| |
| Presentation Skills |
| 1. |
Ability to communicate: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
30 |
60.0% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
17 |
34.0% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
2 |
4.0% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
1 |
2.0% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 50 |
| Average: 4.52 |
|
| 2. |
Use of visual aids: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
33 |
64.7% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
16 |
31.4% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
2 |
3.9% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 51 |
| Average: 4.61 |
|
| 3. |
Readability of visual aids: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
30 |
60.0% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
14 |
28.0% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
6 |
12.0% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| 1 (high) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 50 |
| Average: 4.48 |
|
| 4. |
Organization of material: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
31 |
60.8% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
15 |
29.4% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
5 |
9.8% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 51 |
| Average: 4.51 |
|
| 5. |
Attentiveness to questions and comments: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
35 |
72.9% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
11 |
22.9% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
2 |
4.2% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 48 |
| Average: 4.69 |
|
| |
| Content |
| 1. |
Knowledge of material: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
34 |
66.7% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
13 |
25.5% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
4 |
7.8% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 51 |
| Average: 4.59 |
|
| 2. |
Newness of material: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
23 |
46.9% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
16 |
32.7% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
8 |
16.3% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
2 |
4.1% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 49 |
| Average: 4.22 |
|
| 3. |
Technical relevance of material: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
27 |
52.9% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
20 |
39.2% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
4 |
7.8% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 51 |
| Average: 4.45 |
|
| 4. |
Information has value for my work: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
26 |
51.0% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
14 |
27.5% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
6 |
11.8% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
3 |
5.9% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
2 |
3.9% |
|
| Responses: 51 |
| Average: 4.16 |
|
| 5. |
Content matched written description: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
36 |
72.0% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
11 |
22.0% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
3 |
6.0% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 50 |
| Average: 4.66 |
|
| 6. |
Information was technical in nature, not a 'sales pitch': |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
39 |
78.0% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
10 |
20.0% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
1 |
2.0% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 50 |
| Average: 4.76 |
|
| |
| Technical Level |
|
Technical Level of Presentation: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| Too Much |
3 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Appropriate |
2 |
46 |
93.9% |
|
| Too Little |
1 |
3 |
6.1% |
|
| Responses: 49 |
| Average: 1.94 |
|
| |
| Comments |
|
What were the strengths of this presentation? |
| |
| Comments |
| 07/02/2008 09:30:40: good example for demo |
| 07/02/2008 09:33:48: hands on exam |
| 07/02/2008 09:34:34: nice to watch live app building demo |
| 07/02/2008 09:35:28: presenter was very prepared |
| 07/02/2008 09:35:45: live demo |
| 07/02/2008 09:36:58: demo worked even when he was asked to change things |
| 07/02/2008 09:38:13: live demo |
| 07/02/2008 09:39:12: interesting development topic |
| 07/02/2008 09:40:49: seriously practical, good stuff |
| 07/02/2008 09:41:06: interesting example |
| 07/02/2008 09:41:40: very organized and informative, well timed, he did not run out of time, etc |
| 07/02/2008 09:42:56: well prepared with all code written ahead of time |
| 07/02/2008 09:43:55: easy to understand, nicely organized |
| 07/02/2008 09:44:14: value for my work |
| 07/02/2008 09:45:47: big live demo proves its easy to use, showed me how easy this is if I already know how to use it |
| 07/02/2008 09:46:53: impressive build of simple app |
|
|
What were the weaknesses of this presentation? |
| |
| Comments |
| 07/02/2008 09:34:34: none |
| 07/02/2008 09:35:28: seemed a little nervous |
| 07/02/2008 09:36:58: internet didn't work |
| 07/02/2008 09:44:52: narrow focus |
| 07/02/2008 09:46:53: a bit too fast in presenting |
|
|
What recommendations do you have for improvement of this presentation? |
| |
| Comments |
| 07/02/2008 09:34:34: might be nice to show finished product 1st so we can anticipate where presenter is going step by step |
| 07/02/2008 09:36:58: show objectives of demo at start |
| 07/02/2008 09:40:49: use the microphone |
| 07/02/2008 09:42:56: more novice than intermediate |
| 07/02/2008 09:44:14: excellent presentation |
| 07/02/2008 09:44:52: a little basic for intermediate session |
| 07/02/2008 09:46:53: practice with a clock, slow down, emphasize some points, talk about dev method |
|
| |
| Overall Session Rating |
|
Overall Session Rating: |
| |
| Response |
Value |
Count |
% |
Comment |
| 5 (high) |
5 |
27 |
54.0% |
|
| 4 |
4 |
20 |
40.0% |
|
| 3 |
3 |
3 |
6.0% |
|
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| 1 (low) |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
|
| Responses: 50 |
| Average: 4.48 |
|
| |
