NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer Evaluation Report Costa Dillon Superintendent Horace M. Albright Training Center Jeri Hall...
Author: Ashlie Banks
2 downloads 1 Views 142KB Size
NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer Evaluation Report

Costa Dillon Superintendent Horace M. Albright Training Center

Jeri Hall Training Manager Natural Resources

September 2005 Completed in accordance with Sub Agreement 51 of the National Park Service-Indiana University Cooperative Agreement CA 2670-97-001

Stephen A. Wolter Executive Director

Amy Lorek Project Lead

Eppley Institute for Parks & Public Lands Indiana University Research Park 500 N. Morton Street, Suite 100 Bloomington, IN 47404 812.855.3095

Acknowledgements

Authors Amy Lorek Steve Wolter Editor Kristen L. Renzi

This report may not be duplicated without the permission of the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands, acting on behalf of Indiana University. The National Park Service and federal agencies may duplicate it for training and administrative purposes, provided that appropriate written acknowledgement is given. No other state or local agency, university, contractor, or individual shall duplicate this manual without the permission of Indiana University.

Copyright 2005, the Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course

Train-the-Trainer Course Evaluation September 12th – 15th, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona Evaluation Overview Evaluation is a necessary component of any successful National Park Service (NPS) skills course. Participant feedback provides insights that are integral to the successful development of future training programs. Evaluation also allows course developers to assess the level of knowledge gained by participants and measure participants’ experiences against stated learning objectives. The NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course relied on three different methods of evaluation to measure course effectiveness and document participants’ experiences. The use of more than one method of evaluation provided a greater level of detail concerning participant expectations, needs, and experiences. The following report provides an analysis of the Train-the-Trainer course and presents findings about the course based on participant evaluations.

Overview of Training Event The NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course was a four day course designed to develop the training abilities and skills of new collateral-duty Resource Stewardship and Protection curriculum instructors. In addition to providing this training for course attendants, a secondary goal of the course was to familiarize the Instructor candidates with the Resource Stewardship and Protection curriculum. Course sessions encompassed a wide variety of topics of use to both the first-time and the veteran instructors, including background information about the Resource Stewardship and Protection program curriculum, instruction in adult learning theory, hands-on presentation skill development, and practice teaching and coaching sessions. Participants were also expected to personalize and present (to a small group) a thirtyminute lesson plan crafted from the program curriculum. This project was assigned to learners early in the week, and a large component of the course included skill development, as well as evaluator and peer review, that was related to practice of and delivery of the thirty-minute presentations. Participants in the Train-the-Trainer course were a diverse group of individuals. Participants represented many divisions and job responsibilities within the NPS, including maintenance, interpretation, law enforcement, supervisory positions (chiefs and superintendents), and others. While many participants had previous training experience, the course focused on building and enhancing the skill levels of the instructors. To accomplish this task, course sessions were organized to build upon one another. For example, the session on adult learning incorporated advanced reading assignments that were theory-based. This session was followed by an adult learning September 2005

1

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course session which allowed participants the opportunity to put the theory they had just read about into practice. Likewise, participants took part in a practice teaching exercise in order to build confidence and group morale before the teaching practicum activity occurred at the end of the course. To best meet the Train-the-Trainer course learning objectives, presenters also represented diverse perspectives and teaching styles. Presenters were selected from both the Eppley Institute and the National Park Service, as well as from retired NPS employees, to create a well-rounded, professional group of instructors with a wide variety of expertise. Because presenters had their own unique teaching styles, participants were able to actively observe and experience different methods and strategies for teaching adults within a classroom setting.

Evaluation Methodology During the NPS Resource Stewardship Train-the-Trainer course, three main evaluation methods were used to measure course effectiveness. The first evaluation method, a daily evaluation, asked participants to evaluate each day of the course through anonymous responses to open-ended questions. The second evaluation method, an overall course evaluation, was administered on the final day of the training course and consisted of both quantitative and qualitative questions. The third evaluation method, a verbal instructor group evaluation, was administered for all course instructors on the final day after the course closing. Daily Evaluations The first evaluation method sought participants’ reactions to each day of the training course. Participants were given three pieces of paper; each piece of paper had a different set of open-ended questions regarding the day’s training sessions written on it. These anonymous evaluations were given to participants at different times each day and were collected the following day. The following questions were listed on the evaluation sheets: Question #1: What were the positive aspects of yesterday’s training? What was done well? Question #2: What were the negative aspects of yesterday’s training? What could be improved? Question #3: What do you feel was missing or unclear from yesterday’s training? The daily evaluation sheets were used for several purposes. First, daily evaluations were reviewed and used to make positive changes in the following days’ sessions, organization, or facilitation methods. For example, participant evaluations from Monday’s training indicated that participants wanted more time for lunch. One

