I had the opportunity to present on “evidenced-based outcomes for self-expression in recreational therapy,” at the 2018 North Carolina Recreational Therapy Association conference.
I like to share evaluations for transparency reasons.
Here is the rating scale:
- 1: Strongly Agree
- 2: Agree
- 3: Undecided
- 4: Disagree
- 5: Strongly Disagree
- This session contributed to my professional knowledge: Average: 1.64
- The session met identified learning objectives: 1.78
- This session was well organized: 1.85
- The instructional methods used were effective: 1.71
- The instructor was knowledgably about his/ her subject: 1.5
- The established learning outcomes were achieved: 1.71
- I would be interested in attending additional subjects on this topic: 1.71
- A positive learning environment was provided (lighting, sound, audio/ visual equipment) 1.5
- My overall rating of this session: 1.5
- My overall rating for the speaker is: 1.71
- My overall rating for the physical learning environment is: 1.64
Mode: scores ranged from 1 to 5 on all of them.
Note – One person put “5” for every answer (strongly disagree) and had written in the comments. I personally think this person had meant to write “1” for all answers because this person had written “group ideas!” in the comments and didn’t give any complaints or criticism. I still evaluated the scores above with the “5” included.
Here are the additional comments regarding this session:
- “I enjoy the session! I just want to earn more specific self-expression interventions to do with a group since I am a new graduate.”
- “Overall, good session. It was a little scattered, but interesting.”
- “Great examples of books and activities.”
- “Great session!”
- “Great flow, love getting an email that includes the activities, great activity ideas.”
- “Group ideas!”
- “I loved this! Great material and activities. I wrote down ideas to use while I’m at m internships.”
- “Good use of humor.”
- “LOVED this session! Danny is knowledge and captivated my attention the whole time.”
- “There were some resources that were helpful. However, the popular literature examples, which are good arguments are fully overwhelming any snipes of evidenced-based literature you offered. Pennebaker info at end good, but somewhat outdated. Some use of on-person-first terminology. Use of word “suffering” or “this poor girl and “elderly.” The title of the presentation in the program is not the same on the title slide, also didn’t have a stress focus. Thea actual activities and processing were interesting and useful for practice.
Danny Pettry’s comments:
- Evidence: there are different types of evidence. The popular literature examples gave proof of outcome, but they are not the highest ranking form of evidence. Research done by Pennebaker is the most intensive research that I’m aware of. Despite being older research, I believe Pennebaker’s research is still relevant today
- people first language is very important. I surely didn’t mean to use non-person first language. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll be more mindful of that in the future.