Evaluation Results Aug 28 Seminar. Question I 1. Instruction: Rate aspects of the workshop on a 1 to 5 scale by selecting the number corresponding to.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

The Teacher Foundation A Look at the Evaluation Process by The Teacher Foundation (TTF)

Advertisements

The Course experience questionnaire (P. Ramsden) Designed as a performance indicator 24 statements relating to 5 aspects 1 overall satisfaction statement.

STUDENT FEEDBACK: TEACHING YOUR TEACHER Dr Cristina Stefan Pediatric oncologist May 2007.

Wynne HARLEN Susana BORDA CARULLA Fibonacci European Training Session 5, March 21 st to 23 rd, 2012.

Bill Zannini Business Programs Coordinator October 27, 2008.

Writing an Effective Proposal for Innovations in Teaching Grant

MARCH 16-17, 2011 NEW YORK CITY, NY EVALUATION RESULTS Michelle Bissonnette U.S. Department of Education.

New Teacher Induction Academy Data Collection November 30, 2011

FROM:THRU: 1. PERIOD OF TRAINING STUDENT COMMENTS ON TRAINING Collective Training Directorate Ft. Leavenworth, KS 2. TITLE OF COURSE:3. PLACE WHERE TRAINING.

Activities Leadership Team. Goals  To train potential Leaders within Hettinger High School.  Not to focus on the great athletes.  Look for individual.

Understanding the EPC Rating rubrics

Applying Assessment to Learning

Southeast Missouri State University Dr. Debbie Lee-DiStefano.

NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES, EVALUATION , Ankara EUROFACE CONSULTING, CZECH REPUBLIC.

ICE Evaluations Some Suggestions for Improvement.

I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=

TF Teaching Seminar Shang-Hua Teng. Topics 1.Interaction with students 2.Interaction with Professor/Instructor 3.Interaction with graders 4.Lecture/lab/prob.

I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=

 Professional Military Instructor (PME)  Goals  Objectives  Criteria  Scoring Key  Assessment Requirements  Conclusion  References.

How to write a Report On Assessment Source: AUN Secretariat.

EVIDENCE BASED WRITING LEARN HOW TO WRITE A DETAILED RESPONSE TO A CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE QUESTION!! 5 th Grade ReadingMs. Nelson EDU 643Instructional.

METHODS Study Population Study Population: 224 students enrolled in a 3-credit hour, undergraduate, clinical pharmacology course in Fall 2005 and Spring.

Tempus Workshop Zagreb pag. 1 Quality Assurance Procedures and Activities at Ghent University Student questionnaires.

Khan Academy Implementation Models Making the Best Use of Khan Academy with Your Students 1.

Qatar University Exemplary Online Course Award

Teacher Engagement Survey 2014

ADVANCED EXCEL: TIPS AND TRICKS Jennifer Hook DD2 Adult Education Assisted by: Allison Walker SHS: January 13, 2014 SRN : 9:45-11:15am.

HFM Distance Learning Project Teacher Survey 2003 – 2004 School Year... BOCES Distance Learning Program Quality Access Support.

CEBP Learning Institute Fall 2009 Evaluation Report A collaborative Partnership between Indiana Department of Corrections & Indiana University November.

E.N.V.I.S.I.O.N.S. Educational Network Venture into Science/Math Instruction, Outreach, and North Carolina Standards Ken Reddic, Grant Director Michael.

Evaluating HRD Programs

A Professional Development Workshop for Teachers.

Program Evaluation Update. Program Impact Campuses Served by TRC.

Natural Europe Questionnaire for teachers (school visit) The questionnaire is aimed at collecting information and on the features and tools of the Natural.

Mentoring Preservice Teachers: Survey Results Updated last: 9/15/2008.

11 Report on Professional Development for and Update Developed for the Providence School Board March 28, 2011 Presented by: Marco Andrade.

CarboOcean Bergen Carboschools+ What did students, teachers and scientists learn? Elma Dijkstra & Martin Goedhart Department of Education Faculty.

0 1 1.Key Performance Indicator Results ( ) KPI Survey Statistics Student Distribution by Year in Program KPI Overall Results Student Satisfaction.

Enter Title of Presentation Here Presenter Name Optional Information: School, Position.

CHAPTER I INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

Multimedia Thematic Project – Part III Lesson II F-18E/F Maintenance Research Joe King University of Phoenix Designing and Producing Educational Technology.

EVALUATION RESULTS March 14 and 15, New York, New York.

Criterion-Referenced Testing and Curriculum-Based Assessment EDPI 344.

Mathematics and Science Partnership APR Updates apr.ed-msp.net.

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE Title of the training module:___________________________________________ Title of the lesson:_________________________________________________.

STIMULATE II: AN INTERNATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM Brussels September/December 2002 Prepared and presented by Helene Pieume Matam Communication Associate,

.. HFM Distance Learning Project Teacher Survey 2002 – 2003 School Year BOCES Distance Learning Program Quality Access Support.