2

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course participant noted that the “afternoon lacked focus. David had to leave early” and the session was, as a result, “rushed” and “disjointed.” Another individual commented that the participants “really need more information.” These comments were addressed, and changes were made in following days to facilitate an improved training experience. Daily evaluations also provided a greater depth of analysis concerning course sessions. While overall course evaluations provided information about the course as a whole, detailed information about individual sessions emerged through the daily evaluations. Daily evaluations also increased the likelihood that participants would remember smaller, yet still important, details about course sessions. Daily evaluations were distributed at different times each day of the course. This process was intentional and designed in order to allow participants to experience the value of each distribution time: beginning, middle and end of day. The results of each day’s comments were address the next morning during the “Good of the Day” beginning session. The modeling of how to address participant comments was also changed daily to demonstrate different methodologies. Participant comments were addressed during these times. Daily cumulative qualitative results can be found in Appendix A of this document. Overall Course Evaluations Participants were given overall course evaluations with their initial materials, but they were only guided to the document on the final day of the course. These evaluations consisted of nine quantitative questions measuring participant perspectives of knowledge gained during the skills course, along with the usefulness of this knowledge. The responses to these questions were based on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” Overall course evaluations also included five open-ended, qualitative questions. These gave participants the opportunity to expand upon responses to the quantitative portion of the evaluation and to express any other concerns they had. Twenty-four overall course evaluations were received from the thirty participants. Cumulative quantitative and qualitative results of these evaluations can be found in Appendix B of this document. Verbal Instructor Group Evaluation The verbal evaluation was administered as part of the final debriefing of the course. Three large sheets of chart paper were posted in the room with the terms “Good,” “Improve,” and “Missing” were each listed across the top of separate sheets of chart paper. The course instructors were asked to list any aspects of the training that they thought were good, needed improvement, or had found to be missing from the Trainthe-Trainer course. While individual instructors listed thoughts and concerns on the appropriate chart paper, they were also asked to place a check mark (3) next to the items to which they agreed. In this manner, the course instructors gained consensus on the most important collective issues that will help guide future course planning and development.

September 2005

3

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course The lists were reviewed by all members of the group. Individuals were asked to identify items that needed further clarification in order to enhance collective understanding. The group discussed several of the identified items, which resulted in new items being added to the lists. The verbal evaluation fostered positive communication between instructors about course effectiveness and improvement. It also provided a venue to discuss specific items listed for group knowledge and understanding. The final lists from these discussions can be found in Appendix C of this document.

Evaluation Findings The findings from the three evaluation methods provided useful feedback that will be invaluable in guiding the development of future Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer courses. Certain themes emerged that provided useful information about the course from the participants’ perspectives. Generally, participant feedback concerning the content sessions, facilitation methods, course organization, and course instructors was very positive. Participants noted positive aspects of the course, as well as changes that could be made to improve future Train-the-Trainer courses. Positive Aspects of the Train-the-Trainer course First, participants noted specific sessions or course elements they found useful. Handson sessions that provided practical skill development opportunities were highly valued among participants. Practice teaching exercises that related to their final thirty-minute teaching activities were evaluated as positive aspects of the Train-the-Trainer course. One participant felt that “The course was well presented and the skill and knowledge [that it offers] are needed.” Participants also remarked that “the quality of instruction and organization of the training was great.” As one participant stated regarding the usefulness of modeling techniques: “Although I’ve been doing this for quite a while, I feel that I always learn new information and observe better techniques. The more I experience or repeat an experience, the better I become.” Other participants noted that “it was a Herculean task to incorporate the RS and P curriculum [with trainer skills]” and that “learning specific presentation and delivery techniques” was helpful. Participants also responded positively to activity-based sessions that provided them with specific ways to improve their skills. For example, the adult learning round robin sessions and active learning sessions provided useful information in an active learning environment. One learner commented, “[today’s] training eased the unknowing of [yesterday’s] training. This is good training, great, better than the usual NPS training. This is true education.” The final thirty-minute teaching activity and evaluation were met with a generally positive response as well. Participants enjoyed the opportunity to present a section of a lesson and found feedback from peers and evaluators useful. Many commented on how

