Evaluation
Below are the averages compiled from all participants on each topic for LTCT 2020.
| Scale from 1 to 5 with 1=low and 5=high |
| LTCT 2020 Evaluations Summary | |
| Paratext 9 UI | 4.45 |
| Mentoring | 4.36 |
| Paratext Project Plan | 4.36 |
| Paratext Lite | 4.36 |
| Where to get help | 4.33 |
| Growth Plans | 4.30 |
| Dictionary App Builder | 4.27 |
| Paratext 9 - ER | 4.20 |
| Bloom | 4.20 |
| Teaching a workshop | 4.18 |
| Lang S/W Overview | 4.10 |
| Scripture App Builder | 4.09 |
| LSDev | 4.09 |
| Scripture Forge | 4.09 |
| Logos | 4.00 |
| Reading App Builder | 4.00 |
| PrimerPro | 4.00 |
| Overall | 3.89 |
| Render | 3.82 |
| HearThis | 3.73 |
| Problem Solving | 3.70 |
| Unicode | 3.60 |
| Regular Expressions | 3.45 |
SUMMARY FROM THE PARTICIPANTS’ COMMENTS
What went well
- The participants were happy that the schedule was favorable and they all had enough time to do some extra work with the materials. They find the event still relevant and gain a lot from the training in terms of new skills, relationship building, and new perspectives.
- Many felt they understood the LT Consultant role much better this time and were motivated to work towards being a better LT worker with clearer objectives set and tools to grow in throughout the year.
- Mentoring was the new initiative that was well received by everyone, while Paratext was still very relevant with the Paratext UI and Paratext project plan rating as the best topics for Paratext.
- The participants commended the instructor’s willingness to repeat instructions and an abundance of reading materials for their use. Also, the attitude of the instructors was very good and helpful.
- Some participants found the training very practical and they enjoyed that.
What did not go well
- According to the participants, they felt that the training was not practical enough in terms of relating the teaching to actual scenarios that they could experience in the field.
- They also felt that some materials were also quite repetitive and they were not relevant to tackle every year.
- We adopted the teaching technique to “do as I do” because there was a lot to cover within little time for some topics. Some participants found that method less interesting and hard to follow through as the instructor moved faster than the participants.
How to improve
- Jeremiah suggested that we could create tracks for optional topics so that one could be free to choose, especially for less helpful/repetitive topics.
- Many suggested that we could adopt a more practical teaching approach and relate to real-world scenarios. For instance, problem-solving could have more problems that are experienced in the field. Also, starting with the big picture before you teach is helpful. Use the personal experience of how you used the tool practically in a project e.g. How Kent tackled PrimerPro was very good and the ratings can show.
- Less upfront teaching and more group effort on real issues.
- Earlier dialog with LSDev or any invited guests to get the best person that will address LTCT interests appropriately.
