Respondents were asked to choose a workshop from the list below to base their evaluation on. The large date range, from February 2021 to July 2022, was necessary to ensure a high response rate in our first evaluation.
Workshops are divided into the following categories.
Faculty have to apply to participate in both the Experiential Learning Institute and July Week Long workshops. All other workshops are open access.
The pattern of responses below highlights some shortcomings that we will address by conducting more frequent evaluations in the future:
Workshops Open for Evaluation
Internal Category | Workshop Title | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|---|
IWT Annual Workshops | 2021-02-05 - New Kinds of Attention Feb 2021 | 0 | 0.00% |
2021-03-05 - New Kinds of Attention Mar 2021 | 0 | 0.00% | |
2021-04-23 - April Conference 2021 | 0 | 0.00% | |
2021-07-12 - July Weeklong Workshops 2021 | 3 | 8.33% | |
2021-10-01 - Writer as Reader Oct 2021 | 2 | 5.56% | |
2021-11-05 - Writer as Reader Nov 2021 | 2 | 5.56% | |
2022-02-04 - New Kinds of Attention Feb 2022 | 0 | 0.00% | |
2022-03-04 - New Kinds of Attention Mar 2022 | 0 | 0.00% | |
2022-04-28 - April Conference 2022 | 4 | 11.11% | |
2022-07-10 - July Weeklong Workshops 2022 | 8 | 22.22% | |
Intensive Institutes | 2021-01-11 - 2021 Experiential Learning Institute | 7 | 19.44% |
2022-02-24 - 2022 Experiential Learning Institute | 1 | 2.78% | |
CLASP Workshops | 2021-04-07 - Practical Introduction to Facilitating Classroom Debates | 2 | 5.56% |
2021-07-19 - Debate in the Classroom: Writing, Speaking, Teaching | 1 | 2.78% | |
2022-02-03 - Teaching Critical Thinking through Writing - Section 1 | 3 | 8.33% | |
2022-03-03 - Teaching Critical Thinking through Writing - Section 2 | 3 | 8.33% | |
Total | - | 36 | 100.00% |
Respondents came from 12 separate OSUN institutions (combining BHSECs). Distribution of respondents across OSUN institutions mirrors participant distribution in IWT CLASP workshops during the same period fairly closely.
Primary OSUN Institution | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Al-Quds Bard College of Arts and Sciences | 4 | 11% |
American University of Central Asia | 5 | 14% |
Bard College | 4 | 11% |
Bard College Berlin | 2 | 6% |
Bard High School Early Colleges | 3 | 8% |
BRAC University | 8 | 22.22% |
Central European University | 3 | 8.33% |
European Humanities University | 1 | 2.78% |
Haitian Education and Leadership Program | 2 | 5.56% |
Universidad de los Andes | 2 | 5.56% |
University of the Witwatersrand | 1 | 2.78% |
Total | 36 | 100.00% |
Years Teaching
Respondents were asked to provide an exact number, responses are grouped.
Years Teaching | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
0-4 | 9 | 25.00% |
5-9 | 9 | 25.00% |
10-19 | 9 | 25.00% |
20+ | 9 | 25.00% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100.00% |
Half of respondents have been teaching for less than 10 years. The target audience for longer term projects like the CLASP Fellows Program is primarily early to mid career faculty. We typically think of faculty who have been teaching for 5-19 years as falling into this category.
Years at Primary OSUN Institution
Respondents were asked to provide an exact number, responses are grouped.
Years at Institution | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
0-4 | 18 | 50% |
5-9 | 11 | 31% |
10-19 | 4 | 11% |
20+ | 3 | 8% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
Most respondents have been at their institutions for a fair amount less time then they have been teaching overall.
Respondents were given a list of teaching fields and asked to select any that best described the primary fields in which they teach. Their responses were distilled into the broader groups below for the purpose of analysis.
The teaching field selection process is one that will be refined in future evaluations. The default set of fields in the survey platform includes a range of specificities (“Humanities” and “Theology” are both options) and some fields with a great deal of overlap (“English as a Second Language” and “Foreign Language”), as well as an “Other” field. In the future, we plan to ask respondents to select as many of the below broad categories as they feel are applicable, and then write in their specific fields.