4

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course pleased they were to be working with such “a bright, savvy, and articulate group of participants and instructors!” While many enjoyed the teaching activity in that it offered them “more practice teaching”, one participant suggested that “several shorter sessions would have been more useful.” In addition to practical and hands-on sessions, participants responded positively to the Managing the Resource Stewardship and Protection Curriculum session. Evaluations indicated that participants received helpful information about the curriculum and program. One participant remarked, “A number of pieces came together for me today during the curriculum presentation…I understand [now] what it’s like when the learners want to see the big picture and you tell them ‘it’s coming-please be patient.” Participants also responded positively to certain workshop facilitation and logistical issues. Positive aspects included course organization and session flow, as well as the professionalism and effectiveness of modeling behaviors/techniques. The instructors were also received in a highly positive fashion. Instructors were viewed as enthusiastic, dedicated, professional, and knowledgeable. Comments characterized this instruction as “outstanding” and often praised the “great instruction and content.” Participants also enjoyed meeting fellow participants and having both Indiana University and National Park Service employees working collaboratively in the training course. Additionally, many participants commented on the pleasant lodging and meeting facilities, “ Finally, participants were pleased with their overall experience. One participant stated, “I wish I had this training years ago! Thanks for a memorable experience.” Another reflected, “I came into this course feeling very fortunate to have been allowed to be involved, and I am leaving the course feeling validated, appreciated, recognized, and stronger and better as a participant in the NPS family working toward a common goal of Resource Protection/Stewardship. I greatly appreciate all of the support, leadership, caring, and hard work you all put into this course.” Improvements and Changes for Future Train-the-Trainer courses Generally speaking, participant feedback was positive. However, there were several comment threads that emerged in the evaluations and that could be used to guide development of future Instructor Skills Courses. Comments regarding RSP curriculum content emerged in the evaluations. First, several participants commented that they would have liked to spend more time on understanding the curriculum that is to be taught and that the designed curriculum times were not as clear and extensive as they should have been. As one participant remarked, “It would be helpful to have the full package of materials that will be given to participant of RPI and RP2-to become familiar with and to prepare as our career time permits.” Further, one participant observed, “the merging of the PWR and RP2/3 paperwork is not yet seamless. Keep on plugging away.” By contrast, one participant commented “I recognize that many of the class members wanted more course curriculum info. Maybe I’m biased because I’ve attended RPI and have a sense of the course objectives, but I believe that by flooding the class members with curriculum it

September 2005

5

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course would have detracted from our course objectives- “To learn how to be effective trainers”. We needed to learn training techniques and the focus on curriculum.” Others mentioned that they thought the course and curriculum materials were not as organized as they could be. This was mentioned by a few participants who were concerned about finding material for reference later. For example, one participant noted “I found the course material tab unorganized, colored sheet helped but an index or tabs would have been useful, especially when used as reference.” Another remarked, “I found the course materials confusing in their layout, although they were more helpful in general.” Other participants expressed concern over not receiving the all of the curriculum materials, “I believe it is really important for the instructors to each have access to the full curriculum support materials: lesson plans, handouts, etc.” Other changes suggested for future Train-the-Trainer courses involved using curriculum examples when doing instructor skills sessions. Participants wanted session content to be relevant and specific to the curriculum. The coaching sessions on the last day were also met with some confusion; participants were unsure of their value and felt that they should be changed to better suit participants’ needs. Several participants noted that they would like more tips and tools references and more advanced teaching techniques. For example, one participant remarked, “More (always more) little tips/tools of the trade-e.g. how to deal with blank faces; how to draw people out with questions; how to take what some[one] says as a spark to feed the flame you want to create… A list of favorite references.” While one participant stated that he or she “liked the “Action Plan”” and saw it as a “a way to keep the training fresh,” another participant commented that the training “emphasis and focus upon techniques and delivery was very basic, and already familiar to me.” Finally, participants responded to certain workshop logistical issues. Several participants commented on the desire to have easier and/or less costly access to the internet. Alternately, another expressed the preference to stay at a more “green” location. Instructor Debrief summary The Instructor debrief centered on a few specific positive and negative items related to the opening and closing of the training. The results of these discussions suggests that there is the desire to develop a strategy to improve the next instructor training courses by scripting both the opening and closing activities of the course. Instructors felt that this was an area of the course that could have used a more thoughtful, strategic approach in order to meet the needs and goals of the learners and instructors. Instructors also agreed that, in the future, they should offer more opportunities to the learners to practice teaching in advance of the 30 min lesson delivery. Additionally, the establishment of a reference table at an earlier time in the course would be helpful in order to facilitate learning and lesson plan preparation. Clarifying the purpose and utility of the Help Desk offered after daily training will also help these processes.

6

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course Finally, the instructor group discussed integrating more curriculum examples into the instructor skills sessions as a way to expand curriculum “download” and familiarization for learners. Additional results from these discussions can be found in Appendix C.

September 2005

7

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course

Appendix A: Compiled Results from the Daily Evaluations Evaluation Summary

How Can We Improve

Your Training Experience? September 12th – 15th, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona

Monday Training 1) What were the positive aspects of Monday’s training? What was done well? Introduction • Introduction exercise. • Overview of the curriculum. • Good Exercises. Breaks • Appropriate number of breaks. • Thanks also for the juice and goodies! Everyday Creativity, Dianne Cooper • Interactive discussions, video-everyday creativity and associated discussion. • Good presentations. Enjoyed DVD on creativity. • Everyday creativity video and list of key concepts. • Session on creativity was excellent Amy Lorek • Amy’s sense of humor. • I really liked Amy’s real-life examples of imperfection (re: quiz). Made me feel like we all have things we could do better in life-the instructors. Participant Discussion • I especially enjoy hearing from other course participants and being able to share my thoughts and ideas. Thanks! • Enjoyed participant discussion-especially hearing real-life examples of the different points. Networking • Networking-connecting with new folks, reconnecting with old friends! • Meeting people from all over. 8

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course Objectives, Goals, Expectations • Clear objectives-clear expectations! • Objectives were clearly stated. • Creativity, great participants with wonderful enthusiasm, and fired up with goals and objectives. Jeri Hall/Frank Buono • Jeri’s enthusiasm. • Teaching demonstration of RP2 by Frank and Jeri at end of day. • Breakouts-Frank’s for content but less for good of group. General Comments Presentations/Discussions • Presentations grabbed my attention. • Presentations, location, goodies. • Discussion of the previous classes. • The day was a good mixture of lecture, discussion, and activity that kept me focused and interested. • Engaging the audience. • Whole brain-allowed class to clearly see differences especially when groups shared what their perspective is. Kevin-Good bring out of points. • Providing examples of activities by having us do them. Very useful course materials. Useful to be able to observe sample of a session. General Positive Comments • Session on History of NPS stands out as well. • Learning about courses and their history. • Getting excited about the opportunity to be a trainer. Great weather! Nice walk in the desert. • Environment was professional yet comfortable. Good use of time; we mostly stayed on a schedule. Nice variety of teaching methods. Fantastic edibles and supplies. • Small group projects. • Well-organized, yet flexible when necessary. Overall, excellent day. • Moved along at a good pace. Good basis for understanding our responsibilities. • Clarification of RP2/3. Great to bring in the early course developers. 2) What were the negative aspects of Monday’s training? What could be improved? Introduction • It seemed as though as the day progressed, the class attendees needed more and more clarification on what our role/job going to be. There seemed to be a lot of confusion. This might need to be made clearer in the course description or at the beginning of class. • I love the icebreakers, but they always take longer than planned. Maybe not a problem-indeed useful. Maybe we should plan on longer intros.

September 2005

9

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course General Comments-Presentations • Knowles’ discussion got confusing because the handout was so focused on technology that it seemed the principles were about technology rather than general and applicable to any learning. Handout could be more clear and explicit about the distinction. • Afternoon lacked focus. David had to leave early-rushed, disjointed. • Wilderness session let some questions go too far off target and overran timeframe. Generally seemed to have some confusion of purpose that still hasn’t been clarified, especially in regard to presentations. • Difference between “standard” content-driven NPS training and this week’s training showing training methods and what’s to be taught. Two realities switched off and on, confusing. General Logistics, Social, etc. Comments • Felt rushed at lunch. • The afternoon was a little rushed. • Need a little more time for lunch. • Noise from next meeting room. Shortness of lunch (fixed). • I would like to have been given about 10-15 minutes to roam the room and meet each person face-to-face, early on in the morning. Perhaps an activity where you ask each person you meet to tell you two things about themselves. • Use locations that are greener and work with us for resource protection. • Better organization of handouts (i.e. labels/tabs). • The walls are thin. Chatter from the other group was a little disruptive. • Would like to have lesson plans for courses in the course notebook on day one. Many questions raised that related to lesson plans that it would have been nice to reference. • On the agenda for 9/12, at the bottom: under assignments-instead of “prepare a lesson plan”, I would suggest using “prepare your presentations”. It appeared to me that I would have to create the lesson myself, and I realized later that the plan would be provided. It was a little confusing. • The “training” methodology/role materials were very basic. I would have preferred less attention to that-and more time to explore the actual content of the courses. General Positive Comments • None • I didn’t have a negative experience yesterday. • Did not note any. 3) What do you feel was missing or unclear from Monday’s training? Introduction • Really need more info up front. Feels like blind men feeling the elephant a bit.

