COURSE NAME

DATE
TRAINER
COURSE NUM
CLASS SCORE #DIV/0!

TRAINING CONTENT TRAININ

1 1
0.8 0.9
0.8
0.6 0.7
0.4 0.6
0.2 0.5
0.4
0
Boring (1) Not good (2) Fair (3) Good (4) Outstanding 0.3
(5) 0.2
0.1
1. Quality and effectiveness of the content 0
Boring (1) Not good (2)
2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the practical exercises
3. Application of the course in reality 1. Training methods
4. Amount of time spent on each topic or skill 3. Explain material / give inst
5. Logical sequence of course and relevance of course to my job 5. Use time effectively

OVERALL RATING MODU

1 100%
0.9 90%
0.8
80%
0.7
0.6 70%

0.5 60%
0.4 50%
0.3
40%
0.2
0.1 30%
0 0 0 0 0
0 20%
Boring Not good Fair Good Outstanding TRAINING CONTENT TRA

LEVEL 2 - TEST RESULT

12 1200%

10 1000%

8 800%

6 600%

4 400%

2 200%
10 1000%

8 800%

6 600%

4 400%

2 200%

0 0%
Pre test Post test Difference

Row 45 Row 46

LEVEL 3 - APPLICATION RESULT SKIL

6
18
4
16
2
14
0
12 n
io
10
c at
8 u ni
m
6 o m D
c EA
4 ti ve -L
c IN
2 fe
ef
0 5
8 -5
Before After Diff 3
7-
IMPROVING RELATIONSHIP No ap

Course Evaluation - Level 1

OBJECTIVE

Know how to do route book

Understand and apply 7 steps selling
Present effect sales promotion

Not good
TRAINING CONTENT Boring (1) Fair (3)
(2)
1. Quality and effectiveness of the content 0 0 0
2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the practical exercises 0 0 0
3. Application of the course in reality 0 0 0
4. Amount of time spent on each topic or skill 0 0 0
5. Logical sequence of course and relevance of course to my job 0 0 0

Not good
How well did the Trainer / Facilitator ... Boring (1) Fair (3)
(2)
1. Training methods 0 0 0
2. Met my level of knowledge 0 0 0
3. Explain material / give instruction 0 0 0
4. Motivate learners 0 0 0
5. Use time effectively 0 0 0

Not good
Participant Self-Evaluation Boring (1) Fair (3)
(2)
1. I was present and discuss for the full duration of the course 0 0 0
2. I participated throughout the duration 0 0 0

Not good
How would you rate the … Boring (1) Fair (3)
(2)
1. Comfort of the Training Facility 0 0 0
2. Convenience of Facility Location 0 0 0

Overall Comments on the Content

Overall Comments on the Facilitator

Overall rating

Boring 0
Not good 0
Fair 0
Good 0
Outstanding 0

TRAINING CONTENT #DIV/0!

TRAINER EVALUATION #DIV/0!
SELF-EVALUATING #DIV/0!

SCORE #DIV/0!
 TRAINING METHOD LEARNER'S SELF-EVALUATIO
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Boring (1) Not good (2) Fair (3) Good (4) Outstanding (5)
0
Boring (1) Not good (2) Fair (3) Good (4)
1. Training methods 2. Met my level of knowledge
3. Explain material / give instruction 4. Motivate learners 1. I was present and discuss for the full duration of th
5. Use time effectively 2. I participated throughout the duration

MODULE SCORE

TRAINING CONTENT TRAINER EVALUATION SELF-EVALUATING

 SKILLS APPLIED RELATIONSHIP WITH SUBODIN
25
29%
20 24%
20%
15
16%
ti on sk or
k
&R
ta w
i ca n g p -R 10
un vi ou ip
m gi gr sh 8%
om D g er 5
c EA i di
n ad
iv
e -L iv Le
ct IN D 0
e ffe IS
C Hoàng Nguyễn Đoàn Nguyễn Phạm B
55 D Thị Chúc Văn Thị Kim Văn Trường
8- Chiến Giềng Điệp Sơn
-3

No applied (1) Good (2) Before After Diff

INPUT AR

Participan
NO YES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
0 13 y y y y y y y y y y y y y
0 13 y y y y y y y y y y y y y
0 13 y y y y y y y y y y y y y