Primary Teaching Fields
Respondents could select more than one option from a more specific list of fields. Responses are grouped into 6 broad areas, plus “Other”.
Subject Area | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Literature / Writing | 16 | 44% |
Foreign Languages | 11 | 31% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 19% |
Other | 6 | 17% |
History | 5 | 14% |
STEM | 3 | 8% |
Arts | 1 | 3% |
Other Roles Beyond Teaching
Respondents answered in a text box, and not all respondents listed a field. Responses are grouped into 3 broad areas.
Other Roles | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Oversight/Policy Making | 10 | 28% |
Professional Dev/Capacity Building | 2 | 6% |
Ed Tech/Support | 2 | 6% |
No Other Roles | 22 | 61% |
Most respondents don’t play any role at their institution beyond teaching. Of those that do play a different role, administration is common–nearly a third of respondents are involved in oversight/policy making at their institutions.
Respondents were asked three basic questions about why they attended the workshop under evaluation.
How did you learn about the workshop?
Respondents could select more than one option.
From | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Chair/Institution leader | 14 | 39% |
Email from IWT/CLASP | 14 | 39% |
OSUN Newsletter/Email | 11 | 31% |
Peer | 4 | 11% |
An “Other” option was provided for the above question, but no respondents selected it. It appears that the current mix of broader mailings and targeted communications to administrators is working well.
How many IWT CLASP activities did you attend prior to this one?
Prior Activites | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
This is my first | 14 | 39% |
2-3 | 10 | 28% |
4 or more | 7 | 19% |
1 | 5 | 14% |
Total | 36 | 100% |
The majority of respondents (61%) had attended at least one workshop prior to the one they evaluated. It will be interesting to monitor this number over time.
Why did you choose to attend?
Respondents could select more than one option.
Why? | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Improve current teaching skills | 26 | 72% |
Learn new teaching methods | 26 | 72% |
Broaden network | 23 | 64% |
Learn new teaching skills | 22 | 61% |
Gain confidence in student-centered teaching | 19 | 53% |
Learn new teaching theory | 17 | 47.22% |
The two most popular reasons for attending were to “Improve current teaching skills” and to “Learn new teaching methods”, while the least popular reason was to “Learn new teaching theory”. This aligns with workshop content—workshops are highly experiential, and though they have a basis in teaching theory, it is not emphasized.
Despite the fact that all workshops focus on a dimension of student-centered teaching, only half (53%) of respondents listed “Gain confidence in student-centered teaching” as a reason they attended. A possible explanation is that respondents are already fairly confident in student-centered teaching, but are looking to add new methods to their practice or to refine their existing methods. This explanation is reinforced by the two most popular reasons for attending.
Fit between training and respondents’ professional needs and interests
Fit | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Excellent | 16 | 44% |
Good | 16 | 44% |
Fair | 4 | 11% |
Poor | 0 | 0% |
Total | 36 | 100% |
The vast majority (88%) of respondents felt that the workshop evaluated had a “Good” or “Excellent” fit with their professional needs or interests. No faculty felt that the workshops were a “Poor” fit. Participants tended to feel that longer workshops were better fits than shorter ones, possibly because there is a greater chance of personally relevent content being covered the longer a workshop is.
The fit of workshop content to respondents’ needs and interests is not necessarily a measure of participant satisfaction.
How much of the content (readings, lectures, methods, skills, ideas, approaches) was new to you?
New Content | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
All/Almost all | 4 | 11% |
Most | 16 | 44% |
About half | 14 | 39% |
A little | 1 | 3% |
None at all | 1 | 3% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
Ideally most participants in a workshop will be in a position to both acquire new knowledge and expand on their current understanding. It appears that most respondents are positioned in this way. 83% of respondents felt that “Most” or “About half” of the content in their workshop was new, putting them in a good position to learn new content and draw connections to their existing knowledge without being either bored or overwhelmed.
Which of the following best describes the usefulness of the new content?
Usefulness | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Greatly | 10 | 28% |
Very much | 19 | 53% |
Somewhat | 5 | 14% |
A little | 1 | 3% |
Not at all | 1 | 3% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
81% of respondents felt that the new content in their workshop was either “Greatly” or “Very” useful.
