Participants were also asked to rate specific elements of the working groups by using the same four point scale:
1 = Agree Strongly, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, and 4 = Disagree Strongly
The approach used again this year to promote the sharing of resources in the working groups was almost as successful as last year’s, as the aggregated results in the following chart indicate:
| EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR WORKING GROUPS | AGREEMENT 2005 |
AGREEMENT 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| Preparedness: I received sufficient information about what resources/materials to bring to this working group. | 85% | 82% |
| Resources/Materials: The resources/materials/ideas shared by participants in this working group were relevant to my program and/or PD needs. | 99% | 92% |
| Application: I plan to use the resources/materials/ideas in my own setting. | 96% | 93% |
| Networking: I made some new contacts that I will try to maintain. | 91% | 87% |
| Facilitation: Facilitation techniques contributed to the success of the working group. | 94% | 93% |
| Workshop Environment: In general, the environment (room size, seating arrangement, lighting, temperature, etc.) contributed to the working group. | 94% | 89% |
| Outcomes: Overall, the working group met my needs and/or expectations. | 96% | 90% |
| Overall: I would recommend continuing with this kind of format for future. | 95% | 92% |
With regard to preparedness, some participants said they had not seen the memo or resource cover forms. As mentioned, the memo notifying participants about what resources they should bring was sent out several weeks later than last year. The reason for this was that registrations were much later coming in the CSC office. Although this may have been a residual effect of the job action occurring in March, it still meant that memos could not be sent out to participants until the registrations were received. In spite of this, most participants in the different working groups were aware of what resources they were expected to bring.