Workshop Metrics Tracking Plus Theory
Contents
1st Tracked Library Demo
We got a standard form from the librarians in Kansas. Here's what it was:
1. Clarity - The manner in which this msg was presented was: 5 bubbles unclear-clear 2. Relevance: To me, this material was: 5 bubbles not relevant-highly relevant 3. Balance: The balance of presentation topics was: 5 bubbles inappropriate-appropriate 4. Visuals: The slides used were: "" Unnecsesary-highly informative 5. Handouts: If applicable, the handout recieved was: "" N/A-highly informative 6. Skills: This presenter is ______ at presenting information: "" Ineffective-Highly Effective 7. General Comments:
1st Demo Score
There were 4 speakers: Alex, Marcin, Sara, & Dixon. There were 7 attendees.
Scores:
- 555555
- 555535
- 444414
- 455515
- 455514
- 454314
= 26,29,28,26,12,27
Takeaways
Information was seen as highly relevant and basically very well balanced. However, things were slightly less clear in terms of clarity, which got the same score as the visuals. Just saying, there *was* Marcin's visuals, but in general, the concepts themselves lacked a pictoral narrative. So I think that in terms of clarity, there's quite a long way to go where people would feel equipped to really share to others about what they learned, but rather instead say, "I know this is really relevant to me and I look forward to finding out more info."
Action Items
- Improve Visuals by adding 5-15 slides that tell story in a more measured way
- Add the comment: why now? as part of the presentation (CNC)
- Research and clarify the exact examples used and be fairly well informed about how they function in the product ecology
- Consider adding a handout (kboyd@atchinsonlibrar.org, 24cmortensen@usd409.net) kaya, cotler
Outcomes Measurement
1. Material Reality - 2. Feasibility - 3. Role Availability -
