March 29

Difficult Conversations
Presented by: Shannon Cochran and Liz McNeal

2012
Post-event evaluation

Purpose
The purpose of the event Difficult Conversations was to educate Messiahs COE and students on the perspectives and skills needed to effectively participate in difficult conversations that occur every day. The following Communication concepts were discussed: Communication Climate Verbal Aggression Interpersonal Power Strategic handle on emotions Understanding identity and conflict style

This chapel was held on March 29th 2012 from 7-8:30 p.m. in Brubaker. Difficult conversations intended to evoke active participation from student and staff with videos, role plays, and facilitated brainstorming. At the beginning the event, we played a video montage of street interviews where students answered questions about how they deal with conflict. Kate Simcox introduced the purpose of the event after the video was shown. Communication majors Hannah Teklits and Drew Gehman provided the audience with instructional communication concepts listed above. Five role plays and brainstorming applications occurred after the instructional content and was the bulk of the event. The roles plays were directed, written, and acted by students from Professor Quimbys Interpersonal Communication class.

Promotion of Difficult Conversations

This event was promoted through several different mediums such as: Communication Department Newsletter Facebook Event Page Sidewalk Chalk Chapel Slide Advertisement Posters In-Class Announcement Mass E-mail Professor/Friend Contact Twitter

Approximately 347 students, staff, and community members attended. This number exceeded our expectations due to the fact this event was held during the end of the semester.

Survey Summary
A Qualtrix survey was sent out to all students, faculty, and CEOs via mass email. We received 302 responses from which 270 were students, 26 were faculty, and 6 were staff. Out of the 302 responses, 218 people did not attend the event and 84 attended. The majority of students, faculty, and staff heard about Difficult Conversations through mass email (60 %). Only 5% of people learned of the event via the department newsletter. About 74% of surveyed people attended Difficult Conversations for chapel credit purposes and 22% attended because he/she was actually facing a difficult conversation and wanted to learn strategies for how to handle it. The top reason for why people did not attend was prior commitment conflicts with 71% of the vote. Many also claimed they did not hear about the event or were unsure of what the event was about in the short answer response section. The survey asked participants to rate the importance of the Communication principles, role-play scenarios, and brainstorming around tables on a scale of 1 to 5 (one being the lowest, and five being the highest). The average response rests around 3.44. A total of 76 students and faculty responded to the short answer question pertaining to the best parts of the event. Some responses for the best part(s) of Difficult Conversations are the following: The audience participation Being able to talk in groups helped show multiple perspectives. I liked how realistic the acting was because it helped show what confrontation might look like in certain situations The discussions held after the skits were fruitful and insightful. Developing strategies for handling difficult conversations. I also recognized from the even that difficult conversations are work and they require a desire to work out the problem. I appreciated that truly difficult subjects were handled, especially conversations involving parents, since that's something that I needed help with.

A total of 69 students and faculty responded to the short answer question pertaining to improvements theyd like to see if the event was held again. Some responses for improvements of Difficult Conversations are the following: The presentation of the communication principles was a little boring. Maybe present the principles in a more appeal way, instead of in lecture format

More tables for "brainstorming around tables" Shorten opening remarks. Too much time and too much detail to set context Be more clear ahead of time about the purpose of the event; I thought it was a discussion-oriented chapel where we would be actually having difficult conversations about tough issues, in a safe environment, not learning how to have tough conversations successfully. Homework? A flyer listing the COMM principles used, and maybe offering other questions to consider with friends. Don't have the chapel be 2 hours long

Recommendations
What to Maintain: Overall, we were pleased with the outcome of Difficult Conversations. The following is a list of the aspects we would maintain for next year: 1. Logo The Difficult Conversations logo was perfect. It was a great way of branding and it helped people to recognize the event all over campus. 2. Location Brubaker provided a large area for many people to attend. It is also easily accessible to many students and faculty members. 3. Student role-plays The majority of students enjoyed having live demonstrations of how to handle difficult topics as opposed to dry lecture. 4. Tables The tables gave students an opportunity to interact with staff members and other students they dont normally talk to. The tables provided people the chance to easily facilitate discussion. 5. Communication Principles These principles planted a seed in each attendee. It gave each person something to look for during the role-plays and helped them understand what to talk about during discussion time. 6. Video Videos give much more entertainment than lecture. Opened the event on a high note. What to Change: Many of the above positives need some change to make them even better. The following is a list of the aspects we would change/rethink for next year: 1. More/clearer promotion Several surveyors noted that they had not heard of the event and if they did, they were unsure of what the event entailed. 2. More tables People who sat in the overflow section (bleachers) did not receive the full benefits of interaction and discussion. More tables and less overflow could solve this issue.

3. Less opening remarks/lecture Many survey people complained the beginning was dry and uninteresting due to length. We may want to think about shortening this section up to no more than 5 minutes. 4. Time The length of the event seemed to be a little much for students. We may look into shortening it to only an hour. 5. More skits If possible we could provide more skits and fewer lectures. People responded better verbally and nonverbally to the role plays verses the beginning remarks How to Reach the Campus Better: As mentioned, several different outlets were used to promote the event. The improvement does not lie within the mediums used, but how they are used and to what extent. The following is a list of how to improve promotional communication: 1. Provide more information al flyers Rather than giving the information outright, we use a QR code. We need to keep in mind that not all people have smart phones and not everyone knows what they are. It would be better to provide one or two sentences about what the event entails. 2. Regular updates In order for social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, to be effective there has to be more updates on each. We should have posted reminders DAILY (especially on Twitter since there is no way to create an event on this site). 3. Contact with professors outside the COMM department We gave flyers only to Communication professors to announce the event in class. It would be more effective to involve other departments in the communication process as well. 4. More chalking Our chalking drew in many people to the event, but it may have been better to have chalked all over campus rather than a few select places. 5. Involve other practicum students other students in the COMM department were working on social media, organizational aspects, etc. Utilizing these people to help with a few promotional aspects could have improved both the timing of the promotion and how often people heard about the event.

**The survey results from Qualtrix are attached at the end of this analysis.