> Take action > Our Tools > Evaluate > Self-assessment grid for trainers

< Back

Self-assessment grid for trainers

It is a tool for the pair of trainers (project facilitator and community facilitator in the RECASE project in Rwanda).

The aim is not to evaluate their performance in training. We started from their feelings (grid) to discuss them and find solutions through debriefings at the end of the training session.

This grid allows people who are new to training to remember good practices on preparation, facilitation, etc. and to set themselves up for improvement for the next session.

Farmers in the project RECASE

Self-evaluation grid

Tick according to your assessment, taking into account points from 0 to 5:

  • Good: 4-5
  • Average: 3
  • Poor, little: 0-2
On preparation Good: 4-5 Average: 3 Weak, little: 0-2
We knew the objectives of the training course
We knew the detailed programme of the training (timetable, sequences, facilitation techniques)
We arrived before the participants
We had the facilitation tools
We had the facilitation tools and the necessary material (pedagogical flowchart, picture box, flip-chart, markers...)
The logistics of the training were organised and facilitated before the start of the training
Anything else to say about the preparation?
On the facilitation Good: 4-5 Average: 3 Weak, little: 0-2
We collected the expectations of the participants and compared them with the objectives of the training.
We have respected the program (time management and presentation of themes)
We encouraged everyone’s participation by taking into account their heterogeneity or experience
We were complementary in the facilitation of the training (distribution of tasks, speaking time, facilitation of group work, etc.)
Anything else to say about facilitation?
On the transmission of knowledge Good: 4-5 Average: 3 Weak, little: 0-2
We asked probing questions to get participants to think about technical topics.
We delivered the main thematic messages on pig farming
We made good use of the image box
We made sure to rephrase, illustrate the point with regard to the signs/reactions of misunderstanding of the participants
Anything else to say about the transmission of knowledge?
On the farmer’s visit Good: 4-5 Average: 3 Weak, little: 0-2
The farmer visited was well informed about our visit (objectives, participants in the visit, key elements to exchange with the participants about the farm)
The farmer shared good practices with the participants.
Participants were able to ask questions to the farmer
We facilitated the visit by taking into account the participation of everyone (farmers, visitors,...)
Participants were able to give their opinion on the visit
Other things to say about the breeder’s visit?
Farmers in the project RECASE