Evaluating Teacher Training: Applying the Kirkpatrick Model to Communicative Lesson Design

In language education, one of the most widely discussed and endorsed yet inconsistently practiced approaches is Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Since its genesis, advent, and use in the late twentieth century, CLT has been promoted as a response to traditional language learning form-focused methods, emphasizing meaningful “communicative” interaction and language learner autonomy. However, as Dr. Jack C. Richards (2006) points out, while many language instructors acknowledge the value of CLT, they often “struggle to translate its principles into actual classroom practice” (p. 22); that is, classroom exercises, activities, and tasks are not exactly communicative. In other words, this gap between theory and practice remains a pressing challenge in language teacher education and in-service training: language trainers may understand communicative principles conceptually but default to grammar drills, vocabulary memorization, or teacher-centered techniques when faced with real classroom constraints.

Bridging this gap between communicative principles and actual teaching practice in the classroom requires more than methodological input; it calls for professional development that needs to be systematic, reflective, and oriented toward long-term behavioral change among teaching practitioners. The Kirkpatrick Four-Level Training Evaluation Model offers a structured framework for such an academic and PD endeavor. Originally designed for corporate training, it has since been adapted to fit and suit educational contexts where both teacher learning and student outcomes are critical for language speaking mastery and communication goals achievement. By applying Kirkpatrick’s model to language teacher training, professional development can move beyond theoretical awareness, ensuring that language teachers can acquire, apply, and sustain communicative strategies that lead to measurable improvements in student competence and language mastery.

Understanding the Kirkpatrick Model in the Context of Language Teacher Training

The Kirkpatrick Model consists of four levels, each building on the previous one. When applied to language teacher training, it provides a roadmap for both instructional, pedagogical design and performance evaluation. Its structure aligns well with what Penny Ur (2012) emphasizes as the cyclical process of teacher learning: input, practice, reflection, and adaptation.

Level 1: Reaction: The first level examines how language teachers perceive the training in terms of relevance, engagement, and usefulness for their teaching practice in F2F or virtual teaching settings. This dimension is crucial because, as Fullan (2007) argues, “deep change is only possible when teachers find personal meaning in new practices” (p. 36). In a communicative training program, workshops must not only present concepts but also model communicative techniques such as sketchpads (role plays) or information-gap tasks, allowing language instructors to experience firsthand the types of activities their learners might perform in their classrooms. Teachers’ reactions can be documented through post-session surveys, reflective journals, or facilitated discussions, which reveal whether participants see the training as practical and inspiring, or whether the training must be “tuned up” to kindle instructors’ interest in a different way.

Level 1: Reaction
What it is:	This first level (Reaction) measures how participants feel about the training, its relevance, engagement, and usefulness in the continuum of classroom teaching.
Application for teacher training:	●       Teachers should feel that the training is practical, inspiring, and directly applicable to their classroom needs and student’s language objectives. ●       Workshops should include engaging activities that model communicative techniques (e.g., role plays, information gap tasks) that instructors can replicate in their classrooms. ●       Feedback tools such as surveys and reflection prompts help gauge teacher satisfaction and motivation.
Goal:	Ensure language educators find the training relevant, engaging, and applicable to their immediate needs and institutional goals for teacher performance.
Activities:	●       Interactive workshops with real classroom scenarios. ●       Icebreakers using communicative techniques (e.g., role plays, information gaps). ●       Use of authentic materials to model communicative tasks.
Evaluation:	●       Post-session surveys (Likert scale + open-ended). ●       Quick feedback forms on usefulness and engagement.

Level 2: Learning: At the second level, the focus shifts to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes teachers acquire during training. In the case of CLT, David Nunan (2004) highlights that communicative lesson planning requires sequencing tasks in ways that mirror real-life communication, moving learners from controlled to freer use of language (p. 31). Teacher training at this level therefore emphasizes principles of CLT, task-based learning, and student-centered instruction. As a consequence, language instructors might analyze traditional versus communicative lesson plans, design their own sequences of activities and tasks for a communicative class, and engage in microteaching sessions that provide opportunities for experimentation and peer feedback. Learning at this stage is typically assessed through rubrics, pre- and post-assessments, and structured reflective journaling, ensuring that participants leave with a clearer understanding of how to plan lessons that promote authentic interaction.

