Analyzing an online training Survey

The paper is about to be done I just need to add more to the1. Analysis Summary2. RecommendationsThey located at the end of the paper with a yellow highlight, I want them to be expanded to one page each. You have to build on what already exists. Read the paper file and the training evaluation file to have a better understanding of what needs it you can add quotes with a reference.
paper_.docx

training_evaluation_online_survey.docx

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Analyzing an online training Survey
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Effectively evaluating professional training programs is critical to fully realizing both
organizational and employee benefits. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that appropriate tools
and methods are employed during the evaluation process. Our analytic approach involved the use
of both quantitative data compilation and a qualitative model, allowing for a complete and
thorough evaluation. Our analysis of the GMU SUPERvisor Series seeks to provide a
comprehensive review of trainee surveys and interviews, as well as supervisor feedback on
performance. In addition to analyzing the effectiveness of the SUPERvisor Series program, we
offer our recommendations for improving future training evaluations.
We started our analysis by asking the following question: What aspects, if any, of the
SUPERvisor Series should be changed to allow for more effective training an increased
employee performance? We wanted to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and any
consistencies found in the training program, as identified by the trainees. To do this, we used
Microsoft Excel to compile the raw data from the initial employee surveys that were conducted
after the completion of the SUPERvisor Series. This approach allowed for a quantitative analysis
of trainee survey responses, which provided some important initial takeaways.
To efficiently and effectively assess the trainee survey data, we began with the
application of a Likert scale to each question. However, due to the structure of the survey
questions, we were only able to apply this type of scale to 6 of the 10 questions. Based on this
approach, each trainee survey was assigned a minimum score of 6 points and a maximum score
of 25 points. The average score across 11 respondents was 19.82 or 79%, with a standard
deviation of 2.69. To better understand the variation in scores and to analyze the questions for
which a Likert Scale was not applied, our team reviewed the responses to each survey question
for all respondents. The results are as follows:
Positive Feedback
•
73% of respondents stated that Mentors were “very helpful”.
•
82% of respondents either “agreed or strongly agreed” that the SUPERvisor Series
worked well with their schedule.
•
73% of respondents found the training project to be challenging.
•
100% of respondents found the training project to me meaningful.
•
91% of respondents stated that none of the classes offered were unnecessary.
•
The Employee Retention and Mason Hiring classes were the most applicable to current
employee positions and responsibilities.
Negative Feedback
•
55% of respondents stated they received “minimal to no feedback” regarding projects
from their Supervisor, Dean, or staff.
•
73% of respondents stated that the SUPERvisor Series was only “somewhat helpful” in
terms of networking.
The objectives below were identified in the SUPERvisor series description document. We should
address these objectives in our analysis. Does the client’s evaluation process focus on evaluating
whether or not these objectives were accomplished? Do we know if the trainees gained the
desired experience from the training (Boss interviews)? In other words, did the training achieve
the desired IMPACT? Maybe certain objectives were not effectively evaluated. Perhaps this
could offer additional recommendations for the client’s evaluation process/methods.
The objectives are: At the end of the SUPERvisor Series the participants will be able to:
o List the responsibilities and duties associated with being a Mason supervisor
o Participate in the hiring process
o Use and understand Employee Relations policies, procedures and documents
o Talk about diversity, EEOC, and harassment issues with their staff
o Use skills to improve employee retention
o Recognize work/life balance
o Gain practical supervisor experience by meeting with a mentor
o Create a custom curriculum plan to be sure that each participant meets their
personal and professional objectives
o Complete a 360 Evaluation
o Complete a final project working with staff or supervisor
We decided to use “Donald Kirkpatrick four-level training model”, as this evaluation
process will help us to objectively evaluate the impact of the new SUPERvisor Series program at
GMU. Donald Kirkpatrick’s method is divided into four levels; reaction, learning, behavior, and
results. Therefore, as a group we decided to examine each level individually and compare them
with the interview responses provided by the participants to better analyze the effectiveness of
the the program.
