the presentation of materials seem rushed or hurried? allow time for discussion; doesn’t have time for examples; tells participants they are in a hurry; body language suggests stress or hurry. discussion/activities; sometimes states but does not explain material. participants or speech but still completes all the materials; appears relaxed. 2 3 Somewhat rushed 4 5 Not rushed 4. To what extent did the participants appear to understand the material? 1 - Less than 25% seem to understand. 3 - About half understand. 5 - 75-100% understand. 1 Little understanding 2 3 Some participation 4 5 Good understanding 5. How actively did the group members participate in discussions and activities? 1 - Less than 25% participate 3 - About half participate. 5 - 75-100% participate. 1 Little participation 2 3 Some participation 4 5 Active participation 6. On the following scale, rate the facilitator on the following qualities: Question 1 Looks like: 5 Looks like: Rating Comments Knowledge of the program Cannot answer questions, mispronounces reads from the manual. Provides information above and beyond what’s in the manual; seems very familiar with the concepts and answers questions with ease. 1 Poor 2 3 Average 4 5 Excellent Level of enthusiasm Presents information in a dry and boring way; lacks personal connection to material; appears burned out. Makes clear that the program is a great opportunity; gets participants talking and excited; outgoing. 1 Poor 2 3 Average 4 5 Excellent Poise and confidence Appears nervous or hurried; does not have good eye contact. Does not hesitate in addressing concerns. Well organized, not nervous. 1 Poor 2 3 Average 4 5 Excellent
Rapport and communication with participants Doesn’t remember names; does not "connect" with participants; acts distant or unfriendly. Gets participants talking and excited; very friendly; uses people’s names when appropriate; seems to understand the community and its needs. 1 Poor 2 3 Average 4 5 Excellent Effectively addressed questions/concerns Engages in "power struggles"; responds negatively to comments; gives inaccurate information; doesn’t direct participants elsewhere for further info. Answers questions of fact with information, questions of value with validation; if doesn’t know the answer, is honest about it and directs them elsewhere. 1 Poor 2 3 Average 4 5 Excellent 7. Rate the overall quality of the program session. 1 2 3 4 5 Poor Average Excellent Summary measure of all the preceding questions. Assesses both the extent of material covered and the performance of the facilitator. Poor sessions look like: Excellent sessions look like: Lecture-style of presenting the content Reading the content from the notebook Stumbling along with the content and failing to make connections to what has been discussed previously or what participants are contributing Loses track of time Uninvolved participants Getting into struggles with participants about the content Judgmental responses Flat affect and boring style Unorganized and random Participants are doing rather than talking about activities Non-judgmental responses to questions Answering questions of fact with information, questions of value with validation Good time management and well organized Adequate pacing—not too fast and did not drag. Facilitator keeps track of time Using effective checks for understanding Facilitator makes frequent use of open-ended questions; builds on comments from teens Facilitator engages teens throughout the session 8. Briefly describe any implementation problems you noticed, including any major changes to the content or delivery of the material; time wasted in getting the session