feedback forms · surveys · any session
Post-Training Survey.folder
Satisfaction is easy to collect. The question sponsors actually ask is will anything show up in the work — this survey is built to answer it.
// kit v2: a stage-ready HTML deck (presenter drawer, run-of-show timer, built-in QR codes) · poker-spec print-and-cut cards with backs and blanks · an A3 activity poster · manuals in A4 and US Letter with bookmarks · three license tiers (CC BY free / single event / organization).
A one-page feedback survey for any training session or workshop: six Likert items covering relevance, transfer intent, pace, facilitation quality and clarity — plus a reverse-scored blocker item that catches the room a smile sheet cannot — and two open questions that produce a Monday commitment and an honest obstacle list.
The props are poker-spec print cards (63.5 × 88.9 mm, bleed and cut guides included) — instruction card, item cards, open-questions card — sized so one sheet covers a participant. Nothing needs a projector, nothing needs an account: hand them out, collect them in a box by the door, score them on the way home.
the run sheet
// this is the guide file, word for word — read it here, run from it here. the .md at the bottom of the page is the same text, offline.
Folder:
post-training-survey· Category: feedback forms · any group size · 5 min to complete · after the session · paper or onlineLicense: CC BY 4.0
A one-page feedback survey for any training session or workshop — six Likert items and two open questions. It exists because most training feedback stops at the smile sheet: "did you enjoy it?" This survey asks the question sponsors actually care about: "will anything from today show up in the work?"
Why this survey is not a smile sheet
Kirkpatrick's Level 1 measures reaction — satisfaction, fun, energy. It is where most evaluation stops, because satisfaction is easy to collect and pleasant to report. But reaction scores tell a sponsor almost nothing about whether the training worked.
Three of the eight questions here push past it:
| Question | What it actually measures |
|---|---|
| Item 2 — "I can name one thing I will use within two weeks" | Transfer intent (the bridge toward Level 3) |
| Q7 — "the one thing you will do differently on Monday" | A checkable commitment, in the participant's own words |
| Q8 — "what got in the way of your learning" | Design obstacles — free consulting for your next delivery |
A smile sheet can only go up. This survey can tell you what to fix.
When to hand it out
| Timing | Response rate | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Last 5 minutes, in the room | 90%+ | The default. People are still there; leaving takes effort |
| Same evening, by link | 40–60% | Only if the session runs to the minute. Send before 21:00 |
| The next day | under 25% | Acceptable for multi-day programs, useless for single sessions |
Never announce the survey "later by email" while the room is still together — you are donating your best response window.
Paper or online
The paper cards in this folder are the honest default: no login, no device hunting, no "I'll do it later". Hand them out, collect them in a box by the door, score them on the train home.
The online version earns its keep at volume — 40 participants, automatic scoring, a shareable results link. Every item is identical; use whichever the room allows. The one-click online build is linked from the folder page.
The anonymity promise
Write it on the whiteboard before you hand anything out, and keep it to three claims:
- No names, no tracking, no code numbers.
- Results are reported as room-level averages only.
- The facilitator sees them after the report goes to the sponsor, not during.
A promise you cannot keep is worse than no promise — if you must identify respondents (certificate programs, compliance), say so on the form instead and drop the word "anonymous".
Reading the answers
Do not read averages first. Read item 2 and Q7 first — that is your evidence of transfer. The full item-by-item interpretation table, the reverse-item trap, and the sponsor reporting rules live in post-training-survey-debrief.md.
Known failure modes & rescues
- The survey goes out the next day. Response rate collapses below 25%. Rescue: keep five blank minutes at the end of every agenda, protected like a fire exit.
- The anonymity promise is a formality. If the promise sounds canned, answers drift polite and useless. Rescue: say it out loud, in your own words, before handing out the cards.
- Only the average gets reported. A 4.1 average with a 2.2 on "pace" is a different session than a flat 4.1. Rescue: report the lowest item, always — see the debrief sheet.
Variations
- Multi-day programs: run the survey at the end of each day, not only the last. Day-over-day movement on item 3 (pace) tells you more than the final average.
- Corporate training with compliance requirements: the same items double as training-effectiveness evidence for internal quality systems (Taiwan: TTQS-aligned course documentation; Hong Kong: QF-style course records). Attach the room-level summary, not individual sheets.
- Small senior groups (under 6): skip the Likert cards and run the two open questions as a closing round, out loud.
the debrief sheet
// the debrief questions, in full — the .md version prints on one page for the room.
One rule first: numbers tell you where to look; the open answers tell you what happened.
Use with
post-training-survey-guide.md. Reading takes 15 minutes for a room of 20.
The 60-second read
Before any averaging, answer three questions in order:
- Item 2 mean at 3.5 or higher? Transfer intent exists. Below 3.0 — the session was theater, and the design (not the delivery) is the suspect.
- Q7 commitments countable? Count how many answers name a concrete action ("update the handover template") versus a vibe ("communicate better"). Concrete answers are the currency you can report.
- Q8 obstacles repeating? Two participants naming the same obstacle is a finding. Three is a redesign order.
