On the last day of the training, APCD ICT (Information and Communication Technology) Division distributed evaluation questionnaires to all 22 training participants. The questionnaire was developed to ascertain the participants' point of view and feedback towards this year training implementation covering 3 aspects;
APCD wishes to utilize the views of participants to promote discussion and strategies for further improvement of its upcoming trainings.
The following analysis is based on their responses.
When asked about the course contents comprising 2 parts; 1) Information Networking and Information Management and 2) Information Accessibility and Accessible Web-based Information, participants expressed their overall responses satisfying with the contents provided by these two sections with the average of 41.5 % of "A" (very clear) answers and 51.5 % of "B" (clear). They positively commented that most contents presented were very informative and excellent.
However, about 7 % of either "C" (Little Clear) or "D" (Unclear) answers were in certain contents or presentations with the comment that some contents or presentations were a bit confusing since these contents were somewhat new for them. For example, they found it difficult to understand what the lecturer would like them to do in the group/panel discussion (See Section I: No. 7 and 15). They frankly commented that the definition, process and structure of an information networking were not clearly defined. The subject diverted to focus on disability networking instead of information networking. Also, exercise was focused on cross disability networking but action plan was specified on information networking. In addition to this, they found it was not so relevant for them in some contents (See Section I: No. 9, 12 and 13) and some participants' presentations were difficult to understand due to their English accent.
According to 32 % of the "A" answers and 56.8 % of the "B" answers, the methods and materials used enhancing the participants' understanding of the contents were effective. However, main issue brought up was that English language was somehow a barrier for some participants to fully understand and catch-up with the contents especially during the lecture sessions. Therefore, in order to fully meet the participants' understanding, some participant recommended providing the course material beforehand or at least one-day before each topic lecture since some participants were not familiar and new to some contents of the workshop. Further, more details and examples should have been provided during the training so that they could prepare themselves for the lecture as well as to review it after class. Last but not least, electronic format should be prepared if there is a participant with visual impairment.
Satisfactory enough, the overall responses of the training outcome ranges mostly either "A" or "B" answers. When asked if they have gained a lot of new knowledge and skills, all of them (100%) either agreed or strongly agreed and noted that what they had learned in this training course was very important to them as an agent of change to bring about the information networking and accessibility into their representing organizations and countries.
Again, when asked if the training contents have met their expectation, the overwhelming responses of all participants stated with the satisfaction of 100 % of agree or strongly agree answers with the belief that what they have learned was relevant to their work/country situation. Almost all of them (90%) indicated that they could apply the knowledge gained to their work/country situation. They said they would plan/create/improve information networking in their countries, develop/create accessible website, encourage partners for information management, sharing the importance of accessible website to others. etc.
Moreover, one hundred percent of their responses stated with the commitment that after the completion of this course, they would seek possibility and plan to create information networking with APCD and would link their organization's website to APCD's website which represents the overwhelming good indicators that the training outcome can be considered successful in term of creating information networking and exchanging.
According to the participants' responses, 88% gave either an "A" (Excellent) or a "B" (Appropriate) answers, indicating this year's training application procedure was satisfying, commenting that it would be better if nominated applicants were working relevantly in the field of information networking and management as well as information accessibility.
83% of participants identified that this training schedule was properly arranged. Somehow, 17% of them said that this training schedule was almost appropriate with the comment that it would be better if the Section I could be ended at 16:00 hrs so that they could relax and work on their report and presentation. Also, some of them requested some more time should be allocated especially in the Section II. They commented that they would like more time given for practicing and understanding the concept of this section as it was somewhat new for them since some of them knew how to create web site only using Dream Weaver and didn't know much regarding the accessibility perspective.
Ninety-four percent of the answers were positive concerning the preparation of APCD training information and materials provided. Nevertheless, they strongly recommended that if the training information and materials could be handed to them at the earliest of possibility, it would be very much appreciated since they would like to prepare themselves beforehand as well as to review it later.
Almost all respondents (94%) were content with the training course venue provided by NECTEC and all of them (100 %) were highly satisfied with training accommodation at the Asia Hotel with the suggestion that it would be much better if the hotel could provide wireless internet for them.
With no disagreement, more than 90 % of the "A" and "B" answers stated that the transportation provided by APCD was comfortable for most participants to commute from one place to anothe. In this regard, APCD strived to make it most accessible and convenient for them for the transportation by providing 3 vans including 1 APCD van with lift to facilitate participants to and from the airport, from the hotel to the training venue and return as well as from the hotel to the field visit and return.
According to the above analysis, the overall picture of this year workshop seems to be successfully organized. Participants were satisfied with the training contents and logistics arrangements. They positively commented that APCD arranged a good balance between the "Information Networking & Management Section" and the "Information Accessibility & Accessible Web-based Information Section". In addition to this, the participants were appreciated the knowledge and experiences sharing from all the resource persons during the workshop. There were also very impressed with the resource person of the hands-on training, Mr. Masafumi Nakane, who put great effort to share the knowledge of creating an accessible website to all participants.
However, apart from the above analysis, some more comments and recommendations were raised. First, Field visit: Most of participants were impressed with this year filed visit both at Mass communication Organization of Thailand (MCOT) and Ratchasuda College since they both represent good examples of information networking and management organization, and disability-related organization repeatedly. However, some suggested having more resource persons during field visits since this time only few resource persons could not cover explaining to the big group of participants who usually divided themselves into many groups. Second, Participants: Some workshop arrangement and environment minimally met the expectations of the participants with hearing impairment especially during the group discussions and hands-on training. APCD should also consider providing more than 2 sign language interpreters in such a long training period to avoid work loaded for only one sign language interpreter.
With all these analysis of the comments from the evaluation results provided by this year training's participants including resource persons, and taskforce members, APCD have already acknowledged and respected it as a mean to improve the contents and arrangements for the future workshop to fully meet its objective of promoting information management, information network, and information accessibility to related-disability organizations in APCD's targeted countries.
APCD will develop more effective communications among the resource persons, taskforce members, and APCD to make the workshop consistent among all related parties to continue an effective workshop in the future. A follow-up and monitoring of the workshop will be conducted to all former participants of this workshop. APCD aims to continue to build and expand the network with all participants from the workshop to further empower the information support on disability-related issues.