10

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course Lesson Plans, Amy Lorek/Karen Battle • Some of the objectives were not measurable. Is it necessary for objectives to be measurable? General Social, Logistics, etc. • Breakouts-how to put the group/team to use in class. • Locations of restaurants (map). • Extent of subject matter expertise we each need to gain to be effective and how much of each course each of us will be responsible for. • I thought it would be helpful to include some more of the basic information about the courses on paper. (for example, how many instructors per course, target audience, proposed schedule, etc.) These topics came up as questions during the day and were answered, but some people were still confused for a little while. • If at all possible, I would like to know when, exactly, the next class (RP2) will be; or, at least know that we’ll be given at least a month or two’s notice to be able to plan accordingly. • Specific! When will teaching assignments for next year’s 3 planned courses be made? Teach to “all NPS staff”-unworkable. • Lesson plans in notebook. • Explanation of the assignments was not thoroughly discussed. • Setup of teaching exercise was unclear before a lot of clarifications. • Stewardship vs. Protection. There’s baggage with the team. General Comments • I left yesterday’s training facility feeling assured that all points covered were clear in my mind. • Nothing. • Nothing.

September 2005

11

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course Tuesday Training

1) What were the positive aspects of Tuesday’s training? What was done well? Adult Learner (Round Robin): Steve Wolter, Frank Buono, Kevin Turner, Jeri Hall • Loved the fast-paced 25 minute round-robin sessions. To the point, diverse, refreshing. • I liked the break out sessions. Steve and Frank’s sessions were great and energizing. • The three break-out groups (Steve, Frank, Kevin). Frank is great…have him do more. • The charting techniques were great! Active Learning: Amy Lorek • The sensitive issues argument right after lunch was a smart, strategic choice. The tamarisk exercise was fun. • Also good to be active after lunch. Great tamarisk activity!! Very metaphorical. • Amy’s after lunch session was a good change of pace. • Brain stuff! Active learning. • I thought answering the “so what” question about the activities was really important, and well done. Not everyone enjoys games and/or activities so we should be able to explain the relevance. Learners and Training: Dianne Cooper • Dianne Cooper is outstanding! • The first session was long (Dianne Cooper), but it was well-taught. General Positive • Love the cookies! • New faces. General Workshop and Facilitation Comments • Activities, Activities, Great!! • Good overview of RPT2. Great modeling off effective instruction. • Great team exercise and ensuing discussion about I.D. teams. • Tuesday’s training eased the unknowing of Monday’s training. This is good training, great, better than usual NPS training. This is true education. • Group exercises, especially team building tennis ball. For/against exercise-need to be good listener. • Great activities. Time went very fast due to the activity-based learning/participation. General Logistics, Social, etc. Comments • Good movement day-lots of variety. • Changing rooms/locations-broke up the sitting periods.

12

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course • •

Enjoyed moving around in the morning-very unnatural to sit for so many hours at a time! Appreciated getting the PowerPoint CD to share with staff back in the office. I liked moving (physically) to new rooms/spaces. It kept it (the process) moving while it got us moving.

2) What were the negative aspects of Tuesday’s training? What could be improved? General • None. • None and nothing. • None to mention today! Thanks! • Nothing. General Workshop and Facilitation Comments • I was uncomfortable when Steve Wolter repeatedly made references to specific attitudes/behaviors as being representative of certain positions (i.e. law enforcement). Behaviors are associated with individuals, not position descriptions. • The three “workshops” did not seem to be fully flushed out with pertinent visual examples. Part of that was a computer break down, but what about a backup plan? • Many of the discussions are park-oriented and there are many in this class that are WASO, and we aren’t working, never have, in a park. At one point, Kevin almost said he wouldn’t have credibility training because he hasn’t been “in the field”. What about the WASO? Please just remember us, directorate people… • Need more work on afternoon presentation on the Intro course. • Afternoon session dragged a bit (could be influenced by my lack of sleep last night!) General Logistics, Social, etc. Comments • Can the breaks be 15 minutes? I’m having a hard time checking voicemail/restroom in 10 minutes. What if we start at 7:45? • Contrast between cultures! 1.) Class-democratic, equal, open. 2.) Parkbureaucratic, hierarchical, closed. How can we set up IDT’s if no management support? Contrast is huge. • Good of the day didn’t seem complete-really no negative aspect? • Ran out of chocolate chip cookies! 3) What do you feel was missing or unclear from Tuesday’s training? General • Nothing-training objectives were laid out clear and concise. A perfect day! • Nothing! • Nothing. • Nothing. A very comprehensive, experiential, whole-brain, great day.

September 2005

13

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course General Workshop and Facilitation Comments • I agree we do need to define the term “protection”. I know what it means, but others don’t. • Cultural examples. • The definitions of stewardship and protection are not clear, as used.

