Teacher/Faculty Workshop
Evaluations
Instrument 2: Tri-Institute Summer Conference
Project: Puget
Sound Consortium for Manufacturing Excellence
Shoreline Community College
Funding Source: NSF - Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE)
Purpose: To determine teacher satisfaction with a conference
Administered To: Teachers
Topics Covered:
- Workshop Evaluation: satisfaction, expectations, content
Format/Length: 20 closed-ended scaled items
and 4 open-ended items
TRI-INSTITUTE SUMMER CONFERENCE
Thank you for attending the Tri-lnstitute Summer Conference.
We hope that you will take time to complete this evaluation
form because your thoughts are vital to improving our program.
Your response is voluntary—you do not have to fill it
out or answer all of the questions—but your help is greatly
appreciated. Responses to the survey will be summarized by
the UW Office of Educational Assessment.
Questions 1-3: Please circle your best answer.
| |
1. I heard
about the event: |
2. My gender
is: |
3. My primary
responsibility is: |
| |
|
1. |
from the mailing. |
|
1. |
female |
|
1. |
high school teacher |
| |
|
2. |
at my high school or community
college. |
|
2. |
male |
|
2. |
community college instructor |
| |
|
3. |
by word of mouth. |
|
|
3. |
technical college instructor |
| |
|
4. |
on a Web site. |
|
|
4. |
other___________ |
| |
|
5. |
other_____________ |
|
|
Questions 4-10: Using the following scale, please report
your best response:
| |
|
Strongly
Disagree
|
Disagree
|
Unsure
|
Agree
|
Strongly
Agree
|
|
| |
4. |
The Tri-lnstitute was well
organized. |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
| |
5. |
The presenters were well prepared. |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
| |
6. |
I felt the technical knowledge
of the presenters was excellent. |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
| |
7. |
The assistance of the Tri-lnstitute
staff was first-rate. |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
| |
8. |
The content presented was valuable
for me. |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
| |
9. |
The content of the Tri-lnstitute
met my expectations based on published descriptions. |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
| |
10. |
I would recommend the Tri-lnstitute
to others. |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
Which session on days 2 to 4 did you attend? (check one)
o Virtual Manufacturing |
o Materials Science and Technology |
o Web Design |
Questions 11-20: Please comment on the session activities
by choosing the word that best completes the sentence.
| |
|
Poor
|
Average
|
Good
|
Very Good
|
|
| |
11. |
Learning activities were: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
| |
12. |
Explanations of unfamiliar
terms were: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
| |
13. |
My interest
level during the session was: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
| |
14. |
Usefulness of the information
was: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
| |
15. |
The quality of the written
material was: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
| |
16. |
My interaction with other participants
was: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
| |
17. |
My understanding of activities
I can use in my classroom is: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
| |
18. |
My knowledge of the curriculum
development process is: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
| |
19. |
My confidence about sharing
this information with students is: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
| |
20. |
Overall, my rating of this
session is: |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
21. How did the Monday sessions help to prepare you for the
rest of the week?
22. What are one or two ideas you learned from the Tri-lnstitute
that you feel you will most likely apply?
23. More generally, how will you use the information you
have received at the Tri-lnstitute in your future teaching?
24. What suggestions do you have for improving the Tri-lnstitute?
|
