Syllabus Evaluation

Neary Commented on Group 1 & Group 3 Syllabus Evaluation. 

Syllabus Evaluation

Laura Black and Katelyn Neary

Ball State University

EDAC 635

November 11, 2013

After designing the syllabus “Learning & Teaching Effectively: From the classroom to the boardroom”, three educators from diverse backgrounds evaluated our syllabus. Educators received a copy of the syllabus and rationale to evaluate. Evaluators answered questions including, “What they liked about the syllabus design” and “What should be improved and why?”

Sarah Hill, Evaluator One, has been involved with vocational services since 1994, but is currently employed at Cummins Behavior Health Systems as the Director of Employment Services where she educates the community to eliminate barriers and stigma associated with mental illness. She serves on the Indiana Mental Health Committee and is also a liaison to State of Indiana Vocational Rehabilitation Services. 

Lucas Gobel, Evaluator Two, is currently employed with MSD Warren Township and spends his day with seventh graders in his interactive science room. He is also the Science Olympiad Coach where he has taken his team to the state championships for the last five years. During his school breaks, Lucas serves as the Camp Kikthawenund Program Director where he is responsible for all Boy Scout participants, leaders, and volunteers.   

Suzan Davis, Evaluator Three, has been an English and Communication Instructor for over 20 years. Currently, Suzan is an Adjunct English Communication faculty and professional development coordinator at Ivy Tech Community College. Among her duties as a professional development coordinator; planning working luncheons, workshops, and seminars have all been coordinated and created by Suzan.

Please find the first evaluation below:

Evaluator One: Sarah Hill

Occupation: Director of Employment Services at Cummins Behavior Health Systems in Indianapolis.

1) What do you like about the syllabus design?

Overall, I was very impressed with the syllabus design of Learning & Teaching Effectively: From the classroom to the boardroom. I found the design to be well thought out, clearly defined, and very structured.  

As a director of employment and facilitator of vocational workshops, I really enjoyed how the skill level requirements of the participants were clearly noted. This would help me determine if the seminar is more beneficial to my clients or my staff members.

I can’t speak enough about the accommodations section! I especially appreciated the information on parking because parking in Indianapolis can be exasperating and expensive. In fact, this is sometimes a deterrent for participants. The website your group provided seminar participants gives clear directions for parking availability and location. From experience, I’ve been to many cities and spent over an hour trying to find parking and that gives participants a negative impression before the seminar ever begins!

            The Pre-session questionnaire empowers participants to be successful because there is no guess work on the material that will be covered. Giving participants a sense of purpose and preparedness is a great start to any learning experience. Additionally, reading assignments are very clear and gives participants a timeline that is conducive with busy adult schedules. Lastly, the accommodations section for people with handicaps was a great idea. I’ve been to several seminars where people with disabilities have needs that were overlooked because there was no way to communicate with facilitators to set-up alternatives.  

2) What do you think should be improved? Why? How?

It was unclear to me if the seminar would allow for course credits or not. I know there was a certificate of completion/attendance, but if someone wanted to earn credits could it be an option? Also, I did not see a post-seminar survey/evaluation. This is important because it allows facilitators to know if the participants grasped the concepts being taught and give facilitators feedback on what needs to be improved and what was executed well.

Reflection of Evaluation One

We were excited to have a director/facilitator evaluate our program design since she has first-hand knowledge of how to create successful seminars and workshops. Sarah Hill was highly complementary overall, but was particularly impressed with our notations on skill level requirements for seminar attendees. She mentioned that this information is usually left out of seminars she attends and this is helpful for her to know to determine if her clients (mentally ill adults) or staff would benefit from attending or have the skill set to do so. I definitely agree that this aspect is crucial; I’ve been to many seminars that were confusing and didn’t connect to me because a skill level requirement was not mentioned on the seminar application form.

Sarah also thought the section addressing parking in Indianapolis was especially helpful and I agree that it was pertinent to add to our design. I think extra details, such as parking information, are often overlooked. From a personal stand point, I have a lot of anxiety when I travel somewhere I am not familiar because I have no sense of direction. I agree that our parking information, website, map, etc. allows participants to plan ahead to make travel arrangements if necessary and ensures that participants will arrive on time. Our parking guide takes the guesswork out of where to park and how much it will cost, etc. We are glad that this was well received.

