MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG && EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN …sals.gov.za/docs/pubs/report.pdf · Legislatures...

MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG

&&

EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN RREEPPOORRTT

FFaacciilliittaattoorr aanndd

PPaarrttiicciippaanntt FFeeeeddbbaacckk::

CCaappaacciittyy BBuuiillddiinngg

PPrrooggrraammmmee ffoorr

MMeemmbbeerrss ooff PPaarrlliiaammeenntt

aanndd PPrroovviinncciiaall

LLeeggiissllaattuurreess

CCoommppiilleedd bbyy

MMoonniittoorriinngg && EEvvaalluuaattiioonn CChhiieeff DDiirreeccttoorraattee

MMaayy 22001111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. III

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................ V

CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION .................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 AIM OF THE EVALUATION ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 LIMITATION OF THE EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 5 1.4 LAYOUT OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................... 6

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 6

2.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 INSTRUMENT DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 SAMPLING STRATEGY .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 DATA CAPTURING AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................................... 9

FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 9

3.1 PARTICIPANTS’ SURVEY: REACTION EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE (REQ) ...................................... 9 3.1.1 COURSE CONTENT ...................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 9 3.1.1.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ...............................................................................................................11 3.1.2 THE FACILITATOR.......................................................................................................................12 3.1.2.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .............................................................................................................12 3.1.2.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ...............................................................................................................15 3.1.3 LOGISTICS, VENUE AND FOOD ......................................................................................................16 3.1.3.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .............................................................................................................16 3.1.3.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ...............................................................................................................18 3.1.4 OVERALL RESULTS ....................................................................................................................20 3.1.4.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .............................................................................................................20 3.1.4.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ...............................................................................................................22 3.2 FACILITATOR SURVEY: FACILITATORS FEEDBACK FORM (FFF) .....................................................24 3.2.1 COURSE CONTENT .....................................................................................................................24 3.2.1.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .............................................................................................................24 3.2.1.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ...............................................................................................................27 3.2.2 FACILITATOR ASSESSMENT OF PARTICIPANTS ..............................................................................28 3.2.2.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .............................................................................................................28 3.2.2.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ...............................................................................................................33 3.2.3 FACILITATION .............................................................................................................................34 3.2.4 LOGISTICS .................................................................................................................................35 3.2.4.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .............................................................................................................35 3.2.4.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ...............................................................................................................39 3.2.5 FACILITATORS’ SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CAPACITY BUILDING

PROGRAMME FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES ...............................39

CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................................. 41

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 41

4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................41 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................41 4.3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................42

Capacity Building Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures: May 2011

I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Capacity Building Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures is the

initiative of the South African Legislative Sector under the leadership of the Speakers’ Forum.

The Speakers’ Forum resolved to work with the Public Administration Leadership and

Management Academy to develop and facilitate the development of a standardised capacity

programme relevant to the core responsibilities of members.

The programme comprises the following five modules:

Information Communication Technology Tools

Action research for the legislative process

Media Communication

Democratic governance and the legislative process

Values based leadership and decision making

The instruments used for this evaluation were the Facilitator Feedback Form which was

completed by each facilitator after every training intervention and the Reaction Evaluation

Questionnaire which was completed by every participant on completion of every training

intervention.

This evaluation report covers twenty five training interventions and four hundred and thirty five

Reaction Evaluation Questionnaires which were received at PALAMA.

The quantitative evaluation findings are presented per evaluation instrument and per variable

evaluated in the table below:

Evaluation Instrument Variable Evaluation Finding

Reaction Evaluation Questionnaire

Course content High participant satisfaction levels.

Facilitator High participant satisfaction levels.

Logistics High participant satisfaction levels.


II

Evaluation Instrument Variable Evaluation Finding

Overall Result High participant satisfaction levels.

Facilitator Feedback Form

Course content High positive facilitator ratings, although certain issues pertaining to the content were raised.

Participants Participants were mostly at the appropriate level for the specific module. The number and mix of participants were mostly appropriate.

Facilitation The facilitators mentioned specific issues which they would like to improve on as well as elements which they would do differently during their next presentation.

Logistics High positive facilitator ratings.

In the quantitative feedback the participants and facilitators made specific recommendations

regarding programme improvements.

The evaluation report is concluded with recommendations based on the summative evaluation

findings.


III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Participants

The participants, who completed the Reaction Evaluation Questionnaires after each of the

modules of the Capacity Building Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial

Legislatures and provided PALAMA with valuable information to improve the quality of their

programme.

Facilitators

The facilitators, for their comments and recommendations as well as presenting a

professional image of the Academy to clients and stakeholders.


IV

ACRONYMS

FFFs Facilitator Feedback Forms

FPE Report Facilitator and Participant Evaluation Report

ICT Information Communication Technology

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MPs Members of Parliament

PALAMA Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy

REQs Reaction Evaluation Questionnaires

SALS South African Legislative Sector

TMS Training Management System


V

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 2.1 Number of participants who returned their REQs per module 7

Table 3.1 Participant perceptions regarding the course content 10

Table 3.2 Participant comments regarding the course content 11

Table 3.3 Participant perceptions regarding the facilitation 13

Table 3.4 Participant perceptions regarding the facilitators’ Public Service

knowledge

14

Table 3.5 Participant perceptions regarding the facilitation of the course 15

Table 3.6 Participant perceptions regarding the logistics, venue and food 17

Table 3.7 Participant comments regarding the logistics, venue and food 18

Table 3.8 Overall perceptions of Participants 20

Table 3.9 Participant comments regarding the overall rating of the course 22

Table 3.10 Facilitator perceptions regarding the length of the course 25

Table 3.11 Facilitator perceptions regarding pacing of the course materials 25

Table 3.12 Facilitator perceptions regarding the relevance of the materials to the

Public Sector

26

Table 3.13 Facilitator comments regarding the course content 27

Table 3.14 Facilitator perceptions regarding the appropriate level of the participants 29

Table 3.15 Facilitator perceptions regarding the number of participants who

attended

30

Table 3.16 Facilitator perceptions regarding the mix of participants 31

Table 3.17 Facilitator perceptions regarding the attendance of the participants 32

Table 3.18 Facilitator comments regarding the attendance of the participants 33

Table 3.19 Facilitator comments regarding the facilitation 34

Table 3.20 Facilitator perceptions regarding the organisation of the course 35

Table 3.21 Facilitator perceptions regarding the suitability of the training venue 37

Table 3.22 Facilitator perceptions regarding the facilities, food and accommodation 38

Table 3.23 Facilitator comments regarding the Logistics 39

Table 3.24 Facilitator suggestions regarding the improvement of the Capacity

Building Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial

Legislatures

39


1

CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION

1.1 Background and Introduction

The Capacity Building Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures is the

initiative of the South African Legislative Sector under the leadership of the Speakers’ Forum.

