Participant Feedback based Evaluation on the Level of Satisfaction (LoS) through the performance of a Teacher/Speaker
Concept note on faculty member evaluation during a workshop/training program
A teacher is a teacher and a student should not evaluate the performance of a teacher as the understanding and attitude of the student will create a bias. At times, the speakers’ level of exposure, knowledge and expertise is beyond understanding levels of a student and there may be false alarms.
Hence, to have an idea about the performance of the teacher giving a lecture/ speech/ expert talk during a session of a workshop/seminar/training program, a module is developed based on important criteria, providing weightage to each relatively.
These Criteria (weightage) could be:
- Subject expertise (20)
- Presentation contents (20)
- Explanation on topics (15)
- Dressing and personality (10)
- Active interaction (15)
- Knowledge gain (20)
Now, with a questionnaire (enclosed word file, after customization) printed on an A4 scale with rating options needs to be made available to each of the participant wherein after each session, the participant can provide a rating as soon as the session is complete. It will add further independence on the memory of recalling one’s performance a few days back as well as avoid any sort of influence. The process needs to be ensured actively by reminding participant.
Once this task is accomplished, feedback forms are received in physical form, the received responses (ratings) need to be entered in the provided excel file. The rating and name related customizations only need to be done in the highlighted cells by changing its value. If more teachers are to be listed, additional raw can be added in between (not at the beginning or end of rows). The formula as fed will provide an average and weighted rating over performance satisfaction by each of the involved teachers in the training program/workshop.
(The EXCEL File for feedback evaluation)
Dark yellow shaded cells to be provided with received rating entry from participants. Here L1-to-P2 are various sessions (Lectures, visits, practicals) conducted/planned during the training program/workshop. Name of participants may also be entered and may not be, considering maintining the anonymity of a respondent.
Results of computations are shown thus:
Behind the scenes, simpler statistical computations are working to obtain averages, summations, relative percentages and conditional indications.
Further, each teacher’s individual performance rating can also be obtained for the above criteria independently (based on a mass average of feedback from all the participants). A teacher is empowered with knowledge and must not be judged, but there remains scope for improvement hence, may this mechanism help out the purpose.
Feedback often is confused with evaluation. Both are different. Yet these terms are complimenting each other yet these are differing. A feedback is made to express the experience where as the evaluation is providing the experience a scaled rating i.e. giving numbers which are relative to some base. Albeit, purpose both the terms serve is to look forward improving based on collective opinions from the respondent, mostly in cases, users. Feedback could either be qualitative or quantitative however, an evaluation is mostly quantitative and measurable, comparable.
The method suggested by Bhasker V. Bhatt
Place, Surat, Gujarat, India
Participant Feedback based Evaluation by Bhasker Vijaykumar Bhatt is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.