To what extent has the workshop helped you to reflect on your teaching?
Helped Reflect | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Greatly | 12 | 33% |
Very much | 15 | 42% |
Somewhat | 8 | 22% |
A little | 1 | 3% |
Not at all | 0 | 0% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
All respondents reported that the workshop helped them reflect on their teaching. Despite the fact that 75% of respondents felt that the workshop “Very much” or “Greatly” helped them to reflect, this is still an area that could be improved. The practices participants are intended to take from workshops to their classrooms are reflective. IWT Annual Workshops always conclude with time to reflect on participants’ classrooms and actionable ways to implement the content covered in the workshop. This structure is one that can be incorporated into other workshops.
What aspects of the workshop had the most influence on changes in your knowledge, thinking or practice?
Respondents were instructed to select up to three options.
Workshop Content Category | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Practical Exercises | 25 | 69% |
Peer Discussion or Presentations | 24 | 67% |
Facilitator Modeling | 16 | 44% |
Faculty Presentations | 11 | 31% |
Readings | 11 | 31% |
Our goal is that all workshops will lead to an increase in participant ability to incorporate the following into their classrooms: Writing in Curricula and Student-Centered Activities. Respondents were asked to describe their confidence in incorporating these two universal themes before and after their participation.
Understanding the rationale, key terms, and methods for incorporating Writing in Curricula for my discipline.
Confidence Change | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Before: A little; After: Moderate | 2 | 6% |
Before: A little; After: Very | 1 | 3% |
Before: Moderate; After: Moderate | 2 | 6% |
Before: Moderate; After: Very | 11 | 31% |
Before: Moderate; After: Extremely Confident | 3 | 8% |
Before: Very; After: Very | 7 | 19% |
Before: Very; After: Extremely Confident | 5 | 13.89% |
Before: Extremely Confident; After: Extremely Confident | 4 | 11.11% |
Visualization of participants change in confidence in incorporating Writing in Curricula
Thickness of a bar indicates the number of participants who reported that range of change. For example, 30.56% of respondents reported a change in confidence from “Moderate” to “Very”, so that bar is the thickest. Arrows indicate directionality of change, if no change was reported then participants are represented with a box.
Understanding the rationale, key terms and methods for incorporating more student-centered activities in my discipline.
Confidence Change | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Before: A little; After: Moderate | 1 | 3% |
Before: A little; After: Very | 2 | 6% |
Before: Moderate; After: Moderate | 2 | 6% |
Before: Moderate; After: Very | 6 | 17% |
Before: Moderate; After: Extremely Confident | 2 | 6% |
Before: Very; After: Very | 8 | 22% |
Before: Very; After: Extremely Confident | 6 | 16.67% |
Before: Extremely Confident; After: Extremely Confident | 8 | 22.22% |
Visualization of participants change in confidence in incorporating Student-Centered Activities
Thickness of a bar indicates the number of participants who reported that range of change. For example, 22.22% of respondents reported continuing to feel “Very confident” after the workshop, so that bar is the thickest. Arrows indicate directionality of change, if no change was reported then participants are represented with a box.
Most CLASP workshops incorporate more specific themes in addition to the universal themes of Writing in Curricula and Student-Centered Activities. Respondents were asked to choose which of the following 6 themes were part of the workshop they participated in:
Number of respondents that indicated each theme was part of their workshop
Theme | # Selected | % Selected |
---|---|---|
Applying activities that give students more control and responsibility | 27 | 75% |
Applying activities that increase student engagement | 23 | 64% |
Skills to apply one or more writing activities | 23 | 64% |
Preparing activities that bring students' lived experiences | 21 | 58% |
Generate peer-to-peer exploration of diverse perspectives | 20 | 56% |
New pedagogical methods for integrating writing | 20 | 56% |
If a respondent indicated that one of the above themes was part of their workshop they were asked to answer the following “Extent” questions about the efficacy of the work they did around that theme:
The split evaluation process we indent to implement going forward will enable us to draw a clear line between:
See Future Changes for more details.
Extent to which respondents felt the workshop helped them for each of the six additional themes.
Percentages are of the number of respondents who selected each theme.
