I have been tasked last in the game to help my team change our current evaluation scheme.

Focusing on Level 2 - the team currently does and would like to do continue performing several rounds of formal testing - one in-event test, one after-event test, one test after event-based worksession, and one practical/scenario based test at the end of the total learning event (course plus worksession).

So that is four formal Level 2 evaluations for each learning event.

(bear in mind that they also would like to give one more combined test during Level 3)

IMO, looking at practicality, learner perception, decernible change in knowledge lift, timing, and total effort overall this is quite excessive. However, I have no research to back this up with leadership.

Looking for opinions on the matter, and links to research for frequency of assessments in Level two...

Thanks -
Melissa C.

What research do they have that warrants all of the tests they currently want?

There is no magic bullet answer to this issue. Each situation is different. So many possible questions -- Is there certification involved? Is this something that involves life and death? Is there a reason for testing so many times and why is it being assumed that formal tests are the only way to assess whether people are "getting it"? The people who want all the testing are the people who should be able to provide the answers to those questions and more. Start there.

First - love your user name.

They have no research that warrents this. I am a fairly new employee trying to make some changes, but am running up against data driven vs. emotional decisions when it comes to this approach.

There is not certification involved. It does not involve life and death, but rather great amounts of money.

The reason for so many testing events is because it is the only way my team understands how to answer the question "are they getting it?".

I'm working on all that you have said, had a minor victory today, but a long road is still ahead. I just need some ammunition from the research front to back up what we on this board would consider instinctual.

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that this schedule is excessive. Given that the purpose of measurement is action, will different action be taken at each assessment point, or does remediation look the same?

If you don't expect there to be a difference in test results at each of the four intervals (if you're measuring the same thing four times within a relatively tight timeline), it seems you can logically argue that the money and time would be better spent on a Level 3 after one assessment.

Perhaps a robust plan for remediation could help convince whoever is driving the need for multiple assessments?