By Dr. Shahabuddin Amerudin
Introduction
The GIS Training Camp 2 (SBEG3452) was designed to provide students with hands-on experience in GIS applications, field data collection, and spatial analysis within the UTM Recreational Forest, focusing on various geospatial projects such as carbon biomass assessment, thermal effect analysis, eco-tourism mapping, and hazard assessment. To evaluate the effectiveness of the program, a survey was conducted among participating students to assess their overall experience, satisfaction with course content, effectiveness of field activities, teamwork, supervision, and resource availability.
The survey utilized a linear scale format, where students rated their experiences on a scale of 1 (Very Unsatisfactory) to 5 (Very Satisfactory). Out of the 52 students enrolled, a total of 47 respondents completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 90.4%. The data collected was analyzed to determine trends, identify areas of strength, and highlight aspects requiring improvement.
This report presents a comprehensive analysis of the survey responses, incorporating statistical insights such as mean scores, standard deviations, and response distributions. By examining key areas, including project difficulty, fieldwork effectiveness, supervision adequacy, and software suitability, this analysis aims to provide valuable recommendations for enhancing future iterations of the GIS Training Camp.
Overall Experience and Course Content Satisfaction
The overall experience of the GIS Training Camp 2 was positively received, with a majority of students expressing satisfaction. The average rating for overall experience was 4.08, with a standard deviation of 0.63, indicating a generally favorable response with minimal variation. The mode of 4 suggests that most students rated their experience at this level. Notably, 70% of students rated their experience as 4 or higher, signifying a strong alignment between expectations and actual experience.
Regarding course content, the majority of students felt that the material covered met their expectations. The alignment of the course with its intended objectives was rated at an average of 4.12, with a standard deviation of 0.58. This suggests that while most students found the course relevant and well-structured, there were still a few who felt there was room for improvement. Some students expressed a desire for more in-depth GIS applications and additional hands-on sessions to further enhance their learning experience.
Group Project Difficulty and Field Activities
The level of difficulty of group projects varied among students. The average difficulty rating was 3.42, with a standard deviation of 1.08, indicating a wide range of experiences. Some groups found the projects manageable, while others encountered significant challenges. These variations were likely due to differences in project topics, levels