EPISODE 02: What Does Learning Excellence Really Look Like?

Posted on September 2, 2026 by Rowell Mariano

If you read Episode 01 of The Backstage, you probably noticed that I kept coming back to one phrase: learning excellence. I talked about what nearly 70 accreditation reviews and counting have taught me. I shared some of the things I have seen while reviewing organisations of different sizes, industries, and locations around the world. But while writing that article, I realised that there is still one basic question I need to answer. What do I actually mean when I say learning excellence?

So now, let’s talk about learning excellence.

The term sounds good. In fact, many organisations will probably say that they want it. But what does it really look like? Is it having a great trainer? Is it getting high evaluation scores? Is it having a sophisticated learning platform? Is it having complete training documentation or spending a significant amount on learning and development?

All of those can contribute to quality learning. But for me, none of them alone defines learning excellence.

If I have to give the shortest definition, this is how I would put it:

Learning excellence is learning translated into actual performance.

That sounds simple, but there is a lot happening behind it.

A High Training Rating Is Not Yet Learning Excellence

I have been in learning and development for many years, and one thing we sometimes celebrate too quickly is a high training evaluation score. We see a 4.8 out of 5 rating and immediately conclude that the program was successful. Of course, learner feedback matters. We need to know how learners experienced the program and how they perceived its relevance. But a good rating tells us only part of the story.

The same is true when learners pass an assessment. Passing a test gives us evidence that something was learned. A demonstration can show that a learner can perform a skill under specific conditions. These are important measures, but the real question comes after the learning event. Can the learner still use what was learned when the facilitator is no longer there? Can the person perform without looking at the training material or waiting for somebody to provide instructions?

Recent research continues to point in this direction. A 2026 systematic review of workplace training transfer describes transfer as the effective application of knowledge, skills, and attitudes acquired through training. It also shows that measuring learning transfer requires looking beyond what happens during the training itself (Ardondi et al., 2026). Research on training evaluation has also continued to connect learning with post-training behavior and results rather than stopping at participant reaction alone (Paul et al., 2024).

This is where I think we need to be more careful when we use the word excellence.

Training can create awareness. It can help people acquire knowledge and develop skills through guided practice. A well-designed intervention can even assess competence. But training by itself cannot guarantee that the learning will be used after the learning event, and that difference matters.

The Real Test Begins After the Learning Event

Let me use a very simple example that I often use when talking about learning design.

Imagine that you want to learn how to fry an egg.

Today, you do not necessarily need to attend a one-hour class. You might watch a five-minute nanolearning video. The video shows you the process and gives you enough information to try it yourself. At the end, you might even be asked to submit a video demonstrating that you can fry an egg.

Did learning happen? Yes. You were exposed to the content, acquired the knowledge, practiced the process, and demonstrated the skill.

But here is the next question. Tomorrow, without watching the video again and without somebody guiding you, can you go into the kitchen and fry the egg correctly?

If you can, the learning has moved beyond the learning event. You can now use what you learned.

Of course, real learning situations are often more complex than frying an egg. Think about leadership development. A participant can complete a leadership program, explain every model taught during the course, and score very well in the assessment. Three months later, that same person may still be managing people exactly the way they did before the program.

Did the person learn something? Probably.

Did that learning translate into actual performance? That is a different question.

For me, that is where learning excellence needs to go.

But Performance Is Not the Learner’s Responsibility Alone

There is another side to this that we cannot ignore. Imagine that the learner genuinely wants to apply what was learned, but the environment does not allow it.

A new manager completes a leadership program and learns how to involve employees in decision-making. The person returns to work, but the organisation does not give that manager any real authority. Or imagine a public figure who receives media training and learns how to communicate clearly and authentically. When an actual interview comes, management does not allow that person to express an authentic position.

Can we automatically conclude that the learning intervention failed?

I do not think so.

There has to be an opportunity to apply learning. Research supports this point. Koch and Wisshak (2025) describe training transfer as being affected by learner characteristics, training design, and the environment where the learning is expected to be used. Their work also points to the importance of application opportunities and support in helping people use what they have learned.

This means learning excellence requires more than capability. The learner also needs a reasonable opportunity to use that capability.

For organisations, this is an important distinction because it is easy to send someone to training and then put all the responsibility for change on that person. If we want learning to result in performance, we also need to look at what happens when learners return to their actual environment.

Learning Excellence Needs a Quality Process Behind It

While actual performance is the ultimate test for me, I am not saying that the learning process itself does not matter. It matters a lot. In fact, good performance is much more likely when there is discipline behind how learning is identified, designed, delivered, assessed, and improved.

In my book Will It FIT?, which I published in 2022, I introduced the FIT Wheel Model as a way of looking at the learning process through FORM, IMPLEMENT, and TEST (Mariano, 2022). Under FORM, the ABC process covers Analysis, Blueprint, and Creation. We start by determining the real need, designing the learning based on that need, and creating what will support the learning experience.

IMPLEMENT is the actual learning intervention. This can happen through different modalities depending on the need and the learner. It can be classroom learning, virtual delivery, blended learning, microlearning, nanolearning, coaching, or another appropriate approach.

Then we TEST.

In the model, I use OKAY, which stands for Opinion, Knowledge, Application, and Yield. It was inspired by the logic behind the four levels of training evaluation associated with Kirkpatrick. Opinion looks at the learner’s response to the learning experience. Knowledge examines what was learned. Application looks at the use of learning, while Yield examines what the learning intervention ultimately produced.

