THE WORLD BANK GROUP A World Free of Poverty
Home
Indigenous Knowledge Program
Home Feedback Partners IK Market Place IK Videos IK Packs IK Notes IK Databse IK Resources Whats New? Achievements Objectives Why is it important? What is IK?

Course Evaluation and Feedback

 

Post Course Participant Feedback

Tanzania - Uganda - Sri Lanka - India

 

  Tanzania

Summary and Analysis of Course Evaluation Forms from Tanzania

ANALYIS OF EVALUATION FORMS

The following diagram shows the results of the average responses of the participants to the questions 1-9 in the Evaluation Forms.

Text Box: Ranking Questions Analysis

In the questions for ranking the following are the results obtained:

 

1=Low, 6=High

The questions are:

1= How would you rate your personal learning?

2=How would you rate the application of your IK learning' s to your work?

3=Compared with other learning courses you have participated in, how would rate this learning course on IK?

4=How would you rate the course in terms of enabling you to work better by providing you with IK resources and lessons of experience?

5=How would you rate the course in terms of building cross regional partnerships?

6=How would you rate the over all design of the course?

7=How would you rate the off line sessions?

8=How would you rate the video conference sessions?

9=How would you rate the course materials (videos, presentations, documents, website etc.); Are they relevant to your work? If so, how do you intend to use them?

 

About the presentations, the following were the average ranking by the participants:

Rating: 1=Low, 6=High

Legend:

1=Introduction by Nicolas Gorjestani

2= Sri Lanka overview by Hemanthi Ranasinghe

3= Uganda overview by Joyce Mwanga

4= Tanzania overview by George Shemdoe

5= India overview by Darshan Shankar

6=Tanga case study by Firmina Mberesero and Samuel Mtullu

7=Iganga case study by Francois Farah

8=Sodic lands project by Monika Garg

9=Medicinal plants project by Ranjith Mahindapala

10=Scientific validation by Gordon Cragg

11=Intellectual property rights by Anthony Taubman

12=Benefit sharing model by GM Nair

13= Uganda's national IK strategy by Joyce Mwanga

14=Kerala's state level IK strategy by GM Nair

15=Community level IK exchanges by Noel Oettle

16=Overall effectiveness of local facilitator (George Shemdoe)

17=Overall effectiveness of course coordinator/moderator (Siddhartha Prakash)

18=Overall effectiveness of cross regional experiences shared by participants

Descriptive Questions Analysis

Following are the answers for the descriptive questions from 11 -15 in the evaluation form.

11. (a) Whether more courses should be offered on IK and the interval/duration

• More courses on IK should be conducted, most of them suggested that the fees should be waived to enable more to attend, but there are few who were eager to pay.

(b) Willingness to pay for these courses; how much

The fees should be between 20 – 200USD

12. Change of design and execution of the course to make the learning better and more relevant

• The training materials be provided to the participants one week before the course
• Some found the design to be appropriate, excellent and relevant to their work
• Improve on the slides (Slides were not visible due to unfriendly background)
• Better preparations and be more focus and not too many slides per presentation
• Include group discussions & presentations
• Initiate exchange visits as part of the training
• Give more time for answering questions

13. The recommendations of the participants to stay connected with other participants

• Though e-mail contacts
• -Discussion forums
• Yahoo Discussion Group
• To be connected to other countries by VCs
• Through the website
• Exchange of literature
• Participants be encouraged to report their IK undertaking

14. The usefulness of this type of courses to help achieve the MDGs

• Sharing of information and experiences could enable acquisition of knowledge from others and gauge ourselves in attaining MDGs
• It reduces training cost
• It provides wide exposure to how other countries are addressing these challenges
• It gives an insight on how IK improves peoples livelihood, generates income, promotes health, food security, etc.
• On the issue of whether there will be a value to include participation of other the participants had the following:

15. Who should be included to participate in this type of courses from the country/institutions

• Dr. Suleiman for TAWG
• Scientists and desk officers responsible for IK from Ministry of Health
• Community leaders& policy makers, up to district levels
• Medical officers from higher institutions, regional and districts hospitals
• All key stakeholders of IK