Reaction
This level evaluates how the participants reacted to the training. It is important to
measure their reaction, as this will help us to understand how well the training was received by
our audience. We decided to measure if people reacted positively to the SUPERvisor Series,
using bar charts.
Based on the responses obtained by the questionnaire, employees tend to be pleased and
comfortable with the training process. Everyone found the SUPERvisor Series a meaningful
program. As a significant number of employees answered positively to questions such as: the
effectiveness of the program, the schedule flexibility, the challenge of the program, and the
importance of the program. The HR department did a great job selecting the material, topic, and
flexibility of the program. As employees appreciate projects that are challenging and flexible at
the same time. According to Issie Lapowsky, employees tend to increase work performance if
they do not have the pressure of meeting deadlines. Additionally, employees who have goals that
are measurable and challenging at the same time, tend to perform better and show better results
in any kind of surveys or training programs (2010).
Learning
In this level we measure what our audience have learned. To better understand the
effectiveness of the program at this level. We decided to compare the responses of the
questionnaire, to measure what employees think they learned based on their perspective; and also
the responses of the “notes from boss interviews” to see and evaluate if the training was
successfully applied in the employee’s daily activities from the manager’s perspective. Ideally,
every participant will learn something from this program, but we made a bar chart up using
classes taken as categories, and analyzing success rate based on which classes their bosses
thought were helpful at work after attending the New SUPERvisor Series.
As we can see from the results, both employees and managers found Mason Hiring A-Z
the most helpful. In the boss interviews they mentioned how this class improved hiring and best
practices. Equity, was thought to be the second most helpful among employees and bosses.
EEOC compliance was mentioned by bosses as being a great thing that they gained knowledge
on. The class that was found least helpful was kickoff, which makes sense because it was an
introductory class. For the most part the employees’ and bosses’ responses align. It would have
been analysed better if there were the same number of bosses as employees being interviewed,
which is something that could be worked on in the program’s future.
Application
At this level, we go further than just evaluating what our audience have learned. We
evaluate how our employees changed their behavior at work, based on the training received. We
can measure the effectiveness of this approach by evaluating the “Notes from boss interviews,”
where they mention behavioral changes among their employees. We will depict this data using
bar charts to notice the trends in behavioral differences among employees.
As shown above almost every boss noted a confidence boost in their employees. The
bosses mentioned more confidence led to increase in taking action, and taking the lead making
decisions while dealing with issues. Also they were more likely to suggest and start projects.
Likewise, their effectiveness increase was noted by 4 bosses. A few bosses noted that their
employees were more concise and adaptive while working.
Impact
At this point we analyze the final results of the program. To better understand if the
program was effective, we decided to evaluate all the points mentioned before to see if our
audience is happy with the program, and if they would like more similar events to happen in the
future As part of the analysis they did surveys and follow up phone interviews, which will be
shown in tables, since it is descriptive data. This will help show that the final outcome of the
program was positive as employees’ learned new material and were able to successfully apply
what they have learned to their work activities.
These sources will help us measure the outcomes of the survey. By analyzing these
methods, we can gain a thorough understanding of how efficient and effective was the training at
George Mason University. Additionally, by analyzing the strengths, weakness, and trends of one
of these three models we can incorporate further improvements or adjustments if needed using a
trial and error correction method.
Analysis Summary
Just a few notes from trainee surveys for the summary. Evaluation using Likert scale was
difficult due to structuring of survey questions. Needs to be changed so that response choices are
consistent across all questions. There are a few classes that do not appear applicable to current
positions or job duties. Feedback from Supervisors and Instructors appears to be insufficient.
Aspects of the SUPERvisor Series may need to be enhanced to promote increased networking
among participants. Supervisor involvement appears to be insufficient, due to the fact that only
one participant received a class recommendation from a Supervisor.
Recommendations:
•
Pre-training survey to get an idea of trainee expectations and goals, as well as employee
knowledge, skills, attitude, and confidence before the training.
•
Post-training survey questions restructured to allow for focused, effective and easier
evaluation.
•
Survey questions should be centered around identified program objectives.
