Microsoft Word - UNGEI Evaluation 13 June[1].doc - United Nations ...

UNGEI Workshop Evaluation Sheet
Rating Scale: Please use the following scale for giving your rating.
Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Please give your rating on the following aspects:
1. Contents Rating (1-5) Comments
Field Visit 4 ‣ Recommendations/observations were prepared.
No option was provided to share more.
‣ It was an excellent introduction to education in
Nepal.
‣ All were not included.
‣ UNICEF staff and driver very helpful. School an
excellent of community initiative
‣ Should have shown us a successful as well as
unsuccessful project.
‣ Good opportunity to learn from the situation on
the ground.
‣ It was excellent in all aspects.
Security Briefing 3 ‣ Briefly was not useful - we were not prepared for
a possible emergency.
‣ Too much that was unnecessary.
‣ Very comprehensive but was a bit alarming.
‣ Too scary.
‣ Too heavy. Could have given ways to overcome
attacks/incidents.
‣ Factual but frightening.
‣ Should have handed out action plan if something
happens! Where to go etc.
‣ It was all based on norms
Keynote Presentation 4 ‣ Was very informative. Required more cross
reference.
‣ Presentation covered important elements
effectively.
‣ Dynamic contribution. Excellent comments/inputs.
‣ Started the workshop with a punch.
‣ Excellent
‣ Good overview-comprehensive
‣ Excellent presentations. Session’s moderation
extremely well done
‣ Too short time
Discussants on Keynote
Presentation
4 ‣ The paper should incorporate suggestions made.
‣ Very useful inputs were given.
‣ There were some variations in the strengths of
the discussants.
‣ Stimulating & rigorous discussion. The paper is
good but incomplete.
‣ Time given is to short.
‣ It seems many questions and comments are not
UNGEI Global Advisory Committee Asia-Pacific Technical Meeting
11 – 12 June 2008, Kathmandu, Nepal
- 1 -

UNGEI Workshop Evaluation Sheet
taken.
‣ The discussion was superb.
‣ Substantive
‣ Excellent (ILO +2 nd Discussant)
Group Work (June 11) on
gender inequalities in
teaching and learning
Share Fair (Interactive
Displays)
Partnerships for results in
promoting gender
equality in education
Group Work (June 12) on
strengthening UNGEI’s
role
4 ‣ When a group is represented by many members
of a country it is difficult for others.
‣ Lack of similarity between the countries meant
challenging exercise.
‣ Group work gives a lot of opportunity for learning
and sharing
‣ Groups demonstrated high level of commitment.
‣ Some good ideas emerged from the group work,
with practical recommendations.
‣ Gets reduced to generalities.
‣ Unclear questions but good UNICEF facilitator.
Everyone answered the same question, some
group could have been given other questions.
3 ‣ The idea needed to be clearly communicated for
greater effectiveness.
‣ UNGEI displays were really good. Should have
been for all the countries.
‣ Materials not fully introduced well.
‣ It was not so “interactive” as expected. Could
have had more organized preparation.
‣ It was not interactive in any way.
‣ Inadequate time to take full advantage.
‣ Bigger venue next time and in a more visible area.
‣ The share fair was a great platform.
‣ A bit more dynamism/interaction could make it
more fruitful.
‣ It should be improved and organizers should
inform participants have to wait for the last day
for taking home
‣ Only to display materials\booklets etc.
4 ‣ One less presenter would have been better.
‣ Do not understand this question.
‣ Time management should be improved.
‣ Panelists should be advised to make short but
comprehensive presentation and concrete
answers to the questions.
‣ Good exchange - need for clarifying expectations.
‣ Excellent case studies
‣ Very informative; could have also highlighted the
difficulties of partnerships.
4 ‣ Useful
‣ Excellent discussion with refreshing analysis and
suggestions on the way forward.
‣ Perhaps people are already tired.
‣ This group work was absolutely significant.
‣ Very good discussion. Where are the complexity
recorded.
‣ Group dynamics could have been better
UNGEI Global Advisory Committee Asia-Pacific Technical Meeting
11 – 12 June 2008, Kathmandu, Nepal
- 2 -

UNGEI Workshop Evaluation Sheet
Unclear questions\too many questions
‣ Very interesting, brought out local ambiguities and
complexities.
2. Others Rating Comments
Effectiveness of presentations 4 ‣ Crisp
‣ Very good
‣ Come up with some more insights and examples
‣ Group presentation was good
Materials/handouts 4 ‣ Could have been done earlier.
‣ Very good.
‣ Good power point presentations
‣ Expecting more materials in future
Quality, flexibility and
accessibility of Facilitators
4 ‣ Especially on last group work it should have been
country specific.
3. Workshop environment Rating Comments
Learning from one another 4 ‣ Great
‣ Good setting for sharing
‣ Looking forward for more interaction with
different people around the globe.
Workshop time and duration 4 ‣ Too tight
‣ Too short.
‣ Discussion time perhaps a bit too short.
‣ Duration is right but time management need for
improvement.
‣ Time well kept
‣ Good time management
‣ Reasonable time imparted
‣ Could have been longer
Workshop room set up 4 ‣ Some rooms too apart… time wasted moving
between rooms
‣ Very appropriate
‣ Initiate some trainings within the workshop
Stay, food and logistics
(including field visit)
4 ‣ Decaf tea would have been better welcome. Also
fruit during tea breaks as an alternative to
cookies.
‣ Good hotel, excellent customer service.
‣ Good coordination
‣ Food would be excellent if more fruit is provided
(Lunch + coffee) break
‣ Very good.
‣ Excellent
4. Additional feedback/suggestions on any aspect of the workshop - (how can we make it more
effective when we do such a workshop next time?)
‣ Give more time for the sessions.
‣ There must be an adequate communication to the participants about the agenda and any key
notes to facilitate the participants to come prepared.
UNGEI Global Advisory Committee Asia-Pacific Technical Meeting
11 – 12 June 2008, Kathmandu, Nepal
- 3 -

UNGEI Workshop Evaluation Sheet
‣ May be more small groups on independent country analysis.
‣ Good resource persons in the workshop was additional value as well as the networking developed
among the participants/information sharing.
‣ Presentations were good and informative.
‣ Was not clear. No added value of initiating the national participants when not all experience
would be shared and contributions heard?
‣ Need to give more considerations to the diversity in the region. e.g. cultural differences that
affects the way participants from South/East Asia and South Asia participate.
‣ Translation of the child girl was not correct.
‣ Abbreviations used in the presentations should be given with the full forms.
‣ Most dynamic UNGEI meeting I have participated in. The design of a commissioned research
piece was very effective in the discussion well related, articulate and proactive.
‣ The field trip was an excellent addition to the meeting. The impact of the field trip would be
improved by including a locally based donor in each group to suggest follow up.
‣ Need more dynamic group work.
‣ Workshop time may be extended up to 5 day.
‣ For future UNGEI meeting you may invite those participants who attended this workshop. It will
make effective outcomes of UNGEI workshop.
‣ Plenary sessions were at times too drawn out and became monotonous. Sometime the speakers
or questions could not be heard.
‣ Some energizers could have been done to make the sessions less monotonous.
‣ Some of the information regarding funding of participants for attending this meeting was unclear.
‣ The role of media should be focused more.
‣ Improve on regional/sub regional representation at workshops.
‣ Maintain the quality of technical discussions in future,
‣ It was great to learn about the work being done and promote girls education.
‣ In such regional meetings, special concluding sessions with media should be planned. Because
media plays vital role for advocating girls education as well as rights.
‣ Field visit was too long, flight schedule unreliable. Next time organize day field visits rather than
one long stretch.
‣ First session should also comment not only questions as these are many experts in the room and
lots of experience. Rather, discussion/comments could center around issues and questions
‣ Totally excellent
‣ 2 days long enough
‣ Make sure use of all the different experiences
‣ Very good to present draft keynote and to discuss
‣ Not a good idea to have group work right after lunch when everyone was tired
‣ More targeted group work i.e. to answer “ hot” questions, take a stand in different question
‣ In general I think UNGEI secretariat did a good job since it was the first workshop at regional
level.
‣ Providing comprehensive information on UNGEI in terms of its history, activities, and its members
before the conference.
‣ Providing more space for the participants to share their experiences.
UNGEI Global Advisory Committee Asia-Pacific Technical Meeting
11 – 12 June 2008, Kathmandu, Nepal
- 4 -