Mrs. Hill was also a fan of creating clearly defined timelines to complete the reading assignments for the seminar. I agree on this standpoint as well (especially being a student with many assignment deadlines to complete). It is true for every participant attending a seminar: life is incredibly busy no matter what or who is involved. Giving deadlines lessens anxiety of participants by giving them very realistic and manageable tasks to complete. As a working adult, deadlines help me balance my stress levels and calm my nerves or feelings of being overwhelmed.

Sarah made same great suggestions that I did not think of previously. She was concerned that our syllabus design did not have a post-session survey/evaluation. This is an incredibly powerful tool that our group overlooked. A post survey from participants would give us the feedback necessary to make improvements and changes were needed. Our group will definitely add a post-session survey on Sunday, February 2^nd at 3:30pm during our farewell and dismissal portion of the session. Sarah mentioned that post-surveys allow facilitators to assess participants understanding of the content. We designed a syllabus that allows for frequent check points during question and answer times as well as group discussions, but a post-survey would encompass the entire program. This would give us a clear view of what participants found most helpful and what they retained over the course of our program. 

Sarah also mentioned that it was unclear whether or not course attendees would get credits. This is something that was originally overlooked by the creators of the syllabus. The possibility of offering ‘continuing education’ credits might make attendance to the seminar more attractive. Contacting the proper personnel to get accreditation for the credits could be difficult but definitely worth it; furthermore, clearly stating the skill level requirements for attendees.

The second syllabus evaluation can be found below:

Evaluator Two: Lucas Gobel

Occupation: 7th Grade Science Teacher, Science Olympiad Coach, Camp Kikthawenund Program Director

1.) What do you like about the syllabus design?

I really like how the expectations are laid out in the participants’ handouts. It had every answer to every question I would have. I also liked the thought that was put into the set-up with a combination of instructor directed, group directed, and then participant directed activities. I found the syllabus well-researched in teaching philosophy. The variety of activities would make a more valuable learning experience to anyone that participated. All research points to small group activities being effective.

2.) What do you think should be improved? Why? How?

While the syllabus does a great job of setting up expectations, I could not find the value of taking said seminar in any of the participant materials. Why should I take this? What value will this serve me in my company or classroom? Why should I attend this seminar? These questions could be answered up front with the description and objectives. I am always cautious of participant lead assignments. Even though they are valuable, if the effort isn't put forth by the participants of the whole group then everyone suffers (including the instructor).

Reflection of Evaluator Two

Evaluator two, Lucas, had very similar observations as Sarah (Evaluator One) which shows how consistent the positives are as well as the negatives. Lucas stated that he was very impressed by the expectations stated in the participant handbook. Also noted by Lucas was the fact that every answer to any question he had was answered in that handbook. The set-up of the workshop was appreciated because of the range of instructor, group, and participant directed activities. Lucas thought the syllabus was well researched; furthermore, leading to us to the most effective instructional methods for adults.

Lucas felt that there were some areas of improvement in our syllabus. The value of taking the seminar was a major concern of evaluator two; therefore, he felt that the value needed to be mentioned somewhere in participant materials. The evaluator was also weary of using participant led assignments in the workshop. The evaluator cautioned that if effort is not made by participants the entire group and instructor are affected negatively and takeaways from the workshop could be minimized. The syllabus creators agree that there is a risk when using participant led assignments, but given the required skill and experience level hopefully participation is not minimal.

Please find the third evaluation below:

Evaluator Three: Suzan Davis

Occupation: Technical and grammatical recommendations by Suzan Davis, Adjunct English and Communication facility and Professional Development Coordinator at Ivy Tech Community College.

Evaluator Three Suggestions: Throughout the syllabus: Observe ten and under rule, except for times or measurements, write out numbers under ten, as this is an academic setting

Make times consistent: You have 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM on one line and 8am to 4 pm on three. Make it all the same.

It is very good you put not only the day of the week, but also AM and PM because one can never assume, even when it seems obvious.

Under Skill Level for attendees:

Second line: Interest and/or experience in using “real life case study.  Make it a real life case study. OR write case studies.

Third line: At least 5 years’ experience as an instructor or fascinator at particular university. What do you mean by particular? Does this mean any university? The first line already mentions Indiana professors or instructors so I am confused by this.

The Seminar Format section clearly not only shows the participants what to expect, but the range of activities makes the seminar attract to numerous learning styles. Recommendation: last sentence: “arrive with time to check in, collect name tags, etc….this can be interpreted many ways. Instead: Check in 15 to 30 minutes before the first seminar at 8 AM.