Theme | Greatly | Very Much | Somewhat | A little | Not at all | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New pedagogical methods for integrating writing (N=20) | 9 | 45% | 8 | 40% | 3 | 15% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
Skills to apply one or more writing activities (N=23) | 10 | 43% | 8 | 35% | 3 | 13% | 2 | 9% | 0 | 0% |
Preparing activities that bring students' lived experiences (N=21) | 10 | 48% | 6 | 29% | 4 | 19% | 1 | 5% | 0 | 0% |
Applying activities that increase student engagement (N=23) | 8 | 30% | 11 | 41% | 8 | 30% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
Applying activities that give students more control and responsibility (N=27) | 12 | 52% | 4 | 17% | 6 | 26% | 1 | 4% | 0 | 0% |
Generate peer-to-peer exploration of diverse perspectives (N=20) | 6 | 30% | 7 | 35% | 4 | 20% | 2 | 10% | 0 | 5% |
The majority of respondents felt that the workshop helped them “Greatly” or “Very Much” for all 6 additional themes. There is a fairly large spread between the most successful theme, “Understanding new pedagogical methods for integrating writing into the classroom” (85% “Very much” or higher) and the least successful theme “Generating peer-to-peer exploration of diverse perspectives and learning from each other” (65% “Very much” or higher). This 20% spread is something that CLASP is working to address from multiple angles, particularly through that of the CLASP Fellows Program. The first cohort of CLASP Fellows will graduate this year (2023) and will internationalize the pool of faculty available to lead CLASP workshops.
To what extent have you tried to apply new methods, approaches or ideas learned in the workshop to your classroom?
Extent Applied | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Greatly | 10 | 28% |
Very much | 10 | 28% |
Somewhat | 11 | 31% |
A little | 3 | 8% |
Not at all | 2 | 6% |
Note that two respondents said they did not try at all to apply new methods, approaches, or ideas learned in the workshop to their classrooms. As such, all further responses in this section will be out of a total of 34 respondents who did try to apply something. All respondents may not have had time to apply the workshop “Greatly” or “Very much” since the survey was not distributed to faculty at a fixed point in time after workshop participation. As such, the extent to which respondents tried to apply the workshop in their classrooms is not necessarily representative of their motivation to apply content.
After applying the methods, approaches, and ideas learned in the workshop to their classrooms faculty should observe a positive change in students’ learning. In order to measure this change respondents were asked to reflect on 9 specific learning outcomes which all CLASP workshops aim to affect. The outcomes are as follows:
Respondents were asked to what extent they observed an increase in each of the 9 outcomes after applying the workshop to their classrooms.
Observed increase in all outcomes.
This chart does not take into account the extent to which faculty tried to apply the workshop to their classrooms. A visualization which takes this into account follows below.
Outcome | Greatly | Greatly | Very Much | Very Much | Somewhat | Somewhat | A little | A little | Not at all | Not at all |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Student self-reflection | 12 | 35% | 13 | 38% | 7 | 21% | 1 | 3% | 1 | 3% |
Student confidence in voicing ideas and opinions | 9 | 26% | 15 | 44% | 6 | 18% | 4 | 12% | 0 | 0% |
Student engagement with class discussions and assignments | 9 | 26% | 14 | 41% | 10 | 29% | 1 | 3% | 0 | 0% |
Student open mindedness to other perspectives and ideas | 9 | 26% | 13 | 38% | 9 | 26% | 3 | 9% | 0 | 0% |
Student motivation to engage with course content and class activities | 10 | 29% | 12 | 35% | 9 | 26% | 3 | 9% | 0 | 0% |
Student ability to be articulate orally and in written work | 7 | 21% | 12 | 35% | 10 | 29% | 4 | 12% | 1 | 3% |
Student empathy with classmates and their experiences | 9 | 26% | 9 | 26% | 14 | 41% | 2 | 6% | 0 | 0% |
Student ability to listen well | 5 | 15% | 11 | 32% | 15 | 44% | 3 | 9% | 0 | 0% |
Student interaction with each other | 5 | 15% | 10 | 29% | 17 | 50% | 0 | 0% | 2 | 6% |
Average observed increase in all outcomes.
This chart does not take into account the extent to which faculty tried to apply the workshop to their classrooms. A visualization which takes this into account follows below.
