Page 21 - Proceedings-edit-2021_09_20-final
P. 21
© Proceedings of the Ruhuna Quality Assurance Sessions 2021 (RUQAS 2021)
st
21 September 2021
February 2020, this was done using a sheet of paper physically and, for later meetings it was an online
rd
nd
questionnaire since 2 and 3 consortium meetings were held online due to international and domestic
travel restrictions. Table 1 shows the form used in evaluating the quality of consortium meetings.
Table 1: Evaluation form used in consortium meetings
No. Evaluation Indicator Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
01 I was notified of the meeting sufficiently
in advance.
02 The meeting purpose and objectives
were clear.
03 The meeting agenda was appropriate
and clear.
04 The meeting time and place were
convenient.
05 The meeting format (face-to-face /
online) was suitable.
06 The meeting started and ended on time.
07 I was satisfied with the way decisions
were made.
08 The meeting was well-attended.
09 All meeting participants were actively
involved.
10 We used our meeting time effectively.
11 I was satisfied with the assignment of
follow-up tasks.
12 The meeting atmosphere was friendly
and constructive.
What aspects of this meeting were particularly good?
What aspects of this meeting could have been better?
Do you have any suggestions or additional comments about this meeting?
Results, Discussion, and Conclusions
According to the responses received for the self-evaluation, the median assessment for all the criteria is
either “meets expectations” or “above average”. Further, only two project objectives have received
4
