Click here to load reader

MARCH 16-17, 2011 NEW YORK CITY, NY EVALUATION RESULTS Michelle Bissonnette

  • View
    24

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

MARCH 16-17, 2011 NEW YORK CITY, NY EVALUATION RESULTS Michelle Bissonnette U.S. Department of Education. Table of Contents Who Responded ? Results Overall Summit Evaluation Evaluation of Sessions Evaluation of Logistics and Support Evaluation Comments. Who Responded?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of MARCH 16-17, 2011 NEW YORK CITY, NY EVALUATION RESULTS Michelle Bissonnette

  • MARCH 16-17, 2011NEW YORK CITY, NY

    EVALUATION RESULTS

    Michelle BissonnetteU.S. Department of Education

  • Table of ContentsWho Responded ?ResultsOverall Summit EvaluationEvaluation of SessionsEvaluation of Logistics and SupportEvaluation Comments

  • WhoResponded?

  • Participants: Attendees engaged in dialogue at the center tableAttendees: Invited guests in audience observing dialogue and participating in Q&AResponse Rate: Percent of each group who completed an evaluationChart: See accessible version in notes*

  • Overall Summit Evaluation

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants: 4.74Attendees:4.48All:4.61*

    Chart1

    0.780.76

    0.160.19

    0.060

    00.03

    00.02

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    578%76%

    416%19%

    36%0%

    20%3%

    10%2%

    N/A0%0

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants: 4.58Attendees:4.44All:4.51*

    Chart1

    0.630.66

    0.280.26

    0.090.03

    00.03

    00.02

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    563%66%

    428%26%

    39%3%

    20%3%

    10%2%

    N/A0%0

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.31Attendees:4.08All:4.19*

    Chart1

    0.530.45

    0.280.37

    0.160.13

    00.02

    0.030.03

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    553%45%

    428%37%

    316%13%

    20%2%

    13%3%

    N/A0%0

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.03Attendees:3.98All:4.00*

    Chart1

    0.340.37

    0.340.26

    0.310.26

    00.05

    00.03

    00.05

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    534%37%

    434%26%

    331%26%

    20%5%

    10%3%

    N/A0%5%

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.31Attendees:4.33All:4.32*

    Chart1

    0.590.61

    0.220.27

    0.130.06

    0.030

    0.030.03

    00.02

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    559%61%

    422%27%

    313%6%

    23%0%

    13%3%

    N/A0%2%

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.12Attendees:4.03All: 4.07*

    Chart1

    0.50.52

    0.250.24

    0.160.13

    0.060.1

    0.030.02

    N/A0.07

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    550%52%

    425%24%

    316%13%

    26%10%

    13%2%

    N/A7%

  • Evaluation of Sessions

  • (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.58Attendees:4.36All:4.47*

    Chart1

    0.590.6

    0.280.23

    00.1

    0.060.02

    0.060.03

    0.080.03

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    559%60%

    428%23%

    30%10%

    26%2%

    16%3%

    N/A8%3%

  • (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.43Attendees:4.11All:4.27*

    Chart1

    0.590.4

    0.340.42

    0.030.06

    0.030.06

    00.02

    00.03

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    559%40%

    434%42%

    33%6%

    23%6%

    10%2%

    N/A0%3%

  • (5 = Excellent , 1= Poor)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.41Attendees:4.13All:4.27*

    Chart1

    0.50.47

    0.440.29

    0.030.16

    0.030.03

    00.02

    00.03

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    550%47%

    444%29%

    33%16%

    23%3%

    10%2%

    N/A0%3%

  • (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.41Attendees:4.07All: 4.24*

    Chart1

    0.50.44

    0.340.34

    0.130.16

    0.030.02

    00.02

    00.03

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    550%44%

    434%34%

    313%16%

    23%2%

    10%2%

    N/A0%3%

  • (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.12Attendees:4.19All: 4.15*

