|
Follow-Up
All the
participants wish to stay in touch with CRG after the programme and wish
to be informed on their future activities. There was also variety of
suggestions for future cooperation from the exchange of ideas and
information to the possibility of carrying out CRG activities at the
participants’ home countries and institutions.
Core Strength Areas
·
A comprehensive approach to issues related to
forced migration
·
The resource persons were outstanding
·
The diverse background of resource persons
and participants
·
The course provided participants with an
invaluable network of contacts
·
The Winter Course helpdesk was helpful before
and during the course
·
Food at Swabhumi
·
The reading material
Problems
·
The lack of adequate “toolkits” in the
end of discussions
·
The schedule too intensive: no time to
process the information or see Calcutta
·
Calcutta as a field resource not utilised;
the field trip was too far way and too short
·
More time required for the completion of
assignments during distance education
·
The faculty included little government
representation.
·
Easier access to computers, internet and
printing required
·
Time management: e.g. the sessions for
reporting the substance of lectures were repetitive
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Not Applicable
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Delivery on time
|
19
|
1
|
-
|
20
|
|
General relevance and usefulness
|
20
|
-
|
-
|
20
|
|
Relevance vis-à-vis assignments
|
20
|
-
|
-
|
20
|
|
Usefulness/relevance in future work
|
20
|
-
|
-
|
20
|
|
Difficulties with instructions
|
0
|
20
|
-
|
20
|
|
Tutors' comments
|
18
|
2
|
-
|
20
|
|
Proper info on field visit
|
17
|
3
|
-
|
20
|
|
Relevance of the field visit vis-à-vis the
course
|
15
|
5
|
-
|
20
|
|
Quality of participatory sessions
|
16
|
4
|
-
|
20
|
|
Adequate preparedness for the sessions
|
17
|
3
|
-
|
20
|
|
Quality of film sessions
|
16
|
4
|
-
|
20
|
|
Regular visits to the website
|
19
|
1
|
-
|
20
|
|
Would like to receive CRG publications
|
17
|
3
|
-
|
20
|
|