Level 2: Learning
What it is:	This level (Learning) assesses the knowledge, skills, and attitudes acquired during training by teachers. In terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy, teachers are asked to move their knowledge to the third level: Application.
Application for teacher training:	●       Teachers learn the principles of communicative lesson planning, including task-based learning, authentic interaction, and student-centered instruction. ●       Activities include analyzing sample lesson plans, designing their own communicative lessons, and participating in microteaching sessions. ●       Trainers can use quizzes, peer reviews, and lesson plan rubrics to evaluate learning outcomes.
Goal:	Teachers acquire knowledge and skills to design communicative lessons.
Content Focus:	●       Principles of CLT (e.g., fluency over accuracy, real-life communication). ●       Task-based learning and lesson planning. ●       Differentiating between mechanical, meaningful, and communicative practice.
Activities:	●       Microteaching sessions with a tutor or supervisor. ●       Lesson planning labs with peer review or with scaffolded exercises. ●       Analysis of sample lesson plans (traditional vs. communicative).
Evaluation:	●       Pre/post knowledge assessments. ●       Rubrics for lesson plan quality. ●       Peer and trainer feedback on microteaching.

Level 3: Behavior: The third level evaluates whether the knowledge gained by the instructors translates into classroom practice and more student learning. Borg (2015) observes that teacher cognition strongly influences classroom behavior, which means that training alone is insufficient without mechanisms for sustained support. That is, PD training without an accountable follow-up is not meant to make changes in classroom delivery and student performance and learning. With proper follow-up, in this stage, teachers begin to implement communicative strategies in their own classrooms, guided by mentoring cycles, coaching sessions, and reflective teaching journals. Supervisors can conduct structured classroom observations using communicative-focused checklists, while teachers themselves engage in self-assessment and collaborative peer feedback. Over time, these practices encourage a shift from traditional teacher-led instruction toward classrooms that foster greater learner autonomy and interaction.

Level 3: Behavior
What it is:	This level (Behavior) evaluates whether participants of a PD program apply what they learned in their actual work environment.
Application for teacher training:	●       Language instructors begin implementing communicative strategies in their classrooms that foster greater student interaction and move away from guided practices in coursebooks. ●       Support mechanisms such as teacher coaching, “focused” classroom observations, and reflective journals help reinforce behavior change prompting teachers to evaluate their progress and classroom routines. ●       Supervisors can use observation checklists and feedback sessions to monitor progress and provide guidance when instructors need to move from their current zone of teaching.
Goal:	Teachers apply a set of communicative principles in the creation of speaking activities carried out in their actual classrooms.
Support Strategies:	●       Coaching or mentoring cycles on a one-to-one basis or in collective sessions with several teachers. ●       Classroom observations using a rubric with a subsequent feedback session with the teacher for the supervisor to share his/her observation highlights and ways to improve classroom performance. ●       Reflective teaching journals that instructors need to be filling in every now and then.
Evaluation:	●       Observation checklists focused on communicative strategies previously introduced to the cohort of teachers and now need to be present in classroom speaking/communicative practices. ●       Self-assessment tools also based on previously introduced communicative strategies during PD sessions. ●       Student feedback on classroom activities for teachers to monitor impact of their changes in classroom delivery.

Level 4: Results: The final stage (Results) examines the broader impact of teacher development on student outcomes and performance. Littlewood (2004) argues that the success of communicative approaches lies in students gaining the competence and confidence to use the language in authentic contexts (p. 324). To evaluate this, institutions can compare student participation and performance in speaking and listening tasks before and after teacher training, analyze classroom discourse patterns, and collect learner feedback. Positive outcomes may be observed in increased student engagement, greater willingness to use the target language spontaneously, and improvements in communicative competence and language mastery. Such evidence can fully demonstrate that teacher development has moved beyond theory into tangible learning results whose impact may also be measured in exit exams such as TOEIC speaking or any other type of test the institution uses.