Wednesday Training 1) What were the positive aspects of Wednesday’s training? What was done well? Assessing Learning: Steve Wolter • Steve utilized and allowed fun to be introduced into learning, yet still focused [his presentation]. Curriculum III: Jeri Hall, Frank Buono, Karen Battle • A number of pieces came together for me today during the curriculum presentation-thanks Jeri and Karen! Having been involved in 2-week long presentations before, I understand what it’s like when the learners want to see the big picture and you tell them “it’s coming- please be patient”. Small Groups: Practice your introduction, Amy Lorek • Group Exercise-delivering intros went very well. It’s a pleasure to work with these professionals. Help to build trust and reduce tension. • Need more Amy facilitations! General Workshop, Facilitation Comments • Allowing us time to speak in front of our group. Giving us an opportunity to pre-select which course we would facilitate. • Good clarity of linkages between courses regarding group/team/leadership. General Social, Logistics, etc. Comments • Practice and feedback very important. • Thanks for the chocolates! How did you know? 2) What were the negative aspects of Wednesday’s training? What could be improved? Active Listening: Kevin Turner, Kim Watson • Kevin and Kim-“Ok one more question,” followed by 3 more. Facilitation and Debriefing: Steve Wolter • Steve-facilitation session was great until the final debrief and it fell short. The slides were moved through too quickly for us to read and left a bit of a let down. 14

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course General Workshop and Facilitation Comments • Costa, as a Superintendent, could have talked about his job and his feelings about the program. 3) What do you feel was missing or unclear from Wednesday’s training? General Workshop and Facilitation Comments • Help us know our audience, what presentation style works best on NPS employees? What doesn’t work? • Why we spent so much time going over the 3 courses in the morning when it seemed to be mostly clear, perhaps keying into specific issues raised by the community-less lecture more back and forth clarifying. • Suggestion for future training: Using a different colored sheet, create a form, and call it something like “Tips to remember when I get home” or “Tasks to accomplish when I return”. This will help students stay organized-they can easily refer to it at their home unit.

September 2005

15

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course

Appendix B: Results from the Overall Course Evaluation Please indicate your opinion about each statement. Elaborate below on your choices, if an explanation would clarify your response. The skills and knowledge presented in this course are what I needed to improve my job performance. In terms of the skills and knowledge needed to do my job, this course was a good use of my time. Materials were well organized and easy to follow. The course materials will be a useful reference to me on the job. The exercises were realistic and helped me build on the skills I need to do my job. Overall, the instructors were knowledgeable and credible in their subject areas. The length of the course was appropriate to cover the material presented. This course was appropriate to my level of experience. I would recommend attending this course to others in my profession.

16

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Opinion

72% 18

28% 7

0%

0%

0%

63% 15

38% 9

0%

0%

0%

28% 7 38% 9 58% 14 92% 23 52% 13 50% 12 68% 17

52% 13 50% 12 42% 10 8% 2 44% 11 46% 11 32% 8

8% 2 4% 1 0%

12% 3 8% 2 0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4% 1 4% 1 0%

0%

0% 0%

Disagree

September 2005

Strongly Disagree

0%

0% 0%

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course

Please elaborate on your choices above, if an explanation would clarify your response.

• •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

12

I found the course material tab unorganized, colored sheets helped but an index or tabs would have been useful, especially when used as reference. Length of course-one more day may have been useful to help prepare. The Eppley/Fundamentals Train-the-Trainer elements of this course should be required for all NPS trainers. It was a Herculean task to incorporate the RS and P curriculum. Also, as a whole week could easily have been spent on both-what may have suffered though was more in-depth exposure to the RS&P lesson plans which would have helped me decide which sessions I want to teach and give a better perspective of the flow and interdependence of the sessions. Keep Diane around! Outstanding knowledge, modeling, and feedback. Although I've been doing this for quite a while, I feel that I always learn new information and observe better techniques. The more I experience or repeat an experience, the better I become. I didn't think the notebook was organized well enough to add additional information into it in a real organized fashion and find it later. I took the course to follow up on a commitment I made to intro (RP1) 4 years ago, when I switched regions. The skills, passion, and experience of the instructors and students are infectious. This helped me get away from a crazy, unreal park job and back to basics. Excellent instruction, particularly the folks from Eppley. Nice mix of activities. All relevant to the part of my job that is related to the collateral duty of training, but also several parts will improve other aspects of my job, particularly in the better functioning of groups and meetings. Until I have all the course materials, the use is limited. Having all lesson plans would help link the session(s) I teach. The course was well presented and the skills and knowledge are needed. However, the emphasis and focus upon techniques and delivery was very basic, and already familiar to me. It was nice practice, so the time was well spent-but I would have gained so much more to have also experienced the specific curriculum we’re being prepared to present. No elaboration needed. It was a sincere privilege to attend and be part of this course. This course should be at least 40 hours-80 hours would be even better. There's just so much to cover. Course materials provided were very scanty-notebook was way too thin on reference material. I am honored to be included in such a diverse group of people in our profession. I hope the curriculum continues to be as picky and selective with the instructors. Some of the best and most relevant skill-to-job training I have had. I found the course materials to be confusing in their layout, although they were more helpful in general. Flipping to different sections of the notebook to find materials being discussed added to this feeling of confusion.