Outcome (0 is "Not at all", 4 is "Greatly") | Average Increase |
---|---|
Student self-reflection | 3.00 |
Student engagement with class discussions and assignments | 2.91 |
Student confidence in voicing ideas and opinions | 2.85 |
Student motivation to engage with course content and class activities | 2.85 |
Student open mindedness to other perspectives and ideas | 2.82 |
Student empathy with classmates and their experiences | 2.74 |
Student ability to be articulate orally and in written work | 2.59 |
Student ability to listen well | 2.53 |
Student interaction with each other | 2.47 |
Participants who try to apply CLASP workshops to their classrooms observe a large positive increase in all 9 learning outcomes. The charts above are an average of all respondents. We expect the observed increase in learning outcomes to scale with the extent faculty try to apply the workshop to their classrooms. Responses show that this is the case.
Comparison of average observed increase in all outcomes for all respondents vs those who “Greatly” tried to apply the workshop to their classroom (n=10).
Outcome (0 is "Not at all", 4 is "Greatly") | Average Increase | Average Increase for respondents who applied "Greatly" |
---|---|---|
Student self-reflection | 3.00 | 3.60 |
Student engagement with class discussions and assignments | 2.91 | 3.40 |
Student confidence in voicing ideas and opinions | 2.85 | 3.50 |
Student motivation to engage with course content and class activities | 2.85 | 3.70 |
Student open mindedness to other perspectives and ideas | 2.82 | 3.40 |
Student empathy with classmates and their experiences | 2.74 | 3.40 |
Student ability to be articulate orally and in written work | 2.59 | 3.30 |
Student ability to listen well | 2.53 | 2.90 |
Student interaction with each other | 2.47 | 3.20 |
Faculty who “Greatly” tried to apply the workshop to their classrooms observed a greater increase in learning outcomes than the average. Most of these differences are quite large, with all but “Student ability to listen well” at least half a step higher than the average.
Comparison of average observed increase by the extent respondents tried to apply the workshop to their classrooms.
The 4 learning outcomes with the overall highest and lowest average observed increases are shown.
For all 4 outcomes shown, respondents who tried to apply the workshop in their classrooms only “A little” report the same increase in outcomes of “Somewhat”. The trend in outcome increase vs extent applied begins to diverge as respondents apply the workshops more and more to their classrooms, which indicates that some outcomes are harder to achieve than others. This is valuable information as CLASP refines its workshops, since it suggests that workshops may need to focus more on outcomes that faculty have more difficulty achieving, or that the current techniques used in workshops are a tighter fit for some outcomes as they are for others.
Respondents who tried to apply the workshop to their classrooms (34/36) were asked to describe potential barriers to further applying workshop knowledge in their classrooms. These self-described barriers were condensed into three categories: “Time Constraints”, “Institutional Barriers”, and “Student Resistance”.
The evaluation will be refined in the future to also ask respondents who did not try to apply the workshop to their classrooms about potential barriers to application.
Barriers to Application.
17/34 or 50% of respondents listed a barrier.
Barrier | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Institutional Barriers | 12 | 35% |
Time | 8 | 24% |
Student Resistance | 4 | 12% |
Listed 1+ Barriers | 17 | 50% |
Respondents who tried to apply the workshop to their classrooms (34/36) were asked to describe factors or supports that might facilitate their effort to further apply workshop knowledge in their classrooms. These self-described supports were condensed into three categories: “Changes to Teaching Practice”, “Cross-Campus Collaboration”, “Further CLASP Participation”, and “Institutional Changes”.
Likewise, the application will ask respondents who did not try to apply the workshop to their classrooms about potential supports.
Supports to Application.
17/34 or 50% of respondents listed a support.
Support | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Institutional Changes | 7 | 21% |
Futher CLASP Participation | 5 | 15% |
Changes to Teaching Practice | 3 | 9% |
Cross-Campus Collaboration | 3 | 9% |
Listed Support | 17 | 50% |
To what extent did your interaction with peers in the workshop inform your knowledge or perspectives?
Extent | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Greatly | 10 | 28% |
Very much | 13 | 36% |
Somewhat | 11 | 31% |
A little | 2 | 6% |
Not at all | 0 | 0% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
To what extent did learning with peers from diverse backgrounds and cultures improve your capacity to navigate diversity?
