1

Debra Scott Staff Development FRIT 7738 Spring 2012 Face-to-Face Workshop Participant Evaluations All participants strongly agreed that the workshop description accurately conveyed the content. Four strongly agreed and 2 agreed that the workshop lived up to their expectations. Four strongly agreed and 2 agreed that the material was presented in an organized way. My mentor cautioned me to be more mindful when referring to elements displayed on the computer screen; ensuring that the participants are looking at the exact same screen. She also recommended that I give more specific directional cues such as select discussions from the course menu on the upper left hand side of the screen. Four participants strongly agreed and 2 agreed that the workshop gave them sufficient practice and feedback. Three strongly agreed and three agreed that the pace and the time allotted were sufficient. My mentor recommended that the workshop content be limited to no more than 2 hours. I had no real conception of how long to allot for each module that I planned to cover. After experiencing the interactions, I am convinced that the content needs to be broken down into 3 different workshop sessions. All of the participants stayed the entire length of the workshop, 10 am 1 pm. Several times there were technical glitches that interrupted the flow of the workshop but I was pleased to see that the participants stayed, discussed iCollege related issues amongst themselves, and continued to ask questions. Thankfully, everyone agreed that they would recommend the workshop to their colleagues. Five participants agreed that they would like to see Grade book management covered in subsequent workshops. In response to question 8 on the evaluation, two participants wanted to

see organization of documents and files more clearly explained, 2 wanted to discuss more about facilitating discussion, and 2 wanted to see more iCollege best practices covered in more depth. (LMS Workshop evaluation, n.d.). Self-evaluation Considering the characteristics of my target audience, a better design for the workshop would be to limit instruction to no more than 2 topics presented in a 40-50 minute session. Although many of the LMS tools involve repetitive actions or options, it can nonetheless be overwhelming to new users to try to take in too much new information at one setting. I could not cover nearly as much content as I had originally plan. At several points during the workshop I had an out of body experience in which I felt I was observing a workshop that was totally different from what I had imagined as I prepared. I was very thankful to have my mentor in the room. Each participant required quite lot of individualized attention and without that additional support much more frustration would have resulted. Feedback from the participants was positive but at various times, I could see the frustration and tension mounting whenever there was a technical glitch or if I was speaking with one participant and another participant had to wait to get a question answered. I could see the frustration and that was something that I particularly wanted to avoid. I delivered the workshop in a room with Apple computers and that added an additional element of uncertainty because I am not as familiar with their features even though we had selected the windows screen display option. For future workshops, it will definitely be a priority to reserve a room with computer equipment that I am more familiar, so that I can function from a position of greater confidence. At various times there were issues with computers randomly temporarily losing network access, computers freezing up for no apparent reason, as well as

issues with java not being enabled consequently resulting in some features not functioning correctly. A major issue was that I was so accustomed to moving around in the instructors view of the Learning Management System that in my instruction I frequently referred to things that I could see, but could not be seen from the student viewpoint. At various times during the workshop, the participants worked in their individual building sections. This resulted in unexpected issues because often they were not seeing screen elements laid out exactly as I referred to them from my viewpoint. Circulating the room, helped to alleviate these issues but it was also very difficult to maintain the flow of the workshop and ensure everyone was engaged. All in all, it was an exhausting, yet rewarding experience. It was extremely challenging to conduct a hands-on workshop with entry level technology users, users that principally use technology for word processing. I was very pleased to hear one participant express how much she appreciated everyone in the workshop being at the same technology user level. It was my objective to have like minded individuals in the room and I feel that was successfully accomplished. Prospective changes include conducting the 1st half of the workshop session in such a way that the participants just observe the instructor model the processes; the 2nd half would then consist of the hands-on workshop. The participants expressed that they truly valued the hands-on nature of the workshop but in hind sight I think more processes could have been modeled if I had just delayed the onset of the participants working in the system. I was extremely thankful to be able to refer them to the online version of the workshop for additional reinforcement of the workshop content.

References LMS Workshop evaluation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDZWdzE2VTFhMXRCM0tfR FNyVlp3NkE6MQ