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course What areas should have more emphasis?



• • • • • • • •

• •

• •

• • •



I would like to have seen policy-related issues, but realize that the next two courses we'll get deeper into the policy issues. How does each division see, interpret, understand policy wording, i.e. protection/stewardship? How do our views differ from the "real" definitions? Importance of transitions in teaching. Curriculum overview in detail to start. More emphasis on practicing lesson plans delivery. More practice teaching. The merging of the PWR and the RP2/3 paperwork is not yet seamless. Keep on plugging away. List specific reference materials, books, and training. Good balance. That might be something I can think about after being a presenter in the RP curriculum, as things may come up for which I could have used more preparation. Dynamics of instructor cadre-what should we expect, a lead instructor identified? How much of the logistics are the responsibility of the instructors? What are the tasks instructors will be expected to do outside of the instruction period? Is there any opportunity or expectation that the instructor each would meet prior to the class. Opportunity to talk and learn from Frank Bono. It would be helpful to have the full package of materials that will be given to participants of RP1 and RP2-to become familiar with and to prepare as our career time permits. It may be possible to pre-require some basic "training skills", and then concentrate more on delivery of this specific curriculum material. Though it would be ideal to attend the course as a participant now, prior to teaching it-given current priorities and realities that may not be likely to happen. I’d appreciate a consolidation of this course in the future. Even so, I’m very excited about the courses and the curriculum. Thanks so much for the opportunity to be here! I thought the class was very balanced and was/had the appropriate structure. Several shorter teaching opportunities would have been more useful than one 30 min. lesson. At least one lesson, 10-15 min. should be given to entire room. The 30 minute activity required so much out of class work that it cut into time we could have used to interact with classmates and instructors. It would be really effective if you videotaped us, so we can see our shortcomings ourselves. Explaining the nuts and bolts of how the logistics and teams of instructors will work earlier in the training would have helped reduce some apprehension. Curriculum material, but I realize the shortness of time. More (always more) little tips/tools of the trade-e.g. how to deal w/ blank faces; how to draw people out w/ questions; how to take what someone says as a spark to feed the flame you want to create. (You all give tips on a lot of these, but multiple tips are always appreciated). A list of your favorite references (web sites, books, articles, etc.) for each session would be helpful (more than in APPX of “trainer manual”; specific for each session topic). Materials a little disorganized-sort of.

September 2005

13

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course

What areas should have less emphasis?

• • • • • •

A good balancing out! Less time on discussing the agenda of RP1, RP2, and RP3. I think we can do that on our own, and if we really want to be involved in the agenda of specific courses, we can volunteer for the curriculum team. I don't think anything seemed "extraneous" or overdone. None. Nothing to suggest. I think media presentation techniques could be shortened somewhat without a loss of much.

Were there any problems with the course facilities or technology that interfered with your ability to learn?

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Background noise in main training room-1st day then corrected. Thank you. None. E-mail access would have been nice-but otherwise awesome facilities! Thanks for the bonus! Background noise. No. No, but I wish the internet was not so costly. No. No. Great forum-resort, pools, food, etc. No, things worked surprisingly well. There was a minor anxiety on Thursday that we didn't have adequate flip chart easels or paper, but it seemed to work out alright-useful to face the real need for flexibility. No windows! Computer email access would have been nice. But sometimes it is nice to leave technology behind. Facilities were nice with the rooms...dining/after hours meals were extremely limited-available meals were slightly higher than edible. Distractions, noise, temperature, and acoustics all intermittently interfered. Suggest we use a facility that better reflects our emphasis on sustainability and green infrastructure. The resort uses too much water in a desert environment; is too distant from restaurants/shops (puts an emphasis on need for rental car); wastes a lot of food resources (removes food before it can all be eaten).

Do you have other comments?

