Presentation The form asks, The presentation and facilitation of the workshop was: Poor, Adequate, The replies were: Good, Very good. Presentation evaluation: Poor Adequate Good Very 0 0 4 14 good The form also invites comments on each of the two trainers, David and Polly. All the comments are recorded in the appendix, but a couple of highlights were: David . . . cool!’ ‘So Polly . . . lady’ ‘Iron The form asks, Do you have any suggestions for alternative ways of facilitating the TOT Again, all responses are in the appendix: there are some good suggestions and the training? LEGS Coordinator should reflect on each one. Content The form asks, The most session or topic did you find most useful, and why?’. common response was of them’ for details, see appendix. Specific sessions named ‘all – include: The four stages of the LEGS approach, Preliminary assessment, PRIM, Types of learners and learning cycle, PowerPoint presentation tips, Analysis of technical interventions (session 5). The form also asks, The most session or topic did you find least useful, and why?’ frequent answer is but some that were named are: ‘none’, PowerPoint tips reason, already knew the subject, – Case studies reason, need to be more related to South-east Asia, – Principles of adult learning. Last under the form asks Content, there anything not included in the workshop that ‘Was Most commonly, participants gave no response or indicated needs to be? If so, what is it?’ Others raised the case study relevance issue again. See appendix for details. ‘nothing’. Satisfaction The form asks, how would you rate this course?: Poor, Adequate, Good, Very ‘Overall, The replies were (one did not tick any box): good. ’ Poor 0 Adequate 0 Good 3 Very 14 Satisfaction evaluation good In response to the need for more than one hour lunch break was further comments’, ‘Any stated. Finally, the form asks, The replies us in one word how you describe this training’. ‘Tell are extremely positive, including comments such as, Superb, Couldn’t be better,
Presentation The form asks, The presentation and facilitation of the workshop was: Poor, Adequate, Good, Very good. The replies were: Presentation evaluation: Poor 0 Adequate 0 Good 4 Very good 14 The form also invites comments on each of the two trainers, David and Polly. All the comments are recorded in the appendix, but a couple of highlights were: David . . . ‘So cool!’ Polly . . . ‘Iron lady’ The form asks, Do you have any suggestions for alternative ways of facilitating the TOT training? Again, all responses are in the appendix: there are some good suggestions and the LEGS Coordinator should reflect on each one. Content The form asks, session or topic did you find most useful, and why?’. The most common response was ‘all of them’ – for details, see appendix. Specific sessions named include: The four stages of the LEGS approach, Preliminary assessment, PRIM, Types of learners and learning cycle, PowerPoint presentation tips, Analysis of technical interventions (session 5). The form also asks, session or topic did you find least useful, and why?’ The most frequent answer is ‘none’, but some that were named are: PowerPoint tips – reason, already knew the subject, Case studies – reason, need to be more related to South-east Asia, Principles of adult learning. Last under Content, the form asks ‘Was there anything not included in the workshop that needs to be? If so, what is it?’ Most commonly, participants gave no response or indicated ‘nothing’. Others raised the case study relevance issue again. See appendix for details. Satisfaction The form asks, ‘Overall, how would you rate this course?: Poor, Adequate, Good, Very good. ’ The replies were (one did not tick any box): Satisfaction evaluation Poor 0 Adequate 0 Good 3 Very good 14 In response to ‘Any further comments’, the need for more than one hour lunch break was stated. Finally, the form asks, ‘Tell us in one word how you describe this training’. The replies are extremely positive, including comments such as, Superb, Couldn’t be better,