The purpose of going through these stages is not to create more forms or make learning more complicated. The purpose is to make sure that what we design has a reason behind it and that we have evidence to tell us if it worked. Whatever we find during testing should then inform what we analyse and design next. Learning quality improves when we use what we discover instead of simply repeating the same program every year.

The Learner Has a Role Too

There is also a personal side to learning excellence. We can design the best learning experience possible, but the learner still has a role in what happens next.

I sometimes explain this through what I call the 3A model: Aware, Acknowledge, and Act.

First, I need to become aware that there is something I need to develop. Maybe I need to communicate better. Maybe my technical knowledge is becoming outdated. Maybe the role I want next requires a capability I do not yet have.

But awareness by itself does very little. I also need to acknowledge the need. I have to accept that there is something I need to work on.

Then I need to act.

That action can mean attending a learning program. It can mean getting coaching or seeking advice from somebody with more experience. It may involve practice or another form of development. Eventually, though, the learner has to do something with the learning.

This is why I do not believe that learning excellence belongs only to the Learning and Development team.

Learning Excellence Is a Shared Commitment

Learning and Development can be the primary driver and coordinator of the learning system. We can conduct needs analysis, design programs, set quality requirements, assess learning, review evaluation results, and recommend improvements. But we cannot create learning excellence alone.

Senior leaders have a role because they decide what the organisation values and supports. Managers have a role because they can create or remove opportunities for people to apply learning. Learners themselves have a responsibility to participate and act on what they have learned. In many organisations, the same senior leaders and managers supporting the learning process are learners themselves.

Learning excellence therefore requires commitment from the people involved in the system.

This is also where quality standards can help.

Organisations do not need to wait for accreditation before they start pursuing learning excellence. But standards can give an organisation a benchmark against which it can examine what it is doing. The IACET Standard for Continuing Education and Training, for example, takes a systems approach that covers areas such as needs analysis, learning outcomes, instructional requirements, assessment, learner support, evaluation, and continuous improvement (IACET, n.d.).

External accreditation can then provide another level of assurance because the organisation is allowing its practices to be reviewed against an established standard.

I see this directly in my work as an IACET accreditation consultant. One US-based safety organisation engaged me to guide its international accreditation journey. The work was not simply about producing documents for an application. We had to look at the system behind their learning programs, identify what needed to be strengthened, and align their actual practices with the requirements they were pursuing. The organisation eventually achieved the accreditation.

That is the kind of work I enjoy because accreditation becomes more valuable when the process itself improves how the organisation approaches learning.

Excellence Is Bigger Than the Learning Event

There are many things I still consider important in learning. Learners should gain deeper understanding. A learning environment should support people and give them a fair opportunity to develop. Good learning can also build curiosity and encourage people to continue growing.

But if a learning intervention was created because somebody needed to perform something, eventually I need to see that performance.

If I train someone to operate equipment safely, can that person operate it safely? If I develop someone in leadership, can that person lead differently when the situation requires it? If I teach somebody how to analyse data, can that person use data to make a better decision? If a student learns a practical skill, can that student demonstrate it outside the controlled learning activity?

To me, that is where learning excellence becomes real.

It is not the number of people who attended. It is not the number of learning hours delivered or how attractive the course looked. Those measures can tell us useful things, but they should never become the final definition of success.

Learning excellence asks a more demanding question:

Did the learning accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish?

Sometimes the answer will be no. That does not always mean the trainer failed or the learner failed. It means we need to look at the whole system. Was the correct need identified? Was the learning designed appropriately? Did the learner acquire what was needed? Was there an opportunity to apply it? Did something in the environment support or prevent performance?

Those are the conversations that matter.

In Episode 01, I talked about the many things I have seen behind accreditation reviews. This time, I wanted to go back to something more basic and define what learning excellence actually means to me. Because before we talk about better programs, better technology, accreditation, or new learning trends, we need to be clear about what we are really trying to achieve.

For me, the answer remains simple: Learning excellence is learning translated into actual performance. Everything we do before, during, and after the learning event should help make that possible.

If I looked beyond your training calendar today, that is the question I would want to ask: Are your people simply attending learning programs, or are they actually able to do something better because of what they learned?

That is what we need to look at beyond the classroom, in the backstage.

References

Ardondi, M., Fortunato, E., Ruozi, C., Di Fronzo, P., Saffioti, A., Ferrari, I., Bassi, M. C., Ghirotto, L., & Pedroni, C. (2026). Workplace training transfer: A systematic scoping review of evaluation tools for adult learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-03-2025-0068

IACET. (n.d.). ANSI/IACET 1-2018 standard for continuing education and training. https://www.iacet.org/standards/ansi-iacet-2018-1-standard-for-continuing-education-and-training/

Koch, A., & Wisshak, S. (2025). Strengthening trainers’ transfer knowledge: An intervention study. International Journal of Training and Development, 29(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12349

Mariano, R. V. (2022). Will it FIT?. Rex Printing Company, Inc.

Paul, S., Burman, R., & Singh, R. (2024). Training effectiveness evaluation: Advancing a Kirkpatrick model based composite framework. Evaluation and Program Planning, 107, 102494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102494