Rapport and Doesn’t remember Gets participants talking 1 Poor communication with names; does not and excited; very 2 participants "connect" with friendly; uses people’s 3 Average participants; acts distant names when 4 or unfriendly. appropriate; seems to 5 Excellent understand the community and its needs. Effectively addressed Engages in "power Answers questions of 1 Poor questions/concerns struggles"; responds fact with information, 2 negatively to comments; questions of value with 3 Average gives inaccurate validation; if doesn’t 4 information; doesn’t know the answer, is 5 Excellent direct participants honest about it and elsewhere for further directs them elsewhere. info. 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 Participants are doing rather than talking about activities Reading the content from the notebook Non-judgmental responses to questions Stumbling along with the content and failing to make connections to what Answering questions of fact with information, questions of value with has been discussed previously or what participants are contributing validation Loses track of time Good time management and well organized Uninvolved participants Adequate pacing—not too fast and did not drag. Facilitator keeps track Getting into struggles with participants about the content of time Judgmental responses Using effective checks for understanding Flat affect and boring style Facilitator makes frequent use of open-ended questions; builds on Unorganized and random 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
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
TPPI-AP3-SupervisorProgramObservationForm.docx