HM770/2A

WTF? Evaluation Feedback ReportMohd Asyraf B. Mohd Aslin

Mohd Naqkhaie Jaznin B. Jalaludin

Nor Natasha Irina Bt. Mohd Azlan

Tengku Sheila Tengku Annuar Zainal

12/14/2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................... 1

WTF? EVALUATION FEEDBACK REPORT.........................................................................................2

SUMMARY OF MAJOR TRAINING OUTCOMES...............................................................................2

Training Efficiency......................................................................................................................2

Training Content........................................................................................................................ 3

Quality & Performance of Trainers............................................................................................4

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................6

APPENDICES...................................................................................................................................7

1

WTF? EVALUATION FEEDBACK REPORT

After the completion of What The Fish? (WTF?) 30 minutes training program, each participants

were given evaluation forms to evaluate the training program and the trainers; which was

Asyraf, Naqkhaie and Natasha. Out of all the 30 evaluation forms given to the participants,

there was no void or unusable forms, but the trainers only received 28 forms out of 30 in

return. However, it was still statistically appropriate for the analysis and it is reliable and valid

for the evaluation report writing; furthermore it demonstrated the high probability rating in the

representation of all the participants. Below are the analyses of the evaluations:

SUMMARY OF MAJOR TRAINING OUTCOMES

Training EfficiencyTo determine whether the training program were effective, it is important to begin by

reviewing the initial training objectives. The objectives of the training were to: “Learn what the

FISH! philosophy is all about, helps participants to learn how to deal with change and improve

motivation levels in organizations the FISH! way, help design a workplace where everyone

chooses to bring energy, passion and a positive attitude to the job everyday, and build a culture

where employees love to give their best every day.”

2

Figure 1

Based on the means numbered 1 (The training met my expectations), 2 (I will be able to apply

the knowledge learned), 3 (The training objectives for each topic were identified and followed)

and 8 (The trainers met the training objectives), it can be said that the objectives was partly

achieved with regards to the total percentage for each means (43%, 43%, 43% and 57%

respectively) that strongly agreed and agreed. However, since there was no follow-up forum

provided for the continuation of sharing experiences, participants did not have an opportunity

to practice facilitating what they had learnt. As a result, it was difficult to get an accurate

picture of the post-training performance.

Training ContentBase on the means numbered 4 (The content was organized and easy to follow) and 5 (The

materials distributed were pertinent and useful), it can be anticipated that the training contents

for this training were appropriate and useful to the participants’ current needs, and it has been

applicable responding to the real organization situation.

3

Figure 2

Among the 28 participants, about 18% of the participants strongly agreed that the training contents

were pertinent and useful, whereas about 57% agreed, 14% of the participants rated that the

training is just fair right, and sadly, 11% which makes 3 participants demonstrated that the training

content was just below the expectation. Therefore, majority of the respondents thought that this

training had completely personalized, practical and more convenient to them.

Quality & Performance of TrainersIn this part, it focused on the level of teaching quality and the participants’ expected

performance from the trainers. The pie chart below shows the quality and performance of the

trainers’ guide and instruction towards the participants during the course.

4

Figure 3

Based on the pie chart, 43% of the participants agreed that the trainers were knowledgeable,

whereas 36% feels neutral about it and 11% disagree and also strongly agree. From this

analysis, it can be anticipated that the result varies because there were three trainers and the

evaluation forms did not clearly state or separate the forms for each trainers. Therefore, in the

future it would be useful and better if the participants could evaluate each trainers in different

forms.

5

Figure 4

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONSThe results of the training showed that the participants have positive impacts from what they

learned. Adaptable and flexible philosophies, examples, and exercises supported and

encourage the participative learning approaches which enable the participants to deal with

change and improve their motivation levels in whatever organizations they are in.

The training course content, activities and the quality performance of the trainers were

practical enough to address the current needs in the organization although the time allocated

was limited. However, the course provided with a clear signal to the participants on how to

enhance teamwork, bring energy and engagement to work and improve the quality of work and

life. Here are some positive comments and feedbacks raised by the participants:

1) Good visual aids and activities.

2) Nice shirt!

3) Fun activities!

4) I love this training program!

5) Unique training.

6

In conclusion, the evaluation indicated that the participants fully attended, and happy with the

way the course conducted. More beyond, the training was vital and useful to create and

develop the participants. In short, they are quite committed to apply the knowledge, skills, and

experiences they learned from this course to contribute to the improvement of quality of

themselves and whatever work they are involved in.

7

APPENDICES

No. Means Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total1 The training met my expectations. 4 8 12 4 0 282 I will be able to apply the knowledge learned. 2 10 11 5 0 283 The training objectives for each topic were identified and followed. 3 9 11 5 0 284 The content was organized and easy to follow. 4 13 9 2 0 285 The materials distributed were pertinent and useful. 5 16 4 3 0 286 The trainers were knowledgeable. 3 12 10 3 0 287 The quality of instruction was good. 5 10 10 2 1 288 The trainers met the training objectives. 4 12 9 3 0 289 Class participation and interaction were encouraged. 6 9 8 4 1 28

10 Adequate time was provided for questions and discussion. 5 6 15 2 0 28Total 41 105 99 33 2

No. Means Strongly Agree % Agree % Neutral % Disagree % Strongly Disagree % Total1 The training met my expectations. 14 29 43 14 0 1002 I will be able to apply the knowledge learned. 7 36 39 18 0 1003 The training objectives for each topic were identified and followed. 11 32 39 18 0 1004 The content was organized and easy to follow. 14 46 32 7 0 1005 The materials distributed were pertinent and useful. 18 57 14 11 0 1006 The trainers were knowledgeable. 11 43 36 11 0 1007 The quality of instruction was good. 18 36 36 7 4 1008 The trainers met the training objectives. 14 43 32 11 0 1009 Class participation and interaction were encouraged. 21 32 29 14 4 100

10 Adequate time was provided for questions and discussion. 18 21 54 7 0 100

8