•
Follow up survey 6-12 months after completion of SUPERvisor Series to evaluate
training impact on job skills.
•
Collection/comparison of performance evaluations before and after training.
TRAINING EVALUATION ONLINE SURVEY
New SUPERvisor Series Training Evaluation Survey
1. My mentor was…
o Not helpful at all
o Somewhat helpful
o Very helpful
2. The New Supervisor Series worked well with my schedule.
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neither disagree nor agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
3. The project I completed was challenging.
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neither disagree nor agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
4. The project I completed was meaningful.
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neither disagree nor agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
5. Which class did you use immediately to apply information directly to your job?
o Kickoff
o Employee Relations Part I (Performance Appraisals and Standards of Conduct)
o Employee Relations Part II (The Employee Grievance Process)
o Creating an EWP and Compensation
o Employee Retention
o Equity
o Mason Hiring A-Z
o None
6. Which class(es) (if any) did you feel was unnecessary?
o Kickoff
o Employee Relations Part I (Performance Appraisals and Standards of Conduct)
o Employee Relations Part II (The Employee Grievance Process)
o Creating an EWP and Compensation
o Employee Retention
o Equity
o Mason Hiring A-Z
o None
7. How much feedback regarding your project did you receive from your supervisor, dean, or
staff?
o No feedback at all
o Minimal feedback
o Moderate feedback
o Much feedback
8. How helpful was the New Supervisor Series in terms of networking?
o Not helpful at all
o Somewhat helpful
o Very helpful
9. Why did you choose the optional class that you selected (choose all the apply)?
o It was the only class offered the worked with my schedule.
o It was the only class offered in time for graduation.
o It looked interesting.
o It was pertinent to my job.
o It was recommended by other NSS participants.
o It was recommended by my supervisor.
o Other (please specify): ___________________________________
10. Is there any class that stood out to you?
o Yes (please specify): ___________________________________
o No
Training evaluation follow-up interview responses
AUBREY MEUSEL
Follow up Questions
1.
How did your mentor help your or not? Give examples.
·
Answered somewhat helpful on survey monkey – wishes she had gotten a mentor who
has more of a different job to get a different perspective.
o Mentor has same exact job in another area on campus.
2.
How did you feel when you graduated?
·
Took one year to complete the series.
·
Felt excited – wanted to finish the program quickly, but second job and grad classes made
it take a little longer than she had wanted.
·
Feels excited to take more classes (specifically well being)
3.
·
·
What about The New SUPERvisor Series would you change?
Some content was repetitive.
Did online training and went to March cohort, so found equity, etc… to be repetitive.
4.
Why did you choose your project?
·
“Organization Group Productivity” project
·
Came up with it from having to take over the inventory process – needed to do it already
for work.
5.
How did your project change your work environment?
·
Received minimal feedback – laid back work environment – no one really reached out to
provide her with any feedback from it. Overall everyone seemed pleased with it.
·
Lots of students took additional responsibility – made maps for new hires, FAQ and call
lists, etc…
6.
Networking.
·
Somewhat helpful.
·
Hard to meet people because she’s “shy,” but met people she wouldn’t have connected
with otherwise.
·
Overall a good experience, especially with starting to work here and joining NSS –
thought it was a good long term on boarding process.
Jakob Pezar
Follow up Questions
1.
How did your mentor help your or not? Give examples.
·
Explained how supervising works in the office. What works and what doesn’t work.
·
Debriefed after each NSS class with mentor.
2.
·
How did you feel when you graduated?
Felt accomplished especially for having completed the series in two months.
3.
What about The New SUPERvisor Series would you change?
·
Kickoff wasn’t totally necessary. Information could’ve been distributed via email.
·
Lots of material was geared toward classified full time staff, and didn’t apply to
supervising work study students.
·
Could’ve used more examples on different types of people one can supervise (like
students)
4.
Why did you choose your project?
·
Supervises work study students who needed to be trained up on the job, but there was a
lack of training material for those students.
·
Chose project that included putting together binder that included training resources for
the students so that it would be helpful in the future.
