You are on page 1of 2

Face to Face Reflection

My reflection
Overall, I am pleased with the training and the participants evaluation of the training. Upon
reviewing the participant and SME evaluation, I was able to see areas of strength and weakness.
The Likert ratings were helpful in determining general strengths and weaknesses of the training.
The written responses were helpful in determining specific strengths and weaknesses. The Likert
scale identified the following strengths: meaningful learning, satisfied with training, and I will
use OneNote in the future. It was great to hear that participants were satisfied with training and
that they will use the program in their classroom. This shows me that the design on the training
outlined the benefits of OneNote to teachers and students. The written responses identified the
following strengths: multiple reference resources provided, instruction leading to mini-lessons
helpful, time to collaborate, and meaningful learning tasks. I was pleased to hear that the
activities leading up to the mini-lessons provided participants with information they needed to
create their lessons. It was noted that teachers enjoyed the collaboration piece in the last
component of training. This was nice to hear since teachers are not always excited about
receiving feedback from their peers, but it proved to be an effective component of the training.
I spent more time reviewing the weaknesses that were identified through the learner and SME
analysis. The Likert scale identified three areas of weakness: multiple means of expression,
rubrics and work samples, and useful feedback. It was difficult to identify weaknesses using this
scale since the listed weaknesses received a neutral ranking. The use of participant and SME
written responses was the most helpful in identifying weaknesses. The responses identified the
following weaknesses: more time allotted for mini-lessons, more timely feedback, and lack of
discussion sample responses. Of these responses the one with the greatest frequency was the
time allotted for mini-lessons. My SME noted that the training time may need to be extended to
allow ample time more mini-lessons.
I would modify my training to reflect the suggestions made by the participants and the SME.
The biggest complaint was a lack of time to complete mini-lessons. I would most likely remove
one or two of the discussion requirements since one participant noted the discussions were not a
meaningful task. This would provide more time to work on the mini-lesson. Another area that
was noted was the need for possible discussion samples. I purposefully did not post examples of
discussions because I wanted the participants to think for themselves, as there is not right or
wrong way to go about answering. I may offer a general discussion sample that will show
learners how to respond without providing all the answers. I will also build in time for
participants to explore features before assigning a specific task with each feature. I do not want
to change the face to face portion on the training since it was noted as a strength. This time
allowed for participants to build their notebook and learn about the features at the same time. I
have found that timing is one of the more difficult tasks in education, planning activities and
anticipating how long it will take for students to complete each task. I found that this is no
different when training adults on technology. I learned that I need to allocate my time a bit
differently to meet the needs of the participants in the group. I have also considered making the
mini-lesson a homework type assignment that could be complete after the training. This would
allow more time to spend exploring the features of OneNote. Our time preparing would give
participants plenty of resources to use as they complete their mini lessons. I might add the
sharing notebooks to this part of the training instead of after the lesson creation. This would
allow participants to work on mini-lessons and share those lessons after the training time.