Participan
Good (4) Outstanding (5)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

Participan
Good (4) Outstanding (5)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
0 0
0 0
0 0
 0 0
0 0

Participan
Good (4) Outstanding (5)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
0 0
0 0

Participan
Good (4) Outstanding (5)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
0 0
0 0
 ELF-EVALUATION LEARNER'S SASTICFACTION
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Fair (3) Good (4) Outstanding (5) 0
1 2 3 4 5
uss for the full duration of the course
ut the duration 1. Comfort of the Training Facility 2. Convenience of Facility Location
P WITH SUBODINATES PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT
30% 90 9%
29%
80 8% 8%
25%
70 7%
20% 20% 60 6%
50 5% 5%
16% 15%
40 4% 4% 4%
10% 30 3% 3%
8% 2%
6% 5% 20 2%
10 1%
0% 0 0% 0%
oàn Nguyễn Phạm Bùi Kim Lâm Hoàng Nguyễn Đoàn Nguyễn Phạm Bùi Kim Lâm
Kim Văn Trường Loan Thành Thị Chúc Văn Thị Kim Văn Trường Loan Thành
ềng Điệp Sơn Phúc Chiến Giềng Điệp Sơn Phúc

e After Diff Before After Diff

INPUT AREA

Participant
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Participant Total
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 answers
0
0
0
0
0

Participant Total
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 answers
0
0
0
 0
0

Participant Total
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 answers
0
0

Participant Total
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 answers
0
0

Score
N

cility Location
NT PRODUCTIVITY AND RELATIONSHIP REL-
9% EVANT
8% 70 65 20%
7% 60 18%
60 18%
6% 16%
5% 5% 50 14%
4% 40 12%
3% 10%
2% 2% 30 8%
1% 20 17 6%
12
0% 4% 4%
Kim Lâm 10
2%
oan Thành 0 0%
Phúc IMPROVING RELATIONSHIP IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY

Before After Diff

% Total Ave %

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

% Total Ave %

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0!
 #DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

% Total Ave %

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

% Total Ave %

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

Score #DIV/0!
 COURSE NAME
DATE
TRAINER
COURSE NUM

Post Knowledge Assessment Result Sheet - L

No Participant Dept.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Overall Average
%
ent Result Sheet - Level 2

Knowledge Assessment
Part A (Availability)
Difference
Possible score :
Pre test Post test
 0

Pre test Post test Difference

#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
COURSE NAME
DATE
TRAINER
COURSE NUM

APPLICATION IN LINE PRODUCTION

Skills / ability application in LINE PRODUCTION throught
No applied (1) Good (2)
interview and observation

7-38-55 effective communication 2 5

IN-LEAD giving task 2 5

DISC Dividing group work 1 6

Leadership - R&R 3 4

Working effectively with worker using communication skills Before After

Hoàng Thị Chúc 10 15

Nguyễn Văn Chiến 8 13
Đoàn Thị Kim Giềng 10 18
Nguyễn Văn Điệp 17 20
Phạm Trường Sơn 13 18
Bùi Kim Loan 10 15
Lâm Thành Phúc 16 18

Productivity Improvement Before After

Hoàng Thị Chúc 72 77

Nguyễn Văn Chiến 55 60
Đoàn Thị Kim Giềng 56 66
Nguyễn Văn Điệp 60 60
Phạm Trường Sơn 55 60
Bùi Kim Loan 62 65
Lâm Thành Phúc 62 69

MAIN GOALS Before After

IMPROVING RELATIONSHIP 12 17
IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY 60 65

Skills / ability application in market of Sales Rep (TSM evaluate

Boring (1) Not good (2)
through SR behaviour)
 Participant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

2 2 1 1 2 2 2

2 2 2 1 1 2 2

1 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 1 1 1 2 2 2

1.8 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 ### ### ### ###

Diff

20%
24%
29%
8%
16%
20%
6%

Diff

3%
4%
8%
0%
 4%
2%
5%

Diff
18%
4%

Participant
Fair (3) Good (4) Outstanding (5)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ###
ant Total
% Total Ave %
12 13 14 15 answers

12 86%

12 86%

13 93%
85.71%
11 79%

### ### ### ###

ant Total
% Total Ave %
12 13 answers

0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0!

### ###