 WHS Learning Goals Designing the most effective learning goals to guide and support improved student achievement: Caroline Woud 18 th August 2015 Reference:

Please sit in groups of four. Please sit in front of a colored card.

Synopsis Student Survey Data May, 2008 Tegrity Lecture Capture Pilot.

CAPSTONE PRESENTATOIN ANDREA RIOUX 7/12/12. CANDIDATE Andrea Rioux Instructional Technology M.Ed.

Joon KimKoichiro Otani Jeong-IL Cho. B. Joon Kim, Ph.D., Department of Public Policy Koichiro Otani, Ph.D., Department of Public Policy Jeong-IL Cho,

Graduate Program Completer Evaluation Feedback 2008.

Evaluating Growth Patterns. Setting the Stage  Welcome/Introductions  Structure for the day  Materials review R A M Materials Reports Activity M A.

Tri City United Public Schools August 6, 2013 “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”

NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. COMMON.

Do you feel there should be a prerequisite for this module concerning the knowledge level? The result of evaluation forms.

10 th NCDR Annual Meeting March 26-27, 2009; Orlando, Florida 709 people attended 13 storyboards were presented 549 people completed online evaluation.

TELL Survey 2015 Trigg County Public Schools Board Report December 10, 2015.

Tell Survey May 12, To encourage large response rates, the Kentucky Education Association, Kentucky Association of School Administrators, Kentucky.

Can You Enhance Knowledge and Stimulate Excellence One STEM Unit at a Time? AEA – October 16, 2014 Panel: Evaluating STEM Professional Development Interventions.

1 SUNYIT IITG Development of an Interactive Case Study Chris Urban PI Glenn Van Knowe CO-PI Need to start End 12:35 PM Trying to put learning in a real.

CD&E Monthly Update 4 December 2013

Grading Rubric – Student Presentations

Annual Student Feedback Survey 2018 response rate 33 %

Align Combine Design.

Overall Evaluation Results 3/24/08 69% response rate

ECML October 2017 Ireland.

Undergraduate Survey Data

Your affiliation Your regional Date

Presentation transcript:

Evaluation Results Aug 28 Seminar

Question I 1. Instruction: Rate aspects of the workshop on a 1 to 5 scale by selecting the number corresponding to the rating score. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree 1.I was well informed about the objectives of the workshop. Instruction: Rate aspects of the workshop on a 1 to 5 scale by selecting the number corresponding to the rating score. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree 1.I was well informed about the objectives of the workshop. 2.This workshop lived up to my expectations 2.This workshop lived up to my expectations 3.The content is relevant to my job. 3.The content is relevant to my job. 4.The workshop objectives were clear to me. 4.The workshop objectives were clear to me. 5. The workshop activities stimulated my learning. 5. The workshop activities stimulated my learning. 6. The activities in this workshop gave me sufficient practice and feedback. 6. The activities in this workshop gave me sufficient practice and feedback. 7.The difficulty level of this workshop was appropriate. 7.The difficulty level of this workshop was appropriate. 8. The pace of this workshop was appropriate. 8. The pace of this workshop was appropriate. 9.The instructors were well prepared. 9.The instructors were well prepared. 10.The instructors were helpful. 10.The instructors were helpful. Other (please specify)

Question II 2. How would you improve this workshop? (Check all that apply.) Slow down the pace of the workshop. Make the workshop less difficult. Allot more time for the workshop. Reduce the content covered in the workshop. Clarify the workshop objectives. Update the content covered in the workshop. Provide better information before the workshop. Improve the instructional methods.

Question III 3. What is the least valuable aspect of this workshop?

1. none Fri, Aug 27, :55 PM Find There is no aspect of this workshop that is least valuable. everything was helpful. Fri, Aug 27, :52 PM Find GIS: Tool Teaching Science because computers are not available in most public schools Fri, Aug 27, :50 PM Find it is not applicable to the hinterlands Fri, Aug 27, :49 PM Find many Fri, Aug 27, :48 PM Find none... Fri, Aug 27, :47 PM Find about the GIS information Fri, Aug 27, :46 PM Find technology error...geezzzz Fri, Aug 27, :45 PM Find...Find...

Question IV 4. What is the most valuable aspect of this workshop?

1. All things that were shared by the speakers are valuable. Fri, Aug 27, :55 PM Find Everything discussed in the workshop were valuable and very helpful. Fri, Aug 27, :52 PM Find Inquiry-Based Science because it is useful even in conducting normal classes. Fri, Aug 27, :50 PM Find the technological aspect for collaboration in using computer technology for classroom Fri, Aug 27, :49 PM Find plenty to enumerate Fri, Aug 27, :48 PM Find the knowledge shared!!! Fri, Aug 27, :47 PM Find valuable is that in the earthquakes and energy... Fri, Aug 27, :46 PM Find implementation of modern classroom atmosphere Fri, Aug 27, :45 PM Find...Find...

Question V * 5. Please indicate overall evaluation of the workshop. Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor