|
[home]>[programmes]>[orientation
course]>report>open
university
It was like an Open University....
Each year the course ends with a long and intense session with the participants
expressing their evaluation of the course, the plus and minus points in
the course, debate these out among themselves, and offer suggestions along
with their ideas of how they propose to carry forward the lessons of the
course back in their areas and workplace.
Below readers will find an array of comments of the thirty (30) participants
reproduced from the extensive comments taken down during the session.
1. There should be more time for participants to read the material. Lectures
should be based on case studies. There should be more preparation for
the workshops. And what about follow-up mechanisms?
2. There should be some information in the form of guidelines for writing
the term-papers. Pre-course interaction should be module based. There
should be more information on fieldwork.
3. Theoretical readings are good and compelling; however we need practical
issue oriented discussions also.
4. The course material was comprehensive. New terminology/concepts were
introduced. We need guidelines for term papers.
5. It was a great course. Details of sub-themes were required. We should
be required to write to 2 papers - one written beforehand, the other note
to be prepared here on the basis of discussions here.
6. Some of the resource persons would have to be more prepared.
7. Within given limits, it was an extensive course with flexibility,
oscillation between several sub-themes and angles. In this light, possibly
more integration of lectures was needed. Can we not have more pre course
interaction/moderation and discussion by electronic means as follow up?
8. A helpful course, and thought provoking structure - but we needed
guidelines for term papers. The submission of papers should be at later
stage. Refresher lectures are needed at the outset.
9. Module-based discussion was good. But we need more interaction and
more creative presentation. But overall, it was a course with style
10. The structure of the course is what we needed. The course helps you
question many assumptions, reasons, makes us sceptic about given ideas
and logic, and forces us to think of application of new ideas.
11. Theoretical training was good, it was needed. What was more valuable
was the interaction with so many participants with diverse backgrounds.
Gender issues were missing from some discussions. There should be guide
lines for term papers and these should be submitted later. More events
like these should be organized. Students' exchanges will be a big step
forward towards people to people dialogues.
12. There were too many theoretical lectures; case studies needed. There
has to be programme of networking as follow-up step. While SAFHR initiative
is needed towards this, participants' initiatives are also required. Kashmir
discussion dominated the discussions. This is undesirable. There are other
issues also.
13. Can we balance the issues of human rights and those of peace studies
in the course? Too much diversification of theme may not be good. There
have to be more case studies on conflicts, and the international relations
dimension should be paid attention to. Accommodation was very good. But
provision of per diem for such a 15 day course is necessary, if necessary,
the quality of accommodation can be downscaled.
14. Improvement needed on the structure of the workshops. It was a great
opportunity for learning.
15. The course was a great opportunity to learn. Bhutan issue need to
be taken up. And more participation of Bhutanese needed.
16. Wonderful programme, but the theoretical classes need to be backed
up by case studies. The roundtable discussion structure was, but we needed
guidelines for term papers. Can there be training of trainers for such
a course?
17. It was a well organized course. Literary session and film session
should have been more. We can have E-groups.
18. You gave me an opportunity to learn, congratulation to SAFHR. Course
material and course topics need to match adequately. We were looking forward
to the planned field trip
19. I learnt a lot. I need time to find out and decide how this can be
applied. Classroom atmosphere was good, but post lunch sessions were tiring.
Focus should be on environmental issues and their link with human rights.
The course should begin with a refresher section for 2-3 days. It should
be a system of rolling venues for the course, and SAFHR team should visit
countries for that.
20. Field work should be given more importance
21. The course provoked new ideas on human rights - it was like an open
university. I was waiting for more interaction between the resource persons
and participations, also needed guidelines for term papers.
22. New issues for my thought, a useful course.
23. The course should diversify methods; presentation should be in bullet
form; there is also a need to use the course in country perspective or
situation. The course expanded horizons; I shall be compelled to read
the vast amount of material given to us.
24. The course to me was above all an expression of concern for human
rights and peace. I got what I expected. My coming here was fruitful;
also helpful was meeting participants from diverse backgrounds. SAFHR
has linked me with peace education in the countries of South Asia.
25. Theory is important. There should not be complaint on that count.
It enables one to look holistically. Such course does not need credit
system. The structure of the course was good. After dinner sessions did
not prove fruitful. They do not work. The load is too much. Presence of
ex -participants is needed. Film session needs to be improved. Arrangement
for single accommodation should be made.
26. For a European, the course was a great chance. Most of the resource
persons were very good. We needed more discussion on the documents circulated
given the quality of the papers. Please have filed-visit as part of the
course. I would say, 90% of the course - very good.
27. Faculty was excellent, now we need follow up of measures. We have
to cooperate with SAFHR for furthering peace education. We have to volunteer.
28. Friendly class, we need more human rights education.
29. Theory is needed, and the attempt to foster critical approach was
required. I liked it. We got wonderful faculty, the personal quality of
the academics meant a lot. It takes time to say how this will help the
participants in future. Participants owe to SAFHR on that, and initiatives
from both sides are called for that. Food arrangement was heavy, lunch
should be light.
30. I volunteer to set up an e-group. We should change the class room
format; it should be more participation-friendly. Communicating ideas
is the best route for human rights activism. We need more group work,
and more workshops - the course needs more participatory sessions.
[Participants and members of the faculty offered their detailed comments
in writing also. What came out through all these was an intense desire
among human rights and peace community in South Asia for a course such
as this, which is rich with ideas, extra-ordinary meeting of minds with
a variety of perspectives, and brings together for the participants a
wide array of material for perusal, and is backed with case studies, country
perspectives, more group work, more participatory exercises, field visit,
guidelines in preparing term papers, and small level courses in many places
so that more participants can become involved in the work of human rights
and peace education in this region.]
|
