professionals to show practical applications • Create projects that solve real community problems In this way, you will have students who are too engaged in authentic learning to consider shortcuts or cheating with AI. How are you making learning meaningful in your field? I’d love to hear your approaches. #EducationalLeadership #StudentEngagement #TeachingStrategy #ProfessionalDevelopment #EducationInnovation

The climate crisis is occurring right before our children's eyes. Young people know it, feel it, and want to take #ClimateAction.    They see the impact when their school is, once again, closed due to extreme weather conditions.    On average, children at the forefront of the climate emergency have lost 18 school days a year. 10% of the academic year.    Even when schools are open, unbearable heat can make it difficult to concentrate and learn.    The climate crisis has never hit young people harder.     A 10-year-old today will experience three times more floods, five times more droughts, and 36 times more heatwaves over their lifetime compared to a 10-year-old in 1970.    Education is threatened by climate change and is massively overlooked in climate financing.    We need to change this.     Schools must be protected places where learning – including about climate change – can continue.    https://lnkd.in/g4AyDn2i  

With The Times ranking The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) #1 for psychology 🎓, I thought I'd re-up the story of our undergraduate BSc in Psychological and Behavioral Science, which launched in 2018. It remains one of the things I'm most proud of in my career. When I joined the LSE in 2016, there was an opportunity to launch a new undergrad program. Imagine if you could redesign a psychology degree with no path dependence constraining you? I volunteered. Turns out, I wasn’t alone in wanting to do psych better. Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington and Bradley Franks felt the same way. Together we scoured the top programs - Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cambridge, Oxford, UCL etc to mix, borrow and freshly design the best Alpha version 0.01. A collective brain approach to innovation for those who know my research. What did it look like? Post-replication crisis, we wanted the students to know why we needed #OpenScience, better theory, better methods, better stats, attendance to the WEIRD people problem and real world tests. Here’s me describing it in 2018: https://lnkd.in/ez_NupZ2 And here's our 5 Step Plan: ➡ Step 1: Raise the entry bar. We wanted top students who loved science, weren’t afraid of math (Math A grade minimum), & wanted to use science to better the world. Classic LSE. All our students far exceeded our minimum. ➡ Step 2: Psych students sometimes feel like they’re learning trivia. E.g. it’s not clear how cognitive psychology connects to social psychology let alone evolutionary biology or econ. Nor even how norms connect to stereotypes. So we deeply integrated within & between courses. And we integrated enough biology, economics, and anthropology among others with psychological and behavioral science so they could see the bigger picture. We exposed them to tools from evolutionary theory, game theory, behavioral economics, and taught them to read the models. ➡ Step 3: Psych students often don’t have clear career pathways beyond further study in psych. We wanted marketable skills, so we integrated data science - causal identification, machine learning, modeling, etc. It was designed as a feeder programme for a career in data science. ➡ Step 4: Assessments are disconnected from what people actually do in the real world. It's the 21st century - you can practice by actually doing. Our students write blog posts, Wikipedia articles, create podcasts, 3 minute pitches, memos, posters and of course, exams and academic essays. Our goal was to ask: Do you really understand the material? Do you have a mental model for humans? Can you communicate to different audiences? Do you know how to learn by yourself? ➡ Step 5: Bring in the best people to turn those ideas into reality, including some excellent new hires. This was a massive collaborative effort between academics, professional staff, and the students themselves. Our amazing graduates now speak for themselves. #proudmentor PBS Department