guide
TTQS, QF and the training paperwork
If you teach funded courses in Taiwan (TTQS) or work with qualification-framework records in Hong Kong (QF-style), your evidence trail is a genre of its own. Here is what a feedback pack can honestly carry into the file — and what it cannot.
What the quality systems actually ask
TTQS (Taiwan Training Quality System) runs on the PDDRO loop — Plan, Design, Do, Review, Outcome — and course documentation typically wants evidence at the Review step: did participants get it (learning), did anything stick (behavior), and what changed in the next run (improvement). QF-style course records in Hong Kong lean the same direction: learner feedback plus effectiveness evidence, filed at course level. Both systems reward the same three artifacts: itemized results, an improvement record, and a follow-up that proves the loop closed.
What these forms produce
The training evaluation form pack maps to that need directly: eight reaction items grouped into content and delivery (the Review evidence), three narrow confidence self-reports (a stated Level-2 proxy), keep/change open questions (the improvement record, in participants' own words), and the day-30 follow-up (behavior counts — the line that shows the loop closed). The post-training survey covers the same shape at five minutes for smaller or non-funded courses. All items ship as plain JSON too, so the data lands in your own systems with no lock-in.
The reporting rules that keep you clean
File room-level summaries, never individual sheets — the anonymity promise on the form must survive into the archive. Report the lowest item alongside the mean; auditors have read enough perfect evaluations to distrust a flat 4.5. Where the confidence items have no baseline, write "self-report, no baseline" on the summary — one honest line is worth more than a decorated chart, and it is exactly what a reviewer learns to look for.
What paper cannot do
No feedback form proves Level 4 — business results need comparison data from your own systems, and attaching those to this pack is your side of the job. The pack carries reaction, a stated learning proxy, and behavior counts; a claim beyond that is the kind of over-reach that makes whole documentations less credible, not more.
Questions people ask
Is this pack certified for TTQS?
No — and be suspicious of any form claiming certification. It is CC BY 4.0 material that produces the evidence types documentation workflows expect (itemized reaction, learning proxy, improvement record, follow-up counts). How the evidence is accepted is your quality system's call.
Do the forms work in Chinese?
Yes — every folder ships Simplified and Traditional Chinese versions of all files (answer sheets, workbooks, decks), with Traditional wording localized for Taiwan usage.