In the last day of Week 1 of Academy 2016, participants were asked to evaluate their experience. Out of the 40 participants to Week 1, 30 attended the last session and completed the evaluation questionnaire. Here are the results:
All of them stated that Academy 2016 met their expectations. Twenty-two rated the speakers as very good and 8 as good. No one stated medium, bad, or very bad.
The Week 1 activities offered deeper understanding of concepts, however, were slightly less favorably evaluated. Ten marked the quality of the activities as very good, 15 as good, and 3 as medium. Two did not respond. No one marked bad or very bad.
Twenty-eight said that they would like to be part of the Sustainable Energy Academy in the future. Two did not respond.
When asked to list the shortcomings of Week 1, many of the respondents stated that there none. Some, however, asked that the speakers be kept to their time limits. This also resulted in the financial analysis skills part, scheduled at the end of Week 1, to be squeezed in time. One participant expressed the wish to have had more time allocated to this. Finally, one participant stated that the skills and background of the participants could have been better matched for the market research field activity. Some of the groups had little background whereas others had very strong background in the topics they were investigating. This put some groups at a significant disadvantage.
