Exploring Differences Between 4MAT and Kirkpatrick Models

In the modern corporate landscape, ensuring training effectiveness requires a dual focus: delivering engaging content that resonates with diverse learners and proving that training drives business results. This white paper compares two foundational, yet distinct, models: 4MAT (an instructional design and learning styles framework) and the Kirkpatrick ROI Evaluation Model (a measurement framework). 

While 4MAT focuses on how to teach effectively, Kirkpatrick focuses on how to evaluate the effectiveness. Used together, they offer a powerful, holistic approach to learning and performance.

The Problem: Many training programs are well-designed but poorly measured, or well-measured but poorly designed.

4MAT (Bernice McCarthy): A systematic, eight-step instructional design model that engages all four learning styles (Imaginative, Analytic, Common Sense, and Dynamic) by answering Why, What, How, and What If?.

Kirkpatrick Model (Donald Kirkpatrick/Phillips): A four-level (plus ROI) framework for assessing training effectiveness: 1. Reaction, 2. Learning, 3. Behavior, 4. Results (and 5. ROI).

4MAT is a cycle of learning that recognizes people perceive (experience vs. conceptualization) and process (reflection vs. action) information differently.

Quadrant 1: Why? (Meaning) – Motivating learners by connecting the topic to their personal experiences (Imaginative Learners).

Quadrant 2: What? (Concepts) – Delivering facts, theory, and data (Analytic Learners).

Quadrant 3: How? (Application) – Practicing and doing; applying the concepts (Common Sense Learners).

Quadrant 4: What if? (Innovation) – Extending the learning to new scenarios and creative problem-solving (Dynamic Learners).

Core Strength: Focuses on the learner's experience and ensures engaging training that caters to diverse cognitive preferences.

The Kirkpatrick model assesses training after it has been designed and delivered. The Phillips ROI model adds a fifth level to measure financial return.

Reaction: Did they like it? Measures satisfaction and relevance.

Learning: Did they acquire knowledge/skills? Measured by tests or demonstrations.

Behavior: Do they use it? Measures transfer of training to the workplace.

Results: Did it impact the business? Measures KPIs like productivity, sales, or safety.

ROI: Did the training pay for itself? Compares monetary benefits to costs.

Core Strength: Provides actionable data to justify training budgets and prove value to stakeholders.

5. Synergies: Why Use Both?

The 4MAT and Kirkpatrick models are not alternatives; they are complementary.

4MAT Enables Higher Kirkpatrick Levels: Well-designed 4MAT training (engaging, relevant) directly leads to better Level 1 (Reaction) and Level 2 (Learning) results. Because it focuses on application (Quadrant 3), it also facilitates higher Level 3 (Behavior) transfer.

Kirkpatrick Validates 4MAT: The data gathered via Kirkpatrick can show that a 4MAT-designed program was successful. If Kirkpatrick Level 3 (Behavior) is low, it indicates that perhaps 4MAT's "How" (Quadrant 3) needs more emphasis on workplace context.

Design with 4MAT to ensure engagement.

Evaluate with Kirkpatrick to prove value.

To achieve both high engagement and high ROI, training departments should adopt a strategy that blends these methodologies. Using 4MAT to design content ensures that training is tailored to how people actually learn. Following this with the Kirkpatrick ROI model ensures that the training is measured against real organizational results.

Recommendation: Utilize 4MAT to build the "what," and Kirkpatrick to measure the "so what."