WCRC Analysis
Instructure’s 2026 research release describes a survey of 1,166 US professionals in HR, learning, technology and related roles. It reports that 71% expect learning programmes to improve on-the-job performance to a great or very great extent. Separately, 53% say their organisations can communicate programme impact using data to that extent.
The responses concern expectations and perceived reporting ability. Subtracting one percentage from the other would not measure a shortfall in actual job performance.
The study also needs to be read with its sampling in view. It combines a panel survey, contacts supplied by Instructure and respondents at the company’s conference booth. Sample sizes vary by question. Those methods do not establish a representative picture of every employer.
The research nevertheless raises a worthwhile operating question. WCRC’s analysis is that learning should be evaluated against a defined work task, with enough attention to the conditions in which the employee must perform it.
Start with the work that needs to improve
Before commissioning a course, a team can identify the task that is causing difficulty. A broad ambition such as better communication leaves too much room for interpretation. A specific task, such as handing over an unresolved customer request accurately, gives an assessment something concrete to examine.
An illustrative assessment could look at whether the recipient has the information needed to continue the work. It could compare samples before and after training, using the same criteria. The results would be more informative than a completion total, provided the work is genuinely comparable.
That last qualification matters. A change in workload, staffing or software may affect performance during the same period. If managers ignore those changes, they may credit training for an improvement it did not cause or dismiss useful learning because another problem obscured it.
An assessment should therefore record the context as well as the result. For a larger programme, a phased introduction may offer a useful comparison. The appropriate method depends on the task and the consequence of getting the judgement wrong.
Employees need a chance to apply the skill
Training can prepare an employee for a task that the job does not allow them to practise. They may lack access to the relevant system, enough time to use a new method or permission to change an established routine.
In that situation, asking the employee to repeat the course would address the wrong problem. A manager should first check whether the working conditions support the expected behaviour. Learning teams need a route to raise those constraints with the people who can change them.
Follow-up can be modest and useful. A manager might review a work sample with the employee and agree what to practise next. That conversation can reveal a specific misunderstanding or a process obstacle that an aggregate dashboard misses. It should support improvement rather than turn every assessment into a threat.
Completion remains a valid record of participation. Employers may also need it for a compliance obligation. Its meaning should stay precise. Where the purpose is better performance, the organisation still needs evidence from the work itself.
WCRC research analysis. Recommendations are editorial proposals, not interventions tested by WCRC. The source page displays inconsistent dates; this article does not present the survey as a new release today.