16. Any other comments/suggestions

• The course needs to be marketed with ample time and the fees should be manageable
• Every session should have its own evaluation form
• The Tanzania Trust Fund should find ways of moving the agenda forward
• The course is valuable and worth attending and organizing
• There should be bi-annual courses for the sake of updating the participants with emerging issues on IK
• More work on advertising the course needed, the course should be free
• Time was not adequate, chose few topics and cover them well
• This training to be conducted to directors of research institutions, hospital service directors, and chief medical officers
• Provide course outline in advance for maximum contributions during the sessions

 Uganda

Summary and Analysis of Course Evaluation Forms from Uganda

ANALYSIS OF COURSE EVALUATION FORMS

The following diagram shows the results of the average responses of the participants to the questions 1-9 in the Evaluation Forms.

1= How would you rate your personal learning?

2=How would you rate the application of your IK learning' s to your work?

3=Compared with other learning courses you have participated in, how would rate this learning course on IK?

4=How would you rate the course in terms of enabling you to work better by providing you with IK resources and lessons of experience?

5=How would you rate the course in terms of building cross regional partnerships?

6=How would you rate the over all design of the course?

7=How would you rate the off line sessions?

8=How would you rate the video conference sessions?

9=How would you rate the course materials (videos, presentations, documents, website etc.); Are they relevant to your work? If so, how do you intend to use them?

 

Rating: 1=Low, 6=High

Legend:

1=Introduction by Nicolas Gorjestani

2= Sri Lanka overview by Hemanthi Ranasinghe

3= Uganda overview by Joyce Mwanga

4= Tanzania overview by George Shemdoe

5= India overview by Darshan Shankar

6=Tanga case study by Firmina Mberesero and Samuel Mtullu

7=Iganga case study by Francois Farah

8=Sodic lands project by Monika Garg

9=Medicinal plants project by Ranjith Mahindapala

10=Scientific validation by Gordon Cragg

11=Intellectual property rights by Anthony Taubman

12=Benefit sharing model by GM Nair

13= Uganda' s national IK strategy by Joyce Mwanga

14=Kerala' s state level IK strategy by GM Nair

15=Community level IK exchanges by Noel Oettle

16=Overall effectiveness of local facilitator (George Shemdoe)

17=Overall effectiveness of course coordinator/moderator (Siddhartha Prakash)

18=Overall effectiveness of cross regional experiences shared by participants

 

DESCRIPTIVE QUESTION ANALYSIS

In evaluating the descriptive items (11-15) the following responses have been captured.

Item 11. More IK Courses and Fees

  • More courses should be offered on IK and readiness to pay was expressed although at very low levels within the range of US$ 30-50 to allow for wider participation. Very few people were able to pay US&50 and above.

Item 12 Change in design and execution of Course

  • Inclusion of participants from the wider IK stakeholder
  • Availability of course material early enough
  • Designing the course by sector to allow for deeper analysis and understanding
  • Increase time allocation to case studies
  • Reduce time allocated to off-line sessions and increase time for on-line sessions

Item 13: Staying connected through other countries through electronic discussions

  • Through E-mail connection
  • Through periodic Video Conferencing
  • Through institutional website
  • Through the print media e.g. IK magazine, newsletter
  • Through lead agencies e.g. UNCST
  • Through E-Journal
  • Through exchange visits

Item 14: Using this type of course as a learning tool to help achieve MDGs

  • Yes. Knowledge gained can be useful in designing programmes that achieve MDGs
  • Yes. Such a programme serves as an eye-opener and triggers off action among players.
  • Yes. Provides a cost effective means of sharing experiences and learning from each other to enrich national IK programmes
  • Yes. It helps in information dissemination ad exchange
  • Yes, as long as it fees into the framework
  • To some extent; however, there is need for research on IK and implement strategies developed
  • Yes. Promotes collaboration in the global village

1tem 15: Value in including other participation from own country/institutions and suggestions

  • All Institutions /persons without exception because IK is cross-cutting
  • More IK practitioners
  • Universities and schools
  • The IK bearers from the communities where research is conducted
  • Policy - makers and Parliamentarians
  • More people from the health sector, pharmaceutical industry, food science and technology of Makerere University
  • Local Government structures
  • The private sector investors, end users, Permanent SECRTARIES IN government Ministries

Item 15: Any Other comments/suggestions

  • Grateful to World Bank for efforts to organise this learning course as well to the Facilitator and GDLC, Kampala.
  • The Government of Uganda should support IK efforts
  • World Bank should set up a branch of World Bank Institute in Uganda for IK development
  • Need to establish an International Fund for IK
  • In future, evaluation forms should be anonymous for more objective responses.
  • Need to put in place a system of follow-up on participants.
  • World Bank should help in the mobilisation of funds to implement action plans
  • Cross-country exchange visits would enhance integration process
  • High -level policy makers should be sensitised.

 

 Sri Lanka

Summary and Analysis of Course Evaluation Forms from Sri Lanka

The following diagram shows the results of the average responses of the participants to the questions 1-9 in the Evaluation Forms.

The questions were:

1= How would you rate your personal learning?

2=How would you rate the application of your IK learning' s to your work?

3=Compared with other learning courses you have participated in, how would rate this learning course on IK?

4=How would you rate the course in terms of enabling you to work better by providing you with IK resources and lessons of experience?

5=How would you rate the course in terms of building cross regional partnerships?

6=How would you rate the over all design of the course?

7=How would you rate the off line sessions?

8=How would you rate the video conference sessions?

9=How would you rate the course materials (videos, presentations, documents, website etc.); Are they relevant to your work? If so, how do you intend to use them?

 

 

1-Low; 6 - High

The following diagram shows the ratings given by the participants to the question 4 which inquired how they rated the course modules in terms of learning and application to their work.

Rating: 1=Low, 6=High

Legend:

4a=Introduction by Nicolas Gorjestani

4b= Sri Lanka overview by Hemanthi Ranasinghe

4c= Uganda overview by Joyce Mwanga

4d= Tanzania overview by George Shemdoe

4e= India overview by Darshan Shankar

4f=Tanga case study by Firmina Mberesero and Samuel Mtullu

4g=Iganga case study by Francois Farah

4h=Sodic lands project by Monika Garg

4i=Medicinal plants project by Ranjith Mahindapala

4j=Scientific validation by Gordon Cragg

4k=Intellectual property rights by Anthony Taubman

4l=Benefit sharing model by GM Nair

4m= Uganda' s national IK strategy by Joyce Mwanga

4n=Kerala' s state level IK strategy by GM Nair

4o=Community level IK exchanges by Noel Oettle

4p=Overall effectiveness of local facilitator (Hemanthi Ranasinghe)

4q=Overall effectiveness of course coordinator/moderator (Siddhartha Prakash)

4r=Overall effectiveness of cross regional experiences shared by participants

Descriptive Questions Analysis

Following are the answers for the descriptive questions from 11 -15 in the evaluation form.

11. (a) Whether more courses should be offered on IK and the interval/duration

  • Once in 3/6 months @ 2 days/week
  • Once a month 

(b) Willingness to pay for these courses; how much

  • SL Rs. 2000
  • Should be free 

12. Change of design and execution of the course to make the learning better and more relevant

  • Have courses on separate subject areas with more case studies to focus on application
  • Enhance the emphasis on the local healing methods
  • Provide hardcopies of presentations beforehand
  • More stress placed on best practices, epistemology (ideologies of communities)
  • More emphasis on bridging the gap between eastern and western methods
  • Opportunity to participate in the design stage would be mutually useful
  • More discussion with case studies on IK and appropriate technology
  • Inclusion of more photos in presentations 

13. The recommendations of the participants to stay connected with other participants

  • Through emails; yahoo group
  • Follow-up courses
  • VC Sessions
  • Frequent local discussions/meetings
  • Monthly newsletter 

14. The usefulness of this type of courses to help achieve the MDGs

  • Useful to achieve some of the targets especially food security, health etc.
  • Provision of cost effective methods to achieve targets 

15. Who should be included to participate in this type of courses from the country/institutions

  • Practitioners of IK
  • Representative of the Institute of Engineers of Sri Lanka
  • Politicians, Policy makers
  • Professionals
  • Decision makers of institutes
  • Youth leaders 

16. Any other comments/suggestions

  • A website where documentation of IK is freely available
  • Provide support to formulate a national library on IK
  • Increase the emphasis on nutrition
  • Sri Lanka to have a session on use of IK/TK in Tsunami rehabilitation
  • Suitable time for having VCs as late evening is not the best time
  • Formation of working groups on broad subject areas 

  India

Summary and Analysis of Course Evaluation Forms from India
ANALYSIS OF COURSE EVALUATION FORMS

The following diagram shows the results of the average responses of the participants to the questions 1-9 in the Evaluation Forms.

Rating: 1=Low, 6=High

Legend:

1= How would you rate your personal learning?

2=How would you rate the application of your IK learning’s to your work?

3=Compared with other learning courses you have participated in, how would rate this learning course on IK?

4=How would you rate the course in terms of enabling you to work better by providing you with IK resources and lessons of experience?

5=How would you rate the course in terms of building cross regional partnerships?

6=How would you rate the over all design of the course?

7=How would you rate the off line sessions?

8=How would you rate the video conference sessions?

9=How would you rate the course materials (videos, presentations, documents, website etc.); Are they relevant to your work? If so, how do you intend to use them?

Rating: 1=Low, 6=High

Legend:

1=Introduction by Nicolas Gorjestani

2= Sri Lanka overview by Hemanthi Ranasinghe

3= Uganda overview by Joyce Mwanga

4= Tanzania overview by George Shemdoe

5= India overview by Darshan Shankar

6=Tanga case study by Firmina Mberesero and Samuel Mtullu

7=Iganga case study by Francois Farah

8=Sodic lands project by Monika Garg

9=Medicinal plants project by Ranjith Mahindapala

10=Scientific validation by Gordon Cragg

11=Intellectual property rights by Anthony Taubman

12=Benefit sharing model by GM Nair

13= Uganda’s national IK strategy by Joyce Mwanga

14=Kerala’s state level IK strategy by GM Nair

15=Community level IK exchanges by Noel Oettle

16=Overall effectiveness of local facilitator (George Shemdoe)

17=Overall effectiveness of course coordinator/moderator (Siddhartha Prakash)

18=Overall effectiveness of cross regional experiences shared by participants

Descriptive Questions Analysis

Following are the answers for the descriptive questions from 11 -15 in the evaluation form.

11. (a) Whether more courses should be offered on IK and the interval/duration

• Would gladly participate in more IK courses
• Every 3-6 months on different topics
• More hands on training needed

(b) Willingness to pay for these courses; how much
• Free
• Rs. 1500
• Rs. 500 per day

12. Change of design and execution of the course to make the learning better and more relevant

• The design and execution of the course was perfectly in tune with the participants needs and expectations
• The course was very well planned and executed
• Need more time for cross regional discussions
• Provision for presentation of the work modules from select participants could improve the course content
• Distribute illustrated fliers of success stories

13. The recommendations of the participants to stay connected with other participants

• By forming an email discussion group
• By participating in more video-conferences
• Electronic forums and periodic meetings
• Exchanges of local IK literature and documentation

14. The usefulness of this type of courses to help achieve the MDGs

• Since the primary objective of the MDGs is human development through global partnerships, distance learning provides a new way of forging cross regional alliances
• IK is a crucial resource to help address the issue of human well being sustainably
• Provides a forum for cross cultural experience sharing
• Demonstrates another effective way of reaching the MDGs
• Cost effective and time saving way of doing business across continents
• This type of a learning tool will give better exposure to IK for non specialists

15. Who should be included to participate in this type of courses from the country/institutions

• Participation of experienced IK practitioners from disciplines other than medicine and agriculture would add further value to the course
• Egroups: ranwa@yahoogroups.com and iifmalumini@yahoogroups.com
• Should include young scientists who can help validate IK
• Several interested parties could be contacted
• Need to overcome geographical distances through more than one center in India

16. Any other comments/suggestions

• The training module was a novel way of using electronic technology and saving time and resources
• Needs to be complemented with field visits to provide hands on training and demonstrations on the application of IK based technologies
• The overall design of the course was perfectly aligned with the expertise available amongst the participants from India
• Greatly benefited from the course and look forward to such interactive programmes covering other issues as well
• The learning environment in the DLC was excellent and well equipped
• Timings should be pushed forward to early hours of the day
• Transport and working lunch should be provided
• Organize 2-3 full day courses
• There should be a way to link the DLC centers to actual field sites
• Should be able to participate from our own institutions

HOME

 

 

 

 
 
Footer