RUFORUM Workshop participants comments

  Web 2.0 Tools for Research Support and Networking in Africa, RUFORUM  Ruforum participants profiles|Ruforum Pictures|Ruforum Scoped Proposals| Ruforum Workshop reports | Participatory Approach (PAPA) reports

=Comments on workshop Strengths=
 * 1) exposure and awareness of new interactive wiki platfrom and other web 2.0 tools
 * 2) Excellent interaction between the participants
 * 3) Good facilitation
 * 4) Hands-on practice of the tools learnt
 * 5) introduction to other open learning tools that can be accessed for free of charge
 * 6) the power of web-based tools (wiki educator, google docs) to do online publishing
 * 7) the participatory nature was excellent
 * 8) All participants participated fully
 * 9) Facilitation was very wonderful
 * 10) Acquisition of software
 * 11) Very competent Facilitators
 * 12) Good material covered
 * 13) Excellent enhancement to use of ICT from basic use to more professional use
 * 14) Open sharing of materials, skills and experiences between participants and facilitators
 * 15) Material offered of interest to participants (new applicable and practical material)
 * 16) Facilitator very conversant with material
 * 17) The exposure to new platforms for interaction
 * 18) I feel I have learned quite alot. This is one of the most educative workshops I have attended in a year. It was very practical.
 * 19) Facilitators did a good job although they were sometimes faster than pedestrian learners
 * 20) Learning resources were adequate for the purpose
 * 21) Concept notes have been generated and are original in character
 * 22) the topic of the training very timely and relevant
 * 23) Adequate support from the facilitators
 * 24) excellent resource persons
 * 25) hands on training on web 2
 * 26) good interaction among participants

=Comments on workshop weaknesses=
 * 1) Internet failure
 * 2) Poor internet connectivity
 * 3) Some of the concepts were hard to conceptualize especially when internet was not connected
 * 4) The time was too limited for all aspects that were mentioned on the agenda
 * 5) The time was quite short, taking in to account the fact that participants were not at the same level of e-exposure
 * 6) Internet system failed several times during the workshop, causing costly interruptions
 * 7) The venues was small for the participants
 * 8) internet was frustrating
 * 9) Poor internet connectivity
 * 10) limited resting time
 * 11) Connectivity was paramount for the workshop but compromised
 * 12) more breaks needed in between the sessions to stretch and refresh
 * 13) Technology let us down (connectivity poor)
 * 14) short time
 * 15) Poor Internet facility
 * 16) Environment was not exactly pleasurable for concentration
 * 17) Time was not the best ally

=Comments on follow-up activities=


 * 1) The facilitators should have a follow up mechanisms on how the participants are proceeding on the PAPA
 * 2) Collaboration should continue online to update and remind each other WEB 2.0 tools
 * 3) Continuation of the initiated collaboration
 * 4) Finalize with the proposal
 * 5) Strength the research teams developed here and take our projects far
 * 6) The facilitators should have a follow up mechanisms on how the participants are proceeding on the PAPA
 * 7) Use the system for proposal writing among RUFORUM family
 * 8) Network development for installing on different institutions
 * 9) Follow-up and encouragement from the facilitators to motivate participants to keep up
 * 10) Organize the training at different levels to cater for the training needs of participants who are at different levels in terms of prior knowledge of the web
 * 11) Organize and mount some training courses through wiki or other web 2.0 tools
 * 12) Submission and Reviewing of RUFORUM-related proposals should be done on-line in the future

=Comments on participant's fears=
 * 1) I have enjoyed this training because it was too practical and very relevant to teaching, research and proposal development
 * 2) Some of our institutions do not have the internet facilities required for wide adoption of web 2.0 technologies.
 * 3) I fear how easy it will be to acquire the necessary infrastructure for Web 2.0 applications considering the bureaucracy in financial arrangements in out countries
 * 4) Due to lack of infrustracture, use of acquired skills may not be possible
 * 5) We have a hard task ahead of us....but its a challenge

=Participants other comments=
 * 1) handy way of proposal development/low cost
 * 2) Things are not as hard as they look at the beginning, it is a question of just learning
 * 3) Web 2.0 will make our professional work easier to deal with and also share with others
 * Huh, i have enjoyed the hyperlinks both internal and external links which were really a bother to me whenever i was working on the websites
 * 1) Collaboration made SIMPLE!!!!!!!
 * 2) Life can be so easy with web 2.0 tools
 * 3) It can be frustrating to save work on wiki when the traffic is too much
 * 4) There are so many things which we can use to improve our teaching and learning. What we need to do is to open up for new innovations.
 * 5) Having the right tools and knowing how to use them we can communicate in real time
 * 6) I appreciated the amount of knowledge that can be generated by the participants to the extend to developing concept notes and draft proposals without referring to library or any written literature. This is when it really becomes original
 * 7) Some people still think in the original physical meeting to enhance collaboration
 * 8) It is truly difficult to teach an old dog new tricks, but the tricks made easy would be absorbed easily by old dogs