Speakers - trainers - presenters - faciliators - all needed at meetings.  Organizations fret about the questions asked on evaluation forms, and those who present in any form frequently fret about how they are judged, er, ah, evaluated.

How do we know if a session went well? What tells us if people in the session learned from the session because of the content, the delivery, the room set or setting, or because valued colleagues were there?

Finally - a day to have caught up on last week's New York Times magazine section and an article that speaks to both academia and to meetings.  It's long and worth reading, especially the comments by those who study how teachers are rated.

To the best of my knowledge, although our industry talks about ROI, we are still behind the times in understanding how to develop objectives, present content that meets individuals' needs, and how to measure - immediately following a session and later - the lasting value or staying power of the content.

We can do better and we can judge better who is providing content that works.  This article is a good start. Maybe we can convene a summit to discuss. But then how would we measure its effectiveness?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment