I am going to stand up for Kirkpatrick's model very slightly and say that, if I am going to evaluate a formal learning activity then I find that it is a useful *guideline* (not methodology) of things to consider. (That said, I haven't referred to it for years. It's not hard to remember what it involves!)

I am all for evaluation, for a couple of key reasons. Firstly, it doesn't matter how much analysis I do, or how carefully I put measures in place, I still want to know if they worked and what could have been done better. That holds true if it is a formal course/workshop, or implementing the conditions to help informal or social learning to thrive.

Secondly, I actually find it stimulating to follow up on learning activities. It's incredibly nteresting to talk to learners about their experiences and what their take on them has been.

Harold, your comment about measuring only 10% of how people learn is key ... but I think to get the point home about informal and social learning being more effective then, at this stage, we need to take the time to properly review the formal aspects to prove that they're often ineffective .

However, I suspect that many only evaluate what suits because, in many cases, it might involve revealing that it didn't work. I haven't come across many egos capable of saying "Oopps, that workshop we spent £!0,000 wasn't really worth the effort. Sorry about that!"