·
Project still in use and was extremely helpful for training current and future student
employees.
5.
How did your project change your work environment?
See above.
6.
Is there anything that you would like to add?
·
Some classes could’ve been condensed.
o Material could’ve been simplified.
o Some material was “off topic”
§ Specifically subjects of employees leaving Mason and discipline. Classes elaborated too much
about the different types of discipline – material dove too far in depth.
Lauren Hutt
Follow up Questions
1.
How did your mentor help your or not? Give examples.
·
Very helpful – able to take to them about work related situations.
2.
·
·
·
How did you feel when you graduated?
Took 1.5 years to complete the series.
Felt great.
“Good to finally be done because it took a long time.”
3.
·
·
What about The New SUPERvisor Series would you change?
Lots of required classes – wouldn’t necessarily change that because it’s useful/beneficial.
Overall program was good – not much change needed.
4.
Why did you choose your project?
·
Different level – moderate/conceptual.
·
Trying different methods to make sure due dates were met and employees completed
work. Not much outside work – had to do it for work anyways.
5.
·
·
·
·
·
How did your project change your work environment?
Slight changes.
Made her more conscious and focused/aware of her supervisory role in general.
New things came out from it.
Could see immediate changes in positive ways
Employees more conscious of timeliness and tasks and organization.
6. Networking
· Somewhat helpful
· Mostly people were open to talk.
· Met people and gained exposure to people, but didn’t form connections – not much follow
up.
· Didn’t follow up with anyone outside of the series.
7.
·
·
·
Flexibility (Neither agree nor disagree)
Easy to sign up right away
Thought flexibility was “pretty good”
Took a long time because of having to drop classes at the last minute because of work.
· Had to wait sometimes to sign up for the next class (wasn’t offered again for a while) –
added time onto program completion. Would like to see more classes offered in the summer.
Maryam Kasmai
Follow up Questions
1.
How did your mentor help your or not? Give examples.
·
Mentor was a faculty member that teaches during the year.
·
Helped provide information from previous trips
·
Encouraged to continue and improve
·
Connected her with field of study department for project.
2.
How did you feel when you graduated?
·
Took one year to complete the series.
·
Felt great.
·
Didn’t thing that it would excite her that much
·
Knowing “how good it is” that HR offers programs like NSS.
o Gives people the feeling they’re appreciated for their hard work.
3.
What about The New SUPERvisor Series would you change?
·
Add more student related material into the series – students are learning how to be
employees one day since we are in a university – emphasize about teaching them these skills
would help them.
4.
Why did you choose your project?
·
Designed new course to be taught in Germany.
·
Minimal feedback because it is still in progress
·
Chose project because she came from Germany and wanted to help students with global
studying.
5.
How did your project change your work environment?
·
Helped her to find what she can do — received fielding of accomplishing something
bigger than she thought she could do.
·
Received some feedback from the director about plans for the trip.
6.
·
·
·
***Any additional follow up questions from survey results.
Lori has a leadership quality that encourages people to take on something bigger.
Very good experience overall.
Loved trainers and crew that put it all together – “Thank you.”
Misty Krell
1.
How did your mentor help your or not? Give examples.
· Lots of conversations on many different levels.
o Personal/life – has known her mentor for years from being on the same thesis committee.
o Professional – both have similar career goals.
o Input on department and how things work – how to deal with certain people and situations.
2.
How did you feel when you graduated?
·
“it was a good feeling”
·
The recognition ceremony made her “step back and look at how much work [she] put in.”
·
Ceremony was “a little crazy” with the large number of graduates, and people running up
and then getting their pictures taken with Dr. Cabrera.
·
Overall appreciated the recognition
3.
What about The New SUPERvisor Series would you change?
·
Very policy driven – looking for more soft skills
·
Liked classes regarding dealing with different people and onboarding, and conversations
on best practices – got insight from other supervisors – would like to see more of this.
·
Found informal conversation in on boarding about difficulty with an employee very
helpful – received valuable advice and implemented ideas and saw a positive change.
4.
Why did you choose your project?
·
Focuse …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15