Attendance: Third sentence needs a complete rewrite. It is a fragment and does not express a complete thought.

It is very nice that guests can walk via enclosed walkways from the convention center to their hotels. This is important information, often overlooked.

Parking The interactive map is a fantastic addition. The last time I was in downtown Indy, I was asked where hotels were located compared to meeting places three times in three minutes. This will help guests envision where they are going.

The early assignments and time lines help prepare participants to maximize the experience, and for their fascinators to do a better job.

Overview: The clear headings help readers navigate thought the syllabus. It appears to cover all the important points of the seminar day by day, plus prior preparations needed, navigational tidbits that will make it easier for out-of-town participants, and post seminar requirements. Based on the syllabus, it is an event I would love to attend myself.

Reflection of Evaluation Three

Evaluator three provided great suggestions as well as grammatical fixations that went unnoticed by the syllabus creators. Even though Evaluator Three used a different format in comparison to the other evaluations, there were many great acknowledgements made. Numerous recommendations were provided some small and some large. One suggestion included making the time 8:00 AM consistent throughout the schedule, rather than have 8 AM in some places. This seems like a very small detail but it could confuse someone and it will make the spacing more consistent. Suzan examined the syllabus thoroughly and found some additional areas that can be improved. One area in the syllabus is titled, “Skill level requirement for seminar attendees”, Suzan pointed out that the wording used when describing the skill level for attendees was confusing. After an additional review- I agree that the verbiage isn’t the most effective and could be better. Another suggestion for that section calls for further clarification determine what the syllabus creators mean by attendees required to have five years’ experience from a particular university. The syllabus writers meant that attendees need consecutive years of teaching experience from a single university; furthermore, compared to an individual that might have taught for two years at an elementary school, two years at a high school, and then one year at a university. Suzan makes a good point to change the phrasing of this to make it clear to the attendees of what the skill level requirements are. Under the, “Seminar Format” section there could be more a description to define how much time in advance workshop attendees should arrive to check-in before the seminar begins. Suzan suggested putting an actual amount of time, not just ‘arrive with time to check in’ – how it is stated in the syllabus presently. She suggested putting 15 to 30 minutes in the syllabus; furthermore, this will make expectations of attendees clear and concise.

Many positives were highlighted by Suzan throughout her evaluation of the syllabus. She notes how important it is to put AM and PM on the end of any time. I agree and nothing is ever ‘common sense’ when it comes to times of meetings especially for those from a different time zone. Another feature Suzan appreciated was the seminar format and how it provided a clear and concise expectation for workshop attendees. The range of learning styles that will be reached by using the various instructor and attendees involvement will provide many learning opportunities to various learning styles all at one workshop. As evaluator one noted, the parking is a wonderful addition to the syllabus and can really help with attendees traveling. After hearing all the feedback about parking, proper documentation has been made in the syllabus creator’s memory to always consider parking prior to any event. Parking can seem like a ‘given’, but it individuals don’t have places to park close by, the chance of them attending the event is decreased and their approval and over all feeling about the event is diminished and replaced with frustration from a long walk, expensive parking ticket, or worse lost car. Suzan also mentioned the benefit of having the assignment due dates early for the participants. I agree because the participants can be aware of the topic that will be discussed on each day ahead of time. Rather than not having any idea what is going on that day. Overall, Suzan said the syllabus was very thorough and easy to navigate. She said she enjoyed reading it so much she would like to attend the “Learning & Teaching Effectively: From the classroom to the boardroom” workshop!

CONCLUSION

All three evaluators did a great job assessing, “Learning & Teaching Effectively: From the classroom to the boardroom” syllabus design. Each evaluator provided great recommendations and suggestions to strengthen our workshop. The evaluators come from various backgrounds and each provided a little different view of the syllabus; furthermore, this gave our team a more well-rounded assessment. The evaluators highlighted the strong and weak components of our syllabus design and all suggestions will be considered to improve our design. The consistency of the comments verified that the syllabus could be successful in practice. The input from the various educators enhanced the importance and practice of the workshop, while providing great suggestions for improvement. The syllabus creators would like to give much appreciation to all the evaluators and their helpful recommendations. 

Team Member Contributions:

Laura: Recruited Evaluator 1 & 2, Provided reflection of Evaluator One, Wrote background description for Evaluator 1 & 2, edited and revised

Katelyn: Recruited Evaluator 3, Provided reflection of Evalation 2 & 3, Wrote background for Evalutor 3, conclusion, editted