Evaluation of Instruction Data Analysis I

Learning Activities





Participants were asked to evaluate the useIulness and eIIectiveness oI each learning activity in which they
participated. Each activity was ranked on a scale Irom 1-10, Irom not meaningIul to very meaningIul,
respectively. For analysis purposes, the scores were placed into the three categories as seen in the chart,
according to the score that was given. Numbers along the bottom oI the chart represent the number oI
participants that ranked the particular activity within the prescribed categories.

According to the data, all oI the participants Iound the majority oI the learning activities to be above average in
their useIulness and in meaningIul learning. The remaining minority Iound them to be at least average in this
endeavor.



!488-0#0;8438
*Ask Ior written Ieedback to explain reason Ior responses
*Rethink the warm-up activity and how to revise or add to it. Make sure participants understand the purpose oI
this activity is to activate and reIlect on their own prior knowledge, rather than to necessarily build new
knowledge.
*Provide more modeling on eIIective peer Ieedback. Give more insight as to how this can be a powerIul tool
and the types oI comments should be made and what exactly they should be looking Ior in another person`s
lesson plan.













0 10 20 30 40 30 60 70 80
Pandbook
Self8eflecLlon
8ubrlc AssessmenL
8evlslons
eer 8evlew
ldeas on sLudenL use
ldeas on Leacher use
uemonsLraLlon vlewlng
8ralnsLormlng
vlewlng examples
Warmup
Above Average scores810
Average scores47
8elow Average scores13
Evaluation of Instruction Data Analysis II


!erformance





In this portion oI the evaluation participants were asked to assess the presentation itselI, rather than its
components. Overall, the presentation oI the workshop received positive Ieedback. Participants placed each
dimension oI the workshop into one oI Iive categories. As seen in the chart, the Poor and Below Average
categories have been placed together Ior analysis purposes, as well as the Above Average and Excellent
categories.

The delivery and motivating aspect oI the presentation were the only categories receiving marks in the Average
category. This could be Ior various underlying reasons. As Iar the delivery is concerned, it is possible that the
score was aIIected by a lack oI English language skills oI the participant, thus leading to lack oI understanding.
One could also take into consideration the logistics oI the workshop environment as a possible reason Ior the
rating, or oI course personal opinion.

Asking iI one has been motivated can be answered based on a variety oI Iactors, such as one`s personal
deIinition oI motivation, one`s attitude or, in this situation, the inability to see how new ideas can be applied to
their personal teaching situation.



!488-0#0;8438
*Pay closer attention to the speed (non-native English speakers)and level at which I speak and project my voice.
* Encourage participants to write down anything they didn`t understand when I was speaking so that I can
clariIy Ior them during their group, pair or individual working sessions.
* Encourage participants to discuss the limitations oI their particular situation with myselI and with peers during
peer review to help try to Iind a reasonable solution.








0 10 20 30 40 30 60 70 80
Pandbook
Cverall
MoLlvaLlng
lnLeresLlng
uellvery
Above Average LxcellenL
Average
oor 8elow Average