Extent | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Greatly | 12 | 33% |
Very much | 15 | 42% |
Somewhat | 5 | 14% |
A little | 2 | 6% |
Not at all | 2 | 6% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
The majority of respondents feel that their peers “Greatly” or “Very much” informed their knowledge and perspectives and improved their capacity to navigate diversity. Meaningful interaction with faculty from across OSUN in participatory workshops is one of the most valuable aspects of CLASP’s work.
How likely are you to reach out to other workshop participants to share experiences, seek advice or plan collaboration?
Likelihood | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Extremely Likely | 8 | 22% |
Very | 12 | 33% |
Moderately | 10 | 28% |
A little | 2 | 6% |
Not at all Likely | 4 | 11% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
The majority of respondents (64%) are “Greatly” or “Very much” likely to reach out to other workshop participants to share experiences, seek advice, or plan collaboration. This points to the fact that CLASP is a significant driver of collaboration across OSUN.
To what extent have you shared your workshop experience with colleagues or leaders on your campus?
Respondents could select more than one option.
Party | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Yes, with Colleagues | 32 | 89% |
Yes, with Dean | 11 | 31% |
Yes, with Department Chair | 10 | 28% |
Not at all | 4 | 11% |
Other | 4 | 11% |
Yes, with OSUN Chief Academic Officer | 2 | 6% |
Nearly all (89%) of respondents shared their workshop experience with colleagues or leaders on their home campuses. This points to excitement about workshop content on behalf of participants, but even more importantly to CLASP’s reach beyond the faculty who participate in a given workshop. Particularly striking is that nearly a third of participants shared their workshop experience with those in leadership positions at their institutions.
How interested were they in what you learned?
Response | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Interested in broadly introducing on campus | 7 | 19% |
Enthusiastic and supportive | 17 | 47% |
Mild interest | 8 | 22% |
Not at all | 0 | 0% |
Didn't Share | 4 | 11% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
Not only are respondents sharing their workshop experience, they are being met with a warm reception when they do. 66% of the people respondents shared their experiences with were “Enthusiastic and supportive” or “Interested in broadly introducing on campus”.
To what extent has your knowledge about OSUN improved as a result of your participation in this IWT CLASP workshop?
Improvement | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Greatly | 16 | 44% |
Very much | 10 | 28% |
Somewhat | 6 | 17% |
A little | 2 | 6% |
Not at all | 2 | 6% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
CLASP promotes knowledge about OSUN. 72% of respondents felt that their knowledge about OSUN improved either “Greatly” or “Very much” as a result of the workshop. It is likely that CLASP is an indirect promoter of knowledge about OSUN across institutions given that 89% of respondents share their workshop experience with colleagues or leaders.
How would you describe the reputation of IWT CLASP on your home campus?
Reputation | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Positive | 27 | 75% |
Negative | 0 | 0% |
Not well known | 9 | 25% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
If CLASP is well-known on a campus, respondents feel that CLASP has a positive campus reputation. Campus knowledge of CLASP should improve naturally as OSUN continues to mature and participants continue to share their workshop experiences. It will be particuarly interesting to monitor this number over time.
How would you describe your overall satisfaction with your participation in this event?
Satisfaction | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 22 | 61% |
Satisfied | 11 | 31% |
Neither | 1 | 3% |
Dissatisfied | 2 | 6% |
Very Dissatisfied | 0 | 0% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
How likely would you be to participate in another IWT CLASP event?
Likelihood | # Evals | % Evals |
---|---|---|
Extremely Likely | 21 | 58% |
Very | 10 | 28% |
Moderately | 3 | 8% |
A little | 1 | 3% |
Not at all Likely | 1 | 3% |
Grand Total | 36 | 100% |
92% of respondents were satisfied with the workshop they participated in. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (61%) were “Very satisfied”.
86% of respondents are “Extremely” or “Very” likely to participate in another IWT CLASP workshop.
Thank you for your interest in IWT CLASP’s work and in the results of our first Continuous Evaluation Report. If you have any questions about our evaluation process, the report itself, or CLASP’s programming, please email us at [email protected].