• •

14

Liked the "Action Plan" a way to keep the training fresh. Trainers were fantasticgreat knowledge and mentoring. Networking-wow, what a room full of knowledge. I came into this course feeling very fortunate to have been allowed to be involved, and I am leaving the course feeling validated, appreciated, recognized, and stronger and better as a participant in the NPS family working toward a common goal of Resource Protection/Stewardship. I greatly appreciate all of the support, leadership, caring, and hard work you all put into this course.

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course •

• • • • • • •

• • •

• • • •

What a bright, savvy, and articulate group of participants and instructors! I have some concerns about the inward focus on stewardship-could the curriculum benefit from more outward focus on how to engage the public and neighbors? The shout treatment of outreach, interpretation, and education in facilitating stewardship & protection seems a little conspicuous for an interdisciplinary approach. Our staff and money continues to shrink-how desperately we need to realize that we can't do this alone! Outstanding. Please get more info on teaching techniques to other instructors! Very refreshing to not only hear about content, but methodology (teaching!!!!) Concepts of “cover” vs. teach? What does this mean? When you have the option of using a "park" example in an exercise-use it. In that way you get a 2 for 1 benefit. We get a park example and we get teaching methods instruction. Requesting the hotel to not change sheets every day would have been good. I wish I had this training years ago! Thanks for a memorable experience. Excellent job to all. I learned a bunch!!! Use of learners (active) not students is great. Pace of course was deliberative and methodological. Factual overload was not a problem. I recognize that many of the class members wanted more course curriculum info. Maybe I'm biased because I've attended RPI and have a sense of the course objectives, but I believe that by flooding the class members with curriculum it would have detracted from our course objectives-"To learn how to be effective trainers". We needed to learn training techniques and then focus on curriculum. I believe it is really important for the instructors to each have access to the full curriculum support materials: lesson plans, handouts, etc. I really appreciate the dedication and enthusiasm of all the instructors-well done! Overall guest location-nice facilities. Logistical-It would be useful to have access to internet w/o costs. There are both personal and job-related information that could be accessed outside of class time. Perhaps this could be negotiated in contract with facilities-or service could be obtained through one computer and participants could schedule 15 minute time slots outside of class time. Great class. Great instruction, great learning and teaching tools. Great job well thought out. Good modeling of the skills we learned. Fun group of instructors and participants! Snacks were also good. The quality of instruction and organization of the training was great. My hope is that this program can be/will be supported enough to provide for regular teaching opportunities. Thank you. Great instructors and great content. Good diversity of participants (from different areas/divisions). This was one of the best training courses I've had and I'm very excited about putting all this training to use! Thank you!

September 2005

15

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course

Appendix C: Results from the Verbal Instructor Group Evaluation

The comments contained below are transcribed from large, chart sized, self-stick paper used in the course debrief. Debrief participants were asked to record their comments and observations under the appropriate heading. Participants were asked to place a check mark (9) next to comments with which participants agreed, but did not record themselves. Bracketed information [ ] was added in the transcription process for suggested clarification. Good (9999999) Marker and Amy; (9999) Having student do intro to practice teaching: many said it helped nervousness; (999) Diversity of Instructors on Agenda (style and expertise); (999) Great Facility/food, etc.; (999) Presentations by Student, and Evaluations [process]; (99) Great diversity in types of session modeling, small groups, exercises, pairing, etc.; (99) Excellent organization of the events and activities!!!; (99) Eppley Involvement; (9) Student Icebreaker (personal); (9) Good of the Day—set up and style.

Improve (99999) More practice times speaking to whole and small group; (999) Put reference material out earlier and more [of it]; (999) Script the opening and closing; (99) Communicate dress code (clarify); (99) Review lesson plans used for student presentations (update them); (99) Icebreaker needs more “boundaries” to manage reckless participants; (99) Where possible, use substantive resource management material when instructing teaching techniques; (99) More resources for Intro to Stewardship course; (9) More time for Good of the Day on agenda; (9) Get participants involved in logistics for course; (9) Quick tips sheet—break paper down to ¼ or ½ sheet; (9) More info on curriculum up-front or earlier in course; (9) Clarify Help Desk (specify help for whom and what; (9) Do not involved instructors in class initiatives (special activities) and in LPs; Agenda and Objectives on RP III should match.

16

September 2005

NPS Resource Stewardship and Protection Train-the-Trainer course Missing (999) Substitute “curriculum specific examples into more exercises (in everything); (99) Evaluators should meet after all presentations are complete (consider more time on Friday); (99) Maps for Restaurants; (99) Broaden diversity of instructors to better reflect diversity of NOS and/or US at large; (9) Work time for learners to develop or practice their sessions; (9) Sign-out for vehicles; (9) Glossary—Give it out!

September 2005

17

Suggest Documents