Section B: My explanations
Item 1: I understood the definitions of the paralinguistic skills. How well do you agree with this statement for each skill?
I needed the audience to understand the different definitions of these skills so they can understand how it applies to the client group and how to use the skills. Interestingly I thought this was one of my weaker areas as I lacked depth in the explanations, but the results suggest otherwise. 100% of them either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement for every single skill I described. This is a good finding and suggests that if I had given more rich of a definition they may have forgotten or been able to understand it.
Item 2: On a scale of 1-10, 1 being the lowest, did my use of examples within school help explain verbal skills?
This was a mixed response. I used examples for every definition which were concise and consistent with each other, aimed to help reinforce and explain the different verbal skills. 83% gave a rating of 8+, and the remaining 17% gave a rating of 6. I would have been interested to know the justification behind this score and if I redid the questionnaire I would add a follow up item, which would explore this area.
Item 3: Did the case study of Joe help you understand the child’s perspective?
100% of the audience agreed that it was helpful using a case study in the presentation. Most of the respondents then went on to say why they found this. A common answer was ‘it was a lot easier to understand what you were explaining’. One respondent also mentioned my analogy of the concert, which was not included in this question but I did forget to create an item about it, so this response however did help me evaluate that aspect of the presentation.
Item 4: I understood the definitions of the non-verbal skills. How well do you agree with this statement for each skill?
A similar pattern to Item 1 in section B arose, with the majority of people agreeing with the statement. This similarity can be explained by how I did the presentation: both verbal and non-verbal explanations were presented in the same short and clear format. This method seems to work well with my audience, as they seem to understand the definitions from both sets of skills. The modal rating was agreeing with the statement, similarly to the other question. I did however have a 62% increase in strongly agreeing, suggesting that they had either become used to my presentation style, or I explained these definitions better after becoming more confident.
Item 5: On a scale of 1-10, 1 being the lowest, did my use of examples within school help explain non-verbal skills?
Considering the similarity between how I presented the examples in both verbal and non-verbal skills and the exact same format of question, the considerable lower rating surprised me. Although a similar pattern emerged it was constantly lower than verbal skills.
Section C: Barriers & Conclusion
Item 1: How could I have improved my explanation of the barriers?
Only 32% of the respondents actually answered this question. The others left it blank, either due to lack of understanding rooting from my wording of the item, or they thought no improvements were needed. The limited responses that I did get were very different. One focused on the overall presentation of this section ‘separate each example out’ where as the other response was specifically on one of the barriers ‘ explain in more detail the different treatments’.
Item 2: Name two barriers that apply to ADHD children
This item sought to explore how well the audience remembered the different barriers. Considering it was the last section covered I expected the majority to be able to do this task. The data shows that the audience did remember the barriers, which is a good indicator that I explained them well with use of examples. What was interesting however is that the audience drew from previous knowledge I had given them on problems for these children and used them as barriers. For example a very common response was ‘Unable to interact with people’. This was given previously and mentioned quickly that it can cause communication to be hard, but I did not use it my actual barriers section. Although they failed to identify all the barriers I was more impressed on them picking up on things they had learnt earlier and actually processing and putting it into context of a barrier.
Item 3: On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest, how well do you think you can communicate wit this client group?
This was a concluding question, which drew together all the skills, examples, and definitions I had taught to help them evaluate how well they can communicate with the client group. The aim of the presentation was for them to be confident in their ability to do so, and the results on this item were promising. The modal value was 7, and all but one rated above this score. It is important to realise that other factors including personal experience, qualifications and other training with this condition affect the persons confidence, which may explain why one person only rated a 6, while another rated their capability a 9.
Item 4: My handout was informative and useful. How well do you agree with this statement?
The handout was intended to summarise the main points of the presentation to reinforce what was learnt and also display the information in a different form. Everyone found it useful in aiding the presentation.
Item 5: How could I improve my talk?
This was a vital question in helping me evaluate my weak points in the presentation. 100% of the respondents who did answer this question highlighted my performance as the main area to improve upon. Some mentioned my tone ‘sounding less sharp’, which linked back to my lack of humour use in the presentation while others noted my disposition ‘relax more’ to be the main area I needed to improve upon. I agree with both of these statements as I felt I came across to serious, and due to being nervous did not seem to relax in front of the audience.