Item-by-item interpretation
| Item | Construct | Low (≤ 2.5) means | First action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Relevance | Content missed the audience's actual work | Rewrite the intake; interview one participant |
| 2 | Transfer intent | Nothing felt usable on Monday | Add one applied exercise per half-day |
| 3 | Pace | Too fast, too slow, or mismatched levels | Split the group or offer two lanes |
| 4 | Facilitation | Questions and dissent were not hosted | Repair the room contract before the next session |
| 5 | Clarity | Exercises ran without a stated purpose | State the "why" in one sentence before each block |
| 6 | Reverse — blocker | Low is good. High scores mean participants expect no change | Treat any room-level 6-mean above 3.5 as a design alarm |
The reverse item is the lie detector: polite rooms score everything 4 — including "nothing will change". When item 6 rides high while item 2 rides high too, trust item 6.
Open questions: how to code answers
Q7 (Monday commitment) → your follow-up list. Every concrete answer becomes one line in a 30-day follow-up message: "You said you would update the handover template — how did it go?" This is the cheapest Level 3 behavior check in existence: no tooling, one message, honest replies.
Q8 (obstacles) → your redesign backlog. Sort answers into three buckets: environment (room, time, tech), design (exercises, sequencing), and outside-the-room (workload, manager support). You control the first two; say so honestly when reporting the third.
Discard answers that only praise. Praise is pleasant and information-free.
Reporting to a sponsor or HR
Report four numbers and one sentence — never the full sheet:
- Response rate (your credibility: 90%+ in-room beats 30% by email)
- Item 2 mean (transfer intent)
- The lowest-scoring item, by name, with its number
- Count of concrete Monday commitments from Q7
- One verbatim obstacle from Q8, quoted with permission
Never report: individual sheets, per-person rankings, or the overall average alone. An average without the lowest item is how training reports lose their reputation — sponsors have seen too many 4.6s that changed nothing.
3 known failure modes of reading survey data
- Cherry-picked praise. Quoting only the warm Q7 answers turns the survey into marketing. Rescue: quote one obstacle for every compliment — the contrast is what sponsors trust.
- One angry sheet overrides the distribution. A single hostile response is data about one experience, not the room. Rescue: report distributions, and read extreme sheets last, not first.
- Survey scores used as facilitator KPI. The moment scores become personal performance metrics, the instrument is dead — answers turn diplomatic and worthless. Rescue: room-level reporting only, in writing, on the form itself.
who it's for · what it leaves behind
Who is the Post-Training Survey template for?
Trainers, facilitators and course creators who hand out feedback after a session and need it to say more than 'enjoyed it'. It fits corporate trainings, public workshops and cohort programs, in the room or by link. It is also written to double as training-effectiveness evidence for internal quality systems (for example TTQS course documentation in Taiwan or QF-style course records in Hong Kong).
What makes it different from a satisfaction survey?
Three things: it asks about transfer intent ('I can name one thing I will use within two weeks'), it carries a reverse-scored blocker item that polite rooms cannot hide behind, and its two open questions produce artifacts — a Monday commitment list and an obstacle list — instead of comments. Satisfaction sheets can only go up; this survey tells you what to fix.
Can my AI agent use this folder?
Yes. Every folder ships a SKILL.md skill file: frontmatter for matching, plus runnable prep commands — fetch the survey cards, pull the reading guide, build the live online version with formlm-cli. The three-step workflow (discover, install, run) lives on the skills page, every folder ships a one-command zip bundle, and the machine index is skills.json.
Is it really free?
Yes — CC BY 4.0, no account, no email wall inside a folder. Download it, run it, adapt the wording to your program, rebrand it for your own workshop. Attribution keeps everything free.
make it live
The paper survey is the honest default — anonymous, no devices, 90%+ response in the room. If you want the online version — the same 6 items and 2 open questions as a live form, with automatic scoring and a shareable results link — two ways:
for AI agents
$ formlm-cli smart generate --input "Post-training survey for a workshop or training session: 6 anonymous Likert items (1-5) on relevance, transfer intent, pace, facilitation quality and clarity, with one reverse-scored blocker item, plus two open questions - the one thing participants will do differently on Monday, and what got in the way of learning. Takes 5 minutes, room-level reporting only"
Step 4 of the agent workflow: npm install -g @formlm/cli, log in once, and the prep above runs itself. The form and its data live in your own workspace.
— or, with a mouse —
Open the free post-training survey template on FormLM
and paste the items from post-training-survey-assessment.json — the template already collects responses and computes room-level scores.
// optional, not required — the paper version in this folder is complete on its own. free account on their side.
put it on the wall
The folder ships a single-file HTML deck that presents full-screen from one laptop. To run the activity on the room's big screen — submissions land on the wall in real time, the countdown and the spotlight stay in your hands, and the whole room joins with one scan — the scan-and-project companion is QRCard-AI:
See the trainer live-screen mode on QRCard-AI — one QR code on the wall, participants join and follow from their own seats.
// optional, not required — the deck in this folder already runs full-screen on a single laptop.
take this folder with you
// every file downloads as a plain file. no account, no email wall inside a folder.