16th Symposium on Child Custody: Workshop 17 Evaluation

Revisiting and Revising the Mediation Model Standards

A taskforce of AFCC and American Bar Association professionals has been examining the 2001 Model Standards for Family and Divorce Mediation and discussing updates and modifications. The panelists will review the current Model Standards, and the proposed revisions. The panelists will also discuss their work on the taskforce and its’ subcommittees, new concepts, and struggles over wording. Workshop participants will be invited to provide feedback on the draft revisions and suggest additional changes. This workshop will provide attendees with an opportunity to express their opinions on the revisions and have their voices heard.

Question Title

* 1. Based on the content of this session, I am able to (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree):

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Discuss the proposed revisions to the current Model Standards for Family and Divorce Mediation and how the revisions will update the standards.	1. Discuss the proposed revisions to the current Model Standards for Family and Divorce Mediation and how the revisions will update the standards. 1	1. Discuss the proposed revisions to the current Model Standards for Family and Divorce Mediation and how the revisions will update the standards. 2	1. Discuss the proposed revisions to the current Model Standards for Family and Divorce Mediation and how the revisions will update the standards. 3	1. Discuss the proposed revisions to the current Model Standards for Family and Divorce Mediation and how the revisions will update the standards. 4	1. Discuss the proposed revisions to the current Model Standards for Family and Divorce Mediation and how the revisions will update the standards. 5
2. Discuss the process that was used to update the standards and how the principles in the Model Standards are relevant to their family and divorce dispute resolution practices.	2. Discuss the process that was used to update the standards and how the principles in the Model Standards are relevant to their family and divorce dispute resolution practices. 1	2. Discuss the process that was used to update the standards and how the principles in the Model Standards are relevant to their family and divorce dispute resolution practices. 2	2. Discuss the process that was used to update the standards and how the principles in the Model Standards are relevant to their family and divorce dispute resolution practices. 3	2. Discuss the process that was used to update the standards and how the principles in the Model Standards are relevant to their family and divorce dispute resolution practices. 4	2. Discuss the process that was used to update the standards and how the principles in the Model Standards are relevant to their family and divorce dispute resolution practices. 5

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Marya Cody Kolman, JD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

	1	2	3	4	5
Level of knowledge and expertise	Level of knowledge and expertise 1	Level of knowledge and expertise 2	Level of knowledge and expertise 3	Level of knowledge and expertise 4	Level of knowledge and expertise 5
Teaching ability	Teaching ability 1	Teaching ability 2	Teaching ability 3	Teaching ability 4	Teaching ability 5
Maintained my interest	Maintained my interest 1	Maintained my interest 2	Maintained my interest 3	Maintained my interest 4	Maintained my interest 5
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 1	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 2	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 3	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 4	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 5

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Kelly Browe Olson, JD, LLM (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

	1	2	3	4	5
Level of knowledge and expertise	Level of knowledge and expertise 1	Level of knowledge and expertise 2	Level of knowledge and expertise 3	Level of knowledge and expertise 4	Level of knowledge and expertise 5
Teaching ability	Teaching ability 1	Teaching ability 2	Teaching ability 3	Teaching ability 4	Teaching ability 5
Maintained my interest	Maintained my interest 1	Maintained my interest 2	Maintained my interest 3	Maintained my interest 4	Maintained my interest 5
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 1	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 2	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 3	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 4	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 5

Question Title

* 4. Please rate presenter: Alexander D. Jones, JD, MSW (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

	1	2	3	4	5
Level of knowledge and expertise	Level of knowledge and expertise 1	Level of knowledge and expertise 2	Level of knowledge and expertise 3	Level of knowledge and expertise 4	Level of knowledge and expertise 5
Teaching ability	Teaching ability 1	Teaching ability 2	Teaching ability 3	Teaching ability 4	Teaching ability 5
Maintained my interest	Maintained my interest 1	Maintained my interest 2	Maintained my interest 3	Maintained my interest 4	Maintained my interest 5
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 1	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 2	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 3	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 4	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 5

Question Title

* 5. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the symposium brochure

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

16th Symposium on Child Custody: Workshop 17 Evaluation

Question Title

* 1. Based on the content of this session, I am able to (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree):

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Marya Cody Kolman, JD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Kelly Browe Olson, JD, LLM (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 4. Please rate presenter: Alexander D. Jones, JD, MSW (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 5. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the symposium brochure

Question Title

* 6. Please rate this session presentation overall (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 7. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? (1=Very little, 5=Great deal)

Question Title

* 8. Information presented in this session reflected the most current evidence on this topic (1=Disagree, 5=Agree)

Question Title

* 9. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development (1=Not useful, 5=Extremely useful)

Question Title

* 10. Additional Comments