Level 4: Results
What it is:	This level (Results) measures the final impact of the training, typically in terms of teacher classroom performance outcomes and student language mastery in communicative tasks emulating what happens in real life.
Application for teacher training:	●       The focus shifts to student outcomes: Are learners more engaged? Are they using the target language more effectively? Are their oral tests’ performance and scores better than before? ●       Evidence includes student performance in speaking and listening tasks, classroom participation, and feedback from learners. ●       Comparing pre- and post-training data helps assess the broader impact of the teacher’s transformation and its impact of student learning and language mastery.
Goal:	Improved student communicative competence and engagement to potentially impact their performance on oral and written exit tests such as TOEIC.
Indicators:	●       Increased student participation in target language. ●       Improved performance in speaking/listening tasks. ●       Positive changes in classroom dynamics.
Evaluation:	●       Student performance data (formative assessments). ●       Surveys/interviews with students. ●       Comparative analysis of student outcomes before/after training.

Self-Assessment and Supervisor Rubric

To facilitate not only reflection but also accountability, a combined self-assessment and supervisor rubric can support teachers in monitoring their progress across all four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model. Teachers must provide evidence such as workshop reflections, lesson plans along with communicative activities, classroom observations of their peers, and student performance data, while supervisors document growth through feedback and observation. This dual perspective ensures that professional development remains both individualized and systematically evaluated. Then, both teachers and supervisors are accountable for the success in the implementation of CLT in each class.

The following rubric is designed to help teachers reflect on their progress and allow supervisors to identify areas where support may be needed. It is just a draft that needs to be expanded to include other areas where an institution wants to focus while working on their instructors’ professional development. Each level of the Kirkpatrick Model is represented with indicators and a scale of achievement.

Training language teachers to plan communicative lessons is best understood as a sustained process of professional growth rather than a one-off intervention. The Kirkpatrick Model offers a structured, evidence-based framework that ensures teachers not only acquire new strategies but also apply them effectively and achieve tangible improvements in student outcomes. By aligning teacher development with each stage of the model, institutions can foster professional growth that is impactful, sustainable, and directly linked to communicative competence in the classroom.

Moreover, the model resonates with contemporary trends in English language teacher development. Reflective practice, for instance, has been widely recognized as a cornerstone of professional learning; Schön (1983) describes it as the process by which teachers critically examine their actions to improve future practice. Similarly, teacher learning communities (CoPs) have emerged as collaborative spaces where educators share experiences, challenge assumptions, and co-construct knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Embedding the Kirkpatrick framework within these practices ensures that teacher training is not an isolated event but part of an ongoing culture of reflection, collaboration, and renewal.

In this sense, the Kirkpatrick Model functions not only as an evaluative tool but also as a catalyst for deeper engagement with the principles of communicative teaching. When combined with reflective inquiry and peer collaboration, it can help build a professional development ecosystem that empowers teachers to create classrooms where authentic communication thrives.

📚 References

Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Bloomsbury.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319–326.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

9 Discussion Questions for Teaching Coaches

1.    How can the Reaction level of the Kirkpatrick Model be adapted to ensure teachers perceive training as relevant and motivating for their classroom realities?

2.    What strategies can be used to help teachers move from conceptual understanding of CLT to the actual design of communicative tasks?

3.    In what ways might microteaching and peer feedback serve as effective tools to strengthen the Learning stage?

4.    How can teaching coaches ensure that the Behavior level—classroom implementation—does not fade once the training sessions conclude?

5.    What role can reflective journals and teacher cognition research (Borg, 2015) play in sustaining behavioral change in communicative teaching practices?

6.    How can the Results level be measured beyond standardized tests, capturing authentic student communicative competence?

7.    What institutional supports (e.g., mentoring cycles, CoPs, supervisor rubrics) are necessary to make the Kirkpatrick framework sustainable in ELT contexts?

8.    How can the model be integrated with task-based learning principles (Nunan, 2004) to provide both structure and flexibility in lesson planning?

9.    To what extent does embedding the Kirkpatrick Model into professional development foster a culture of accountability and collaboration among teachers, supervisors, and institutions?

Evaluating Teacher Training - Applying the Kirkpatrick Model to Communicative Lesson Design by Jonathan Acuña