    Chart1

    0.380.45

    0.410.37

    0.160.11

    0.060.02

    00.02

    00.03

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    538%45%

    441%37%

    316%11%

    26%2%

    10%2%

    N/A0%3%

  • (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.59Attendees:4.32All:4.45Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipant: 4.15Attendee: 3.97All: 4.06*

    Chart1

    0.630.53

    0.340.32

    00.06

    0.030.05

    00.02

    00.02

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    563%53%

    434%32%

    30%6%

    23%5%

    10%2%

    N/A0%2%

    Chart1

    0.410.32

    0.380.4

    0.190.21

    0.030.03

    00.02

    00.02

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    541%32%

    438%40%

    319%21%

    23%3%

    10%2%

    N/A0%2%

  • (5 = Excellent, 1= Poor)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.22Attendees: 4.42All: 4.32*

    Chart1

    0.410.39

    0.310.27

    0.090.05

    0.030.02

    00

    00.27

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    541%39%

    431%27%

    39%5%

    23%2%

    10%0%

    N/A0%27%

  • Evaluation of Logistics & Support

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.45Attendees:4.05All: 4.25*

    Chart1

    0.50.44

    0.280.24

    0.090.15

    0.090.05

    00.05

    00.08

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    550%44%

    428%24%

    39%15%

    29%5%

    10%5%

    N/A0%8%

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.25Attendees:3.98All:4.11*

    Chart1

    0.470.47

    0.310.21

    0.130.11

    0.090.16

    00.02

    00.03

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    547%47%

    431%21%

    313%11%

    29%16%

    10%2%

    N/A0%3%

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants:4.60Attendees:4.44All: 4.52*

    Chart1

    0.630.71

    0.310.21

    0.060.02

    00.02

    00.05

    00

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    563%71%

    431%21%

    36%2%

    20%2%

    10%5%

    N/A0%0%

  • (5 = Strongly Agree, 1= Strongly Disagree)Chart: See accessible version in notesAverage ScoreParticipants: 4.50Attendees:4.21All: 4.35*

    Chart1

    0.530.39

    0.190.19

    0.090.13

    0.030.02

    00.02

    00.26

    Participants

    Attendees

    Sheet1

    ParticipantsAttendees

    553%39%

    419%19%

    39%13%

    23%2%

    10%2%

    N/A0%26%

  • Evaluation Comments

  • Tony Mackay brilliant moderator

    Rich + very good

    Great to have unions and ministers together

    Keep questions/comments from observers/audience focused on session topic.

    Submit questions from audience in advance.

    Include more time for Q&A or vary format of sessions throughout day.

    *

  • More time for discussion and networking

    Sessions began to feel a bit redundant

    Greater variety of session format: breakouts, mixed seating during meals

    Include more teachers at the table.

    Extend the summit so there is more time to process and engage.

    Video screens and interpreters a must

    School leaders/principal representatives what is our role in the summit?

    *

  • Framing document/session

    Rapporteurs summaries

    Learning from international experiences esp. Hong Kong, Singapore and Finland

    Hearing how unions and management work in collaboration

    High achieving countries clearly defined systemic change

    Hearing about:the common challenges of all education systemssimilar problems from which we can learn and translate solutions for our own unique contexts*

  • THANK YOU! BRAVO! EXCELLENT! STUNNING!

    Please continue this summit in future.

    Suggested readings/research for attendees

    Materials/logistical information available earlier

    A teacher exchange could add a lot to understanding between the countries.

    This was an outstanding and historic event that began a very important conversation with the objective to improve teaching and learning.

    *

  • THANK YOU!

    *Accessible version of Bar Chart showing the number in attendance who completed evaluationsNumber in Attendance:All: 400Attendees: 325Participants: 75

    Completed Evaluations:All: 94 (24%)Attendees: 62 (19%)Participants: 32 (43%)*Accessible version:This bar chart compares the scores of participants and attendees for Item 3A (the summit as a whole was useful and I am glad I attended) on a scale of 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree):

    78% of the participants compared to 76% of the attendees scored this item as a 5. 16 % of the participants compared to 19% of the attende

Search related