The Speakers’ Forum of South Africa is a voluntary association which composed of the Speaker

and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the

NCOP and Speakers and Deputy Speakers of all nine Provincial Legislatures. The Speaker of

the National Assembly is the chairperson of the Speakers’ Forum and acts as the contracting

authority on behalf of the South African Legislative Sector (SALS).

One of the Speakers’ Forum’s key objectives is to ensure that Members of Parliament and

Provincial Legislatures are fully capacitated and enabled to exercise their role and

responsibilities. A programme is being developed to ensure that all members are exposed to a

standardised and accredited capacity building programme.

The Members’ Capacity Building programme is a unique professional training and development

programme sponsored by the Speakers’ Forum. It is a programme that will build on the lessons

and gains made on the previous sector programmes.

New and innovative ideas were received from Members during the training needs analysis

exercise conducted in Parliament and Provincial Legislatures in September 2009 by the Public

Administration Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA) Research Chief Director, Dr

Andre Kraak.

The Speakers’ Forum resolved to work with the Public Administration Leadership and

Management Academy to develop and facilitate the development of a standardised capacity

programme which would be relevant to the core responsibilities of members.

The learning outcomes and programme structure of the Capacity Building Programme for

Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures are described as follows in the programme

learner guide:


2

“Learning Outcomes

The overall purpose of the Introductory Programme is to enhance the professional legislative and oversight capabilities of members of legislatures and parliament and provide access to the Postgraduate Certificate Programme. On completion of the programme, participants will be able to:

Lead more effectively in holding government to account.

Analyse policy, legislation, strategy and implementation.

Make judgments and interventions.

Apply technology in effective communication and decision making.

Programme Structure

The Introductory Programme will utilise an action learning case based approach in order to ensure the learning process supports the work of members. The following key learning principles apply:

The learning, application and reflection cycle will be utilised to ensure that participants have sufficient time to practice new skills and test new ideas and concepts.

Professional skills will be reinforced through the use of assignments structured to support learning in the programme. For example, for media communication, participants will be required to engage with the media in a simulated setting.

A variety of learning methods will be utilised on the programme including storytelling, workshops, lecturing, simulations and case based discussion.

The modules will take place in block with time in between for application.

Participants will be assessed through an applied assignment in order to demonstrate their competence.

The Introductory Programme comprises 5 modules which are described below. Each module is described with the key learning outcomes and content. Information Communication Technology Tools

This module will provide a basic introduction to the Microsoft Office, the power of computing technology and virtual office management.

Learning outcomes:

Participants will be able to:

Understand how computer technology and software packages assist in their work.

Use outlook and the internet to assist their work.

Identify software packages where they require further development.

Content: Basic computer skills (introduction to packages and what they can do).

Using cell phones to support their work and manage their time.

Introduction to the computer and its various applications and programmes.


3

Action research for the legislative process

This module provides the essential research tools which will enable greater engagement in policy making and oversight.

Learning outcomes:


Identify and articulate problems and issues.

Collect and analyse information for the legislative process.

Use analysis to develop convincing arguments.

Content: Using enquiry in day to day work.

Data gathering methods (rapid appraisal, appreciative inquiry, technology, libraries, interviews, public participation), reading, assessing (credibility and validity) and collating information.

Analytical skills and constructing arguments.

Understanding and using research ethically and effectively.

Media Communication

This module will enable members to use written and verbal communication to get their message across and prepare them to engage with the media more effectively.

Learning outcomes:


Effectively communicate and defend their position to their committees, the legislatures, constituents and the media.

Content: Understanding and handling the media.

Communication as an art including speech writing and public speaking: Understanding the audience

Getting the message right

Text/discourse analysis

Dealing with questions

Relationships management

Communications strategy Democratic governance and the legislative process

This module would build off previous induction programmes and provide a foundation and context for professional work of members.

Learning outcomes:


Understand the context in which the legislative process takes place.


4

Understand the legislative process (from the perspective of the legal and legislative regulatory framework).

Content: Understanding the challenges and imperatives of the democratic developmental state and developmental governance (governance context, political economy).

The Constitution and separation of powers.

Role of legislatures in contributing to good governance.

Process of law making and public policy making.

Introduction to the budgeting process and parliament's oversight function.

Legislative review process.

Values based leadership and decision making

This module provides the space for members to reflect on their leadership approach and commitments and their implications for decision making.

Learning outcomes:


Manage time and work more effectively.

Understand themselves, their leadership style and their impact on others.

Content: Emotional intelligence and self-knowledge.

Work life balance - managing multiple roles as members, managing constituency offices and family responsibility.

Scope of leadership.

Building a personal brand (trust, attitudes).

Dealing with power, criticism and complexes (ethics, leadership authority, credibility and integrity).

Leadership development planning.”

1.2 Aim of the evaluation

The aim of the evaluation of the Introductory Capacity Building Programme for Members of

Parliament and Provincial Legislatures is to provide feedback to the stakeholders regarding the

quality of the training provided. The training programme was evaluated on the following basis:

The quality of the programme content.

The feedback received from the facilitators.

The feedback received from the participants.

The appropriateness of the logistical arrangements for the training sessions held.


5

1.3 Limitation of the evaluation

The evaluation report is based on the surveys completed by the participants, i.e. the Reaction

Evaluation Questionnaires (REQs) and the Facilitator Feedback Forms (FFF) which were

completed after every training session. The data was analysed, using both quantitative

(descriptive statistics) and qualitative (thematic analyses) analytical techniques.

No interviews were conducted with any of the participants and facilitators.

1.4 Layout of the report

The evaluation report is divided into chapters which gives the reader a logical format of the

results, recommendations and conclusion that emerged from the survey. Each chapter is listed

with a brief synopsis of its focus below:

Chapter 1 focuses on the introduction and background, the aim and limitation of the

evaluation.

Chapter 2 examines the design and methodology of the evaluation, i.e. the design

process of the instruments used to collect the evaluation data, the sampling strategy, the

data capturing and the measures that were implemented to ensure the integrity of the

data being captured.

Chapter 3 focuses on the results of the evaluation. It is structured to allow for separate

reporting of qualitative and quantitative data analysed of participants and facilitators.

Chapter 4 outlines the conclusion and describes the recommendations on the variables

evaluated.


6

CHAPTER 2

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Methodology

As no interviews were conducted, the evaluation methodology is based on the surveys that

were completed by the participants, i.e. the Reaction Evaluation Questionnaires (REQs) and the

Facilitator Feedback Forms (FFF). These surveys were completed after every training session.

2.2 Instrument design

The Chief Directorate: Monitoring and Evaluation at PALAMA developed the instruments that

were utilised for the data collection of the training interventions which took place as part of the

Introductory Capacity Building Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial

Legislatures.

The PALAMA Reaction Evaluation Questionnaire (REQ) formed the basis of the participant

analysis that was conducted. The variables evaluated and reported on from the REQs are listed

below:

the course content;

the facilitator;

the logistics; and

the overall result.

The PALAMA Facilitator Feedback Form (FFF) formed the basis of the facilitator analysis

that was conducted. The variables evaluated and reported on from the FFF are listed below:

the course content;

the participants;

the facilitation; and

the logistics.


7

2.3 Sampling strategy

To give effect to the stated aim of the evaluation, the following sampling strategy was

implemented:

All 435 participants who attended five modules of the Introductory Capacity Building

Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures and completed the

Reaction Evaluation Questionnaires (REQs) were included in the evaluation. A

breakdown per module in Table 2.1 indicates the number of participants who returned

their REQs as follows:

Table 2.1 Number of participants who returned their REQs per module

Module Presented Number of

training interventions

Number of REQs received

Information Communication Technology (ICT) Tools

3 51

Democratic governance and legislative process

4 77

Media Communication 6 89

Value based leadership for decision making 5 88

Action Research for the legislature process 7 130

Total 25 435

Eleven of the 12 facilitators involved in the training interventions completed a Facilitator

Feedback Form (FFF) and were included in the evaluation. Certain facilitators facilitated

more than one training intervention. Facilitator Feedback Forms were received for 23 of

the 25 training interventions which were presented.

2.4 Data capturing and analysis

A four point Likert Scale (Excellent, Good, Average and Poor) was used in the REQs and the

Facilitator Feedback Forms to capture the ratings of the participants and facilitators regarding

the variables that were evaluated.


8

In order to ensure that the highest levels of scientific rigour were associated with the

administration of these instruments, facilitators were briefed during the Training of Trainers

(ToT) sessions in respect of the correct administering processes and procedures of the

monitoring and evaluation instruments.

In order to ensure the integrity of the data and analysis, the process of data capturing was

subject to a process of rigorous quality control for quality assurance purposes. A brief outline of

the procedures followed is listed below:

The raw data (from the REQs and FFFs) was captured on the PALAMA Training

Management System.

The data on the TMS was captured in binary format to ensure simplicity and accuracy of the

capturing process – the system allowed only one data input per field, and this input had to

be in the binary format.

The captured data was summarised per training intervention by the TMS and was exported

to a Facilitator and Participant Evaluation (FPE) Report after which this summarised data

per training intervention was entered into a spread sheet and quality control was effected

on 30% of all data captured, that is:

The accuracy with which the data had been captured was compared to the original

responses on the hard copy of the FPE report.

Data cleaning was conducted to ensure that all the descriptive statistics add up to 100%.

The integrity of all “formula driven back-end processing” on the captured data was

checked manually.

Feedback on data integrity was provided to the data capturers during scheduled weekly

meetings. During these meetings minutes were taken to record inputs and feedback on

issues that affected the data integrity.

The summarised quantitative data per training intervention collected from the TMS was

captured on a spread sheet and basic descriptive statistical analytical techniques, namely the

calculation of frequencies and percentages were conducted. The results of the quantitative data

analysis were summarised in tabular format to highlight the key trends.

The qualitative data collected was captured electronically on a spread sheet and a thematic

analysis of the content was conducted. The results of the qualitative data analysis, both positive

and negative comments were summarised and represented in tables.


9

CHAPTER 3

FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION

3.1 Participants’ Survey: Reaction Evaluation Questionnaire (REQ)

A total of 435 participants who attended the training course completed the PALAMA Reaction

Evaluation Questionnaire (REQ) which formed the basis of the participant analysis. This

questionnaire captured the perceptions of the participants regarding the training intervention

that they attended. The variables evaluated and reported on from the REQs are listed below:

the course content;

the facilitator;

the logistics; and

the overall results.

3.1.1 Course Content

3.1.1.1 Quantitative results

Participants completing the REQs were asked to rate three key aspects of the course content,

that is,

how practical the course content was in relation to their workplace;

the extent to which the materials were ”well organised”; and

the extent to which the training materials addressed their learning needs.

The rationale behind these questions was to get an understanding of the course content in

terms of its appropriateness (pitch), organisation of learning materials and its relevance. The

results of the 435 participant responses with regard to the course content are represented in

Table 3.1.

The quantitative and qualitative findings are presented in tabular format and each table contains

the results of all five modules.


10

Table 3.1 Participant perceptions regarding the course content

Module Questions regarding the

course content

Participants Ratings (percentage)

Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and

“good” categories

combined)

Average Poor Did not

Respond

Information Communication Technology (ICT) Tools (N=51)

How practical was the course content for your workplace?

92,7 5,1 1,1 1,1

How well was the material organised for the audience/ target group?

96,6 2,3 0 1,1

How did you find the learning materials?

96,6 2,3 0 1,1

Democratic governance and legislative process (N=77)


93,4 0,8 0 5,8


88,9 5,3 0 5,8


91,7 2,5 0 5,8

Media Communication (N=89)


96,9 3,1 0 0


94,1 5,9 0 0


93,6 4,4 0,9 1,1

Value based leadership for decision making (N=88)


94,5 3,8 0 1,7


83,4 13,9 1 1,7


85,2 11,3 0,9 2,6

Action Research for the legislature process (N=130)


98,5 0,5 1 0


85,2 9,3 5,5 0


84,3 8,6 4,1 3

(N=435)

The information in Table 3.1 displays the responses of the participants to the REQ that was

administered after the different training interventions. From Table 3.1 it is evident that between

92,7% and 98,5% of the respondents rated the practical nature of the course content to their

working environment as positive across the five modules (i.e. ratings of “excellent” and “good”

categories combined). Between 0,5% and 5,1% of the respondents rated the course content as

“average” and a negligible proportion of the participants (between 0% and 1,1%) rated it as


11

“poor”. These responses indicate that there was a high satisfaction level regarding the practical

nature of the training course in relation to the workplace of the participants.

With regard to the organisation of the learning materials (structure), between 83,4% and

96,6% of the respondents rated the organisation of the learning materials as positive (i.e.

“excellent” and “good” categories combined), while between 2,3% and 13,9% of the

respondents rated the organisation of the learning materials as “average”. A small proportion of

the respondents (between 0% and 5,5%) rated it as “poor”. These responses indicate high

satisfaction levels with regard to the organisation of the learning materials.

The last aspect in Table 3.1 is a representation of responses regarding participants’ perceptions

of the learning materials. Between 84,3% and 96,6% of the respondents had a positive

perception of the learning materials (i.e. “excellent” and “good” categories combined). The range

of “average” responses was between 2,3% and 11,3% while the “poor” responses ranged

between 0% and 4,1%.

These responses indicate high satisfaction levels with the learning materials.

3.1.1.2 Qualitative results

There were four hundred and thirty five (N=435) responses to the participant REQ survey. The

responses from the participants are summarised in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Participant comments regarding the course content

Module Structured survey

question Participant Responses


What other comments do you have about the content?

The following comments support the positive quantitative

trends already reported, e.g.:

"I can use material every day for reference."

"Now I know how to operate a computer and I also know

how to access the internet."

The respondents recommended the following:

More practical engagement with the theory will assist a

better understanding of the learning content.


What other comments do you have about the




12



content? "They have capacitated us as members of Parliament.”


The notes of the facilitator should be provided to

participants.

Media Communication




"The course is practical in nature and we had a lot of

sharing opportunities."

"The content was relevant to the work place."


Text books should be prescribed as resource materials

for this course.

The course should make use of voice recordings to

enable improvement of participants’ public speaking.

Value based leadership for decision making




“Very relevant to what I am doing."


More research is needed on the topic to improve the

learning material.

Action Research for the legislature process




"Excellently presented and relevant to my workplace."

"Everything in the course content was relevant and

informative."


Pre-course material should be provided to participants.

3.1.2 The Facilitator


Participants who completed the REQs were asked to rate the facilitators of their training course

against three criteria, that is,


13

how well the training was presented;

the level of expertise of the facilitator; and

the extent to which the facilitator demonstrated up to date knowledge of the public service.

Table 3.3 illustrates the responses to the questions relating to how well the course was

facilitated, as well as the extent of the facilitators’ expertise.

Table 3.3 Participant perceptions regarding the facilitation

Module Questions regarding

facilitation


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond


How well was the course facilitated/presented?

95,5 3,4 0 1,1

How do you regard the facilitator’s/presenter’s expertise?

98,9 0 0 1,1



95 0 0 5


92,6 0,8 0 6,6



98,4 1,6 0 0


98,4 1,6 0 0



92 5 0 3


92 5 0 3



95,7 3,3 1 0


95,5 1,9 1 1,6

(N=435)

From Table 3.3 it is evident that the majority of the respondents (between 92% and 98,4%)

rated the presentation skills of their facilitators as positive (i.e. ratings of “excellent” plus

“good” categories). Between 0% and 5% of the respondents rated the presentation skills of

their facilitators as “average” and a negligible proportion of the respondents (between 0% and


14

1%) rated it as “poor”. This response rate is indicative of very high satisfaction levels with the

presentation skills of facilitators used during the training of the Capacity Building Programme

for Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures.

A very large proportion of the respondents (between 92% and 98,9%) rated their facilitator’s

expertise as positive (i.e. ratings of “excellent” plus “good” categories). Between zero and five

percent (0% - 5%) of the respondents rated the level of expertise demonstrated by their

facilitator as “average” and a negligible number of the respondents (0% - 1%) rated it as “poor”.

These positive responses are indicative of very high satisfaction levels with the expertise levels

of facilitators used during the training of the Capacity Building Programme for Members of

Parliament and Provincial Legislatures.

In Table 3.4 below the respondents’ perceptions of whether the facilitators demonstrated up to

date knowledge of the public service are presented.

Table 3.4 Participant perceptions regarding the facilitators’ Public Service knowledge

Module Question


Yes No Did not

Respond


Did the facilitator/presenter demonstrate updated knowledge of Public Service?

93,1 0 6,9



88,4 0 11,6

Media Communication (N=89) Did the facilitator/presenter demonstrate updated knowledge of Public Service?

83,9 0 16,1



91 1,3 7,7



89,1 1,8 9,1

(N=435)

A large percentage of the respondents (between 83,9% and 93,1%) indicated that the

facilitators who facilitated the Capacity Building Programme for Members of Parliament and

Provincial Legislatures demonstrated up to date knowledge of the Public Service. A


15

negligible proportion of the respondents (0% - 1,8%) did not agree with this statement. The

percentage of respondents who did not respond to this statement ranged between 6,9% and

16,1%.


There were four hundred and thirty five (N=435) responses to the participant survey. The key

responses from the participants are recorded in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Participant perceptions regarding the facilitation of the course




What other comments do you have about the facilitator?



"He also demonstrated alternative ways of doing things

which are not in the study material. He is very energetic

and has a vast knowledge of the subject."

“Her interpersonal skills are very good and she does not

compromise on quality."

"She is knowledgeable and able to transfer skill without

being imposing."

The respondents did not make any recommendations

regarding the facilitator.





"He assisted learners to discover the knowledge instead of

telling them how to do it."

"The facilitator understands public service very well. This

includes how policies are made as well as implementation."

"He has made the course interesting and easy to follow."


More time should be allowed for debate during class.

Media Communication




"She had a way of ensuring that we are always attentive

and that we participate actively.”

"The facilitator explained in detail and provided examples."


16




regarding the improvement of programme facilitation.





"The facilitator demonstrated vast knowledge of the subject

matter.”

“The facilitator is an expert."

“Very good interpersonal skills and professional."


regarding the improvement of programme facilitation.





"A vibrant and knowledgeable facilitator."

"The facilitator was on the level of the student. Every

person was given a chance to be involved in discussions."

"The facilitator has good knowledge of the subject and

allows interaction throughout."


regarding the facilitators.

3.1.3 Logistics, venue and food


Participants who completed the REQs were asked to rate the logistical arrangements

associated with their training programmes against three criteria, that is,

how well the training was organised;

whether the venue was conducive to learning; and

whether the facilities, food and accommodation were up to standard.

The survey results of the 435 respondents to the questions relating to how well the training was

organised, the conduciveness of the venue to learning and the standard of the facilities, food

and accommodation are represented in Table 3.6.


17

Table 3.6 Participant perceptions regarding the logistics, venue and food

Module Questions regarding the

logistics, venue and food


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond


How well was the event organised?

89,8 7,4 0 2,8

Was the venue conducive for learning?

93,8 6,2 0 0

Were the facilities, food and accommodation up to standard?

75,8 17,5 0 6,7



88,4 2,1 0 9,5


85 3,8 0 11,2


81 7,8 0 11,2



87,2 7,7 0 5,1


83,4 8,7 2,8 5,1


73,7 16,4 3,3 6,6



85,5 11,5 0 3


89,5 8,8 0 1,7


79,7 12,9 5,7 1,7



88,9 6,8 2 2,3


91,5 7,1 0 1,4


77,5 17,9 2,3 2,3

(N=435)

From Table 3.6 it is evident that the majority of the respondents (between 85,5% and 89,8%)

rated the organisation of the training event as positive (i.e. rating of “excellent” and “good”

categories combined). A small proportion of the respondents (between 2,1% and 11,5%) rated

the organisation of the training event as “average” and a negligible proportion of them (between

0% and 2%) rated it as “poor”. These ratings are indicative that the respondents were satisfied

with the organisation of the training events.


18

The second aspect which is dealt with in this table is the perceptions of the respondents

regarding the conduciveness of the training venue to learning. Between 83,4% and 93,8% of

the respondents felt that the training venues were conducive to learning (i.e. rating of “excellent”

and “good” categories combined). The percentage of respondents that rated the conduciveness

of the training venues as “average” ranged between 3,8% and 8,8% while a small percentage

rated them as “poor” (0 – 2,8%). These findings are indicative that the majority of the

participants were satisfied with the suitability of the training venues in terms of their

conduciveness to learning.

The last question in Table 3.6 indicates that between 73,7% and 81% of the respondents rated

the facilities, food and accommodation positively (i.e. rating of “excellent” and “good”

categories combined). A fair proportion of the respondents (between 7,8% and 17,9%) rated

the facilities, food and accommodation as ”average” and a small percentage (between 0% and

5,7%) rated these as “poor”.


The key comments that emerged from this qualitative question with regard to the logistical

arrangements associated with programmes are summarised in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Participant comments regarding the logistics, venue and food




What other comments do you have about the logistics of the course?



“The venue was ideal for training.”

“Everything was well organized.”


Pre-course reading material should be provided.

The notification period for course attendance should be

extended.





"The logistics were perfect."

“Everything was in order.”


19




regarding the improvement of Logistical arrangements.

Media Communication




"Well organized.”

“The logistical arrangements were good.”


The venues should accommodate physically

challenged participants.

The dietary requirements of participants should be

taken into consideration.





"The logistics has improved up to so far. There is a need

to keep it like that."

“The event was organized well."


The programme material should be provided before the

training commences.

The variety of food should be improved.





"Logistics formed a valuable support framework for the

course."

“Excellent”.

"The venue owner was friendly and supportive. I really

appreciated it."


Course material should be provided earlier to allow for

preparatory reading.

Note pads should be provided to participants.


20

3.1.4 Overall Results


Participants who completed the REQs were asked to do an overall evaluation of three key

aspects of the programme, that is,

their overall perception of the training programme that they had undergone;

the relevance of the skills they were taught to their work environment; and

the networking opportunities provided as a result of attending the training programme.

The REQ survey results of the 435 responses to these key aspects are represented in

Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 Overall perceptions of Participants

Module Questions regarding overall

perceptions of the Module


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond


Overall, how would you rate the course/event?

89,8 4,6 1,1 4,4

How do you rate the relevance of the course/event to your work?

93,2 1,1 1,1 4,5

How would you rate the course/event in networking opportunities provided?

94,4 1,1 0 4,5



95 0 0 5


92,1 2,1 0 5,8


91,8 2,4 0 5,8



97,3 2,7 0 0


97,3 2,7 0 0


92,3 5,2 0,8 1,7

Value based leadership for


93,5 3,7 0 2,8

Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor


21

Module Questions regarding overall

perceptions of the Module


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond

decision making (N=88)


95,8 2,5 0 1,7


91 6,3 1 1,7



85,8 0,5 1,0 12,7


85,3 1 1 12,7


78 6 1,4 14,6

(N=435)

The responses to the first question in Table 3.8 show that a large percentage of the

respondents (85,8% - 97,3%) rated the training course positively (i.e. “excellent” and “good”

categories combined). A small proportion of the respondents (0% - 4,6%) rated the training

course as “average” and between 0% and 1,1% of the participants rated the course as “poor”.

These responses indicated very high satisfaction levels with the training course that was

offered.

It is evident from the second question in Table 3.8 that between 85,3% and 97,3% of the

respondents rated the relevance of the training course to their work as positive (i.e. ratings

of “excellent” and “good” categories combined). A small percentage of respondents (between

1% and 2,7%) rated the relevance of the training programme as “average”. Between 0% and

1,1% of the participants rated it as “poor”. These responses indicate high satisfaction levels

with the relevance of the training course to the work environment of the respondents.

The percentage of respondents that rated the networking opportunities provided as a result of

attending the training programme as positive (i.e. ratings of “excellent” and “good” categories

combined) ranged between 78% and 94,4%. It should be noted that between 1,1% and 6,3% of

the respondents rated the networking opportunities provided as a result of attending the training

programme as ”average” and a small percentage of the respondents (between 0% and 1,4%)

Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor


22

rated it as “poor”. Therefore it is evident from Table 3.8 that most of the respondents perceived

the training intervention as a networking opportunity.


The key recommendations that emerged on participants’’ overall rating of the programme are

summarised in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 Participant comments regarding the overall rating of the course




What other comments do you have about the course?



“This was a good opportunity to sharpen my skills."

“The course material was well prepared and relevant.”

"It was quite an empowering course especially with regard

to internet and e-mail."


The course needs to be extended.

Groups need to be composed of individuals with the

same level of competency.





"The course is relevant to us as MPs and it supports us to

conduct our oversight role."

"The course has been an eye opener to me regarding

matters of budgeting. This is good for my work as a public

representative."


Conflict management and the grievance procedure

should be included in the course.

The course should contain more practical work.

Media Communication




"High quality content. Well researched."

"I feel more confident to face the media now."

"The course is very good because it takes your fear of the


23



media away."


The course should include how to prepare a media

statement.

The media presentation should be recorded so that it

can be available to participants after the course.





“Very good course to remind us about our responsibility as

public representatives."

“The course enhanced the knowledge that we had for the

purpose of doing community work."


The facilitator need to do more research on the topic

and provide more practical examples.





“The action research course is extremely useful in the

legislative environment."

"It was informative and facilitated with passion. It is 100%

relevant. It is excellent."


Learning material should be provided in advance to

enable learners to prepare.

Participants need more opportunity to interact on

issues raised.

Handouts should be made available in class rather

than having it e-mailed after the course.

Communication regarding course dates should be

made available at least a month in advance.


24

3.2 Facilitator Survey: Facilitators Feedback Form (FFF)

A total of 23 Facilitator Feedback questionnaires (out of the 25 training interventions presented)

were received which represented the facilitators’ perceptions of the course that they facilitated.

The PALAMA Facilitator Feedback questionnaire formed the basis of the facilitator analysis

conducted. The variables evaluated and reported on from the Facilitator Feedback Form (FFF)

are listed as follows:

Course content

Participants

Facilitation

Logistics

Recommendations

3.2.1 Course Content


Facilitators who completed the Facilitator Feedback Form (FFF) were asked to rate three key

aspects of the programme content, that is,

Is the course/event the right length?

Is the course material paced appropriately for the audience/target group?

Does the course material relate sufficiently to real public sector or situation experienced by

the audience/target group?

The rationale behind these questions was to get an understanding of the facilitators’ perceptions

of the course content regarding the length of the course, the pacing of the course materials and

relevance of the learner materials to the public sector from which participants came. The results

of the responses from the facilitators to the above mentioned questions are represented in

Tables 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 that follow.

Please note that the number of training interventions per module has been indicated in brackets

in the tables.


25

Table 3.10 Facilitator perceptions regarding the length of the course

Module

Question regarding

the length of the

course


Too much Appropriate Could be

more

Did not

respond

Information Communication Technology (ICT) Tools (presented 3 times)


0 100 0 0

Democratic governance and legislative process (presented 4 times)

Is the course/event the right length? 0 50 50 0

Media Communication (presented 6 times)


0 83,3 16,7 0

Value based leadership for decision making (presented 5 times)

Is the course/event the right length? 0 100 0 0

Action Research for the legislature process (presented 7 times)

Is the course/event the right length? 0 57,1 14,3 28,6

Facilitator feedback forms were received for 23 of the 25 training interventions.

Table 3.10 indicates that the majority of the facilitators (between 57,1% and 100%) thought the

length of the course was “appropriate” in relation to the content that had to be covered with

reference to four of the five modules. Two of the four facilitators (50%) of the “Democratic

governance and legislative process” module of the programme indicated that its length could be

increased in relation to the content that needed to be covered while for the remaining four

modules the percentages range between 0% and 16,7%.

Table 3.11 illustrates the perception of the facilitators regarding the pacing of the course

material.

Table 3.11 Facilitator perceptions regarding the pacing of the course materials

Module

Question regarding the

pacing of the course

material


Too Quick Appropriate Too slow Did not

respond



0 100 0 0


Is the course material paced appropriately for

25 75 0 0


26

Module


pacing of the course

material


Too Quick Appropriate Too slow Did not

respond

(presented 4 times) the audience/target group?



0 100 0 0



0 80 0 20



14,3 57,1 0 28,6

(N=25)

It is evident in Table 3.11 that between 57,1% and 100% of the facilitators thought the pace of

the programme was “appropriate” in relation to content that needed to be covered while

between 0% and 25% thought pacing was “too quick” and none of the facilitators indicated that

the pace was too slow. It should be noted that the percentage of facilitators who did not

respond, ranged between 0% and 28,6%.

These responses indicate that the majority of the facilitators were of the opinion that an

appropriate pace was used to cover the content in the course.

Table 3.12 Facilitator perceptions regarding the relevance of the materials to the Public Sector

Module


relevance of the materials

to the Public Sector


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond


Does the course material relate sufficiently to real public sector situation experienced by the audience/ target group?

100 0 0 0



50 50 0 0


27

Module


relevance of the materials

to the Public Sector


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond



83,3 0 0 16,7



80 20 0 0



57,1 14,3 0 28,6

(N=25)

In Table 3.12 it is evident that between 50% and 100% of the facilitators were of the opinion that

the course materials were very well related to the Public Sector (i.e. ratings of “excellent” and

“good” categories combined). Between 0% and 50% thought the course materials have an

“average” rating with regard to their relatedness to the Public Sector, while none of the

facilitators felt the course material related poorly to the Public Sector.

These responses indicate that with reference to four of the five modules a large proportion of

the facilitators surveyed were of the opinion that the course materials related sufficiently to the

public sector.


The key responses from the facilitator survey are summarised in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13 Facilitator comments regarding the course content


question

Facilitator responses


Are there any

recommendations or

comments with regard to

The fact that participants use different computer operating

systems complicates the training.


28

the content or layout you

would like to make?


Are there any

recommendations or



would like to make?

The section on policy must cover analysis as well as

monitoring and evaluation.

The budgeting content must be geared towards the

participants’ oversight role and should include the analysis

of Provincial/Departmental statistics.

The learning material is not sufficient and was

supplemented by the facilitators. More case studies are

needed as well as more emphasis on processes.

The materials redesign process should take into

consideration that law-making is the centre of MPs work.

The pitch should be appropriate.

Media Communication

Are there any

recommendations or



would like to make?

The facilitator should be allowed a follow up session with

participants to ascertain whether the learning content is

applied in practice. This process can also inform the

reworking of the learning material.

The learning content should also include the rationale for the

communication process as well as a description of the

different media scenarios which could be encountered.

More practical exercises should be included in the learning

material.

The learning material utilised on the programme from 25 –

27 January 2011 in Mpumalanga had some chapters

missing.


Are there any

recommendations or



would like to make?

The learning material should include more relevant

references to politicians rather than public officials in

general.

The current learning material is supplemented with

additional material by facilitators.


Are there any

recommendations or



would like to make?

Case studies which are relevant to the legislative process

should be included.

The learning material is insufficient and not sequenced in a

logical manner. A detailed suggestion regarding reworking

of the programme was received.

3.2.2 Facilitator Assessment of Participants


The responses of the facilitators surveyed regarding the appropriateness of the


29

level of the participants who attended the course;

number of the participants per training intervention;

mix of the participants; and

trainees attendance and participation

are displayed in Tables 3.14 – 3.17 that follow.

Table 3.14 Facilitator perceptions regarding the appropriate level of the participants

Module


appropriate level of the

participants


Too High Appropriate Too Low Did not

respond


Were the participants at the appropriate level for the course/event?

0 66,7 0 33,3



0 100 0 0



0 100 0 0



0 100 0 0



0 71,4 0 28,6

(N=25)

From Table 3.14 it is evident that between 66,7% and 100% of the facilitators thought the

participants were at an “appropriate level” in relation to the complexity of the course materials

that needed to be covered. No facilitators felt that the level of participants were either “too high”

or “too low”. In the two instances where facilitators did not select the “appropriate” response

they did not respond to the survey question.

Table 3.15 is a representation of the perceptions of the facilitators regarding the

appropriateness of the number of participants who attended the training interventions.


30

Table 3.15 Facilitator perceptions regarding the number of participants who attended

Module


number of participants

who attended


Too Many Appropriate Too Few Did not

respond


Was the number of participants too few, too many or in the right zone for this course/event?

0 66,7 0 33,3



0 75 0 25



0 100 0 0



0 100 0 0



0 57,1 14,3 28,6

(N=25)

From Table 3.15 it is evident that between 57,1% and 100% of the facilitators thought that the

number of participants who attended the training was “appropriate”, while in the case of the

“Action Research for the legislature process” module, 14,3% of the facilitators thought that there

were “too few” participants who attended the training interventions.

These responses indicate that the majority of the facilitators were of the opinion that the number

of participants who attended the training intervention was appropriate.

Table 3.16 is a representation of the facilitators’ perception of whether the mix of participants

was appropriate.


31

Table 3.16 Facilitator perceptions regarding the mix of participants

Module Question regarding the

mix of participants


Not

uniform

enough

Appropriate

mix

Too

uniform

Did not

respond


Was the mix of participants appropriate?

33,3 66,7 0 0


Was the mix of participants appropriate? 25 75 0 0


Was the mix of participants appropriate?

0 83,3 16,7 0


Was the mix of participants appropriate? 0 80 20 0


Was the mix of participants appropriate? 14,2 28,6 28,6 28,6

(N=25)

From Table 3.16 it is evident that between 28,6% and 83,3% of the facilitators thought that the

mix of participants who attended the training was “appropriate”. The percentage of facilitators

who rated the mix of participants as “not uniform enough” ranged between 0% and 33,3% while

between 0% and 28,6% of facilitators rated the mix of participants as “too uniform”. These

responses indicate that according to the majority of the facilitators (with the exception of the

“Action Research for the legislature process” module), the mix of participants who attended the

Capacity Building Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures was well

balanced.

Table 3.17 is a representation of the facilitators’ perception of whether the attendance and

participation of the participants was appropriate.


32

Table 3.17 Facilitator perceptions regarding the attendance of the participants

Module


attendance of the

participants


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond


Was the attendance and participation appropriate?

66,7 33,3 0 0


Was the attendance and participation appropriate? 100 0 0 0






Was the attendance and participation appropriate? 42,8 28,6 0 28,6

(N=25)

From Table 3.17 it is evident that with the exception of the “Action Research for the legislature

process” module the majority of the facilitators (between 66,7% and 100%) thought that the

attendance and participation of trainees who attended the programme was positive (i.e.

ratings of “excellent” and “good” categories combined). With reference to the “Action Research

for the legislature process” module, 28,6% of the facilitators rated the attendance and

participation of trainees as “average” while a further 28,6% of facilitators did not respond to this

question. An “average” percentage of 33,3% was recorded in relation to the Information

Communication Technology course. None of the facilitators rated the attendance and

participation of trainees as “poor”.

Although this is a very positive response, there is still room for improvement regarding the

attendance rate of the participants and their commitment to the training specifically because this

programme is based on the notion of action learning.


33


The facilitators noted certain concerns in respect of the attendance of the participants.

Table 3.18 Facilitator comments regarding the attendance of the participants


question



Are there any

recommendations with

regards to participants which

you would like to make?

Members should respect the facilitators during

training e.g. refrain from leaving the classroom,

answering cell phones during class as well as having

conversations during class.


Are there any




Despite the fact that MPs are on call the participation

was good.

Media Communication

Are there any




The percentage of attendees versus the number of

members registered for the training intervention is

low.

There should be an attempt to improve class

attendance during the training.

The scheduling of the training intervention has a

direct influence on the availability of participants due

to their planned work commitments in

Parliament/Provincial Legislatures.


Are there any




Participants should be more punctual.

The participants were of a high level and they

enthusiastically contributed to the discussions.

Group sizes should be increased.

The marketing of the programme should be

improved.


Are there any




Participants should be more punctual.

The marketing should be improved with specific

reference to the value of the programme.

Participants were absent frequently for official duties.

Learning was very interactive and the participants

were very co-operative and open-minded.


34

3.2.3 Facilitation

Since it would be very subjective to ask facilitators to rate their own performance as facilitators,

they were asked two respond to two qualitative questions regarding their perceptions of their

facilitation of the course. The questions were:

Are there elements of your presentation/ facilitation that you would like to pass on to other

facilitators?

Are there elements of your presentation/ facilitation that you would do differently next

time?

Facilitator responses to each of these questions above are illustrated in Table 3.19.

Table 3.19 Facilitator comments regarding the facilitation


question



Are there elements of your

presentation/ facilitation that

you would like to pass on to

other facilitators?


presentation that you would

do differently next time?

PALAMA should provide 3G cards to enable practical

demonstrations pertaining to the internet and e-mail.

An analysis of the target group in terms of their

relevant knowledge/skill levels should be done before

the module commences.





other facilitators?




Several facilitators have developed additional

material which they used during facilitation.

Media Communication




other facilitators?




This module requires an interactive style and a great

deal of participation by the attendees.


35


question






other facilitators?




“Tuning in” exercises should be utilised to get

participants thinking before facilitation starts.

Facilitators should get together to share experiences.





other facilitators?




The introduction of an informal pre-test would add

value.

Group work and group reports should be

incorporated into the module.

It was useful to refer to relevant incidents which are

currently receiving national prominence e.g. service

delivery protests, housing delivery etc. and to use

these as examples for action research.

The time allocated to the complete the module

should be extended to allow the assessment of

participants.

3.2.4 Logistics


The various responses to the facilitator survey which referred to their perception of the

organisation of the course, the suitability of the venue for training and the standard of the

facilities, food and accommodation are illustrated in Tables 3.20 – 3.22.

Table 3.20 Facilitator perceptions regarding the organisation of the course


organisation of the course


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond


How well was the course/event organised?

66,7 33,3 0 0

Democratic How well was the 100 0 0 0


36


organisation of the course


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond

governance and legislative process (presented 4 times)

course/event organised?


How well was the course/event organised? 83,3 16,7 0 0


How well was the course/event organised? 80 0 20 0


How well was the course/event organised? 57,1 14,3 0 28,6

(N=25)

From Table 3.20 it is evident that between 57,1% and 100% of the facilitators thought that the

organisation of the course was well done (i.e. ratings of “excellent” and “good” categories

combined). Furthermore between 0% and 33,3% of the respondents were of the opinion that

the organisation of the course was “average”, while one of the five facilitators of the “Value

based leadership for decision making” module (20%) thought that it was “poor”.

These responses indicate that, although there is a high positive response, the organisation of

the training course can still be improved.

Table 3.21 is a representation of the facilitators’ perception of whether the training venues were

suitable for facilitation.


37

Table 3.21 Facilitator perceptions regarding the suitability of the training venue

Module


suitability of the training

venue


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond


Was the venue favourable for teaching?

66,7 33,3 0 0


Was the venue favourable for teaching? 100 0 0 0


Was the venue favourable for teaching? 66,7 33,3 0 0


Was the venue favourable for teaching? 80 20 0 0


Was the venue favourable for teaching? 71,4 0 0 28,6

(N=25)

Between 66,7% and 100% of the facilitators responded positively to the question whether the

venue is conducive for facilitation (i.e. ratings of “excellent” and “good” categories

combined). Between 0% and 33,3% of facilitators thought that it was “average” and none of the

facilitators thought that the suitability of the training venue for facilitation was “poor”.

These responses indicate that according to facilitators, the venues selected for hosting the

Capacity Building Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures are

conducive for facilitation.

Figure 3.22 is a representation of the facilitators’ perception of whether the facilities, food and

accommodation were up to standard.


38

Table 3.22 Facilitator perceptions regarding the facilities, food and accommodation

Module


facilities, food and

accommodation


Positive Rating

(ratings of

“excellent” and


combined)


Respond


Were the facilities, food and accommodation up to standard? 100 0 0 0



100 0 0 0



66,7 33,3 0 0



80 20 0 0



57,1 14,3 0 28,6

(N=25)

From Table 3.22 it is evident that between 57,1% and 100% of the facilitators positively

perceived the facilities, food and accommodation (i.e. ratings of “excellent” and “good”

categories combined). The percentage of facilitators who indicated that the facilities, food and

accommodation were “average” ranged between 0% and 33,3%. No facilitators rated the

facilities, food and accommodation as “poor”.

These responses indicate that according to facilitators, the facilities, food and accommodation

at the venues selected for hosting the Capacity Building Programme for Members of Parliament

and Provincial Legislatures are acceptable.

It has to be mentioned that one facilitator who presented two of the “Action research for

the legislature process” modules did not complete the required Facilitator Feedback

Form. This resulted in a chronic “did not respond” rate of 28,6% with reference to all the

tables above that summarise the quantitative facilitator feedback.


39

3.2.4.2 Qualitative Results

The key recommendations that emerged from the facilitator survey are summarized in

Table 3.23.

Table 3.23 Facilitator comments regarding the Logistics


question



How could the logistics be

improved? Please motivate.

Facilitators should be informed of the venues

timeously.

The seating arrangement was not optimal in certain

instances.




Facilitators should be informed of the venues

timeously.

The availability of projectors should be improved.

In some instances not enough learning materials were

available for all participants.

Media Communication



The module should be presented away from the

Legislature.

Technical support e.g. laptop and projector was

lacking.




Venues should have flexible seating arrangements.

Break-away rooms should be available.




The seating arrangement should be flexible in the

training venue.

3.2.5 Facilitators’ suggestions regarding the improvement of the Capacity Building

Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures

The key themes that emerged from the feedback forms are summarized in Table 3.24.

Table 3.24 Facilitator suggestions regarding the improvement of the Capacity Building

Programme for Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures


question



What other suggestions

could help the Academy

improve the course?

Members should be categorised in accordance with

their levels of knowledge per group to ensure

maximum transfer of learning in the allocated time

per course.


40


question





improve the course?

Facilitators should be involved in the materials

development process.

Media Communication



improve the course?

Formal assessments should be introduced into the

module.

The learning material should arrive well in time at the

respective training venues.

Presentation of modules should be scheduled better.

Members could benefit from private coaching in

public speaking.




improve the course?

The training manual and slides have to be updated.

The facilitation style should be adapted based on the

group composition and circumstances of the specific

legislature.

Learning material should be dispatched on time.




improve the course?

This programme should be presented soon after the

elections so that members can be empowered to

contribute maximally for their full term in the

legislature.

Participants should read the learning material before

the module commences.

This module requires more time.

This concludes the findings of the evaluation. Chapter 4 deals with the recommendations and

conclusion of the evaluation.


41

CHAPTER 4

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This evaluation report is based on an analysis of the feedback received from the participants

and the facilitators who participated in the Capacity Building Programme for Members of

Parliament and Provincial Legislatures. In Chapter 3 the data was analysed in detail according

to the quantitative and qualitative responses received. The key recommendations are

summarised in this chapter.

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the perceptions of the facilitators and the participants the following recommendations

are made:

The learning material for the programme should be revised in cooperation with the

facilitators with attention to the following:

the use of additional reference material where applicable;

logical sequencing of the material;

the use of relevant practical exercises and case studies to strengthen the learning

experience;

customisation of the learning material to the unique training needs of Members of

Parliament and Provincial Legislatures.

The nomination of participants should be done timeously (participants mentioned one month

as a guideline).

The ratio of members nominated versus those who attend the programme should be

monitored to ensure optimal utilisation of every training intervention.

The participants should be subjected to a summative assessment at the completion of each

module of the programme.

The profiles of the participants should be provided to the facilitators prior to the training so

that the facilitators can prepare adequately.

The participants should receive the learning material beforehand to be able to prepare

adequately.

The training venues should be user friendly to people with disabilities.


42

The programme should be extensively marketed to ensure that the value of the programme

is understood.

A forum for the facilitators should be established to allow them to share their experiences

and best practices with each other as well as with PALAMA.

New members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures should be provided with an

opportunity to attend this programme as soon as possible after appointment.

The feedback received from both the facilitator and participants should be forwarded to the

programme manager for each training intervention completed.

Onsite evaluations should be conducted on a sample of the training interventions.

4.3 CONCLUSION

The perceptions of the facilitators and the participants of the Capacity Building Programme for

Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures provided valuable inputs to enhance the

quality of the training intervention to ensure that the Members of Parliament and Provincial

Legislatures are fully capacitated and enabled to exercise their role and responsibilities.

It is important to note that the positive feedback received from both participants and facilitators

will not be used to retain the content and methodology of existing training programmes. The

review of PALAMA programmes is scheduled independently as part of the training cycle.

Although it takes evaluation findings into consideration, the programme review process looks at

all other relevant information.

MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG && EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN …sals.gov.za/docs/pubs/report.pdf · Legislatures...

Documents

Transcript of MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG && EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN …sals.gov.za/docs/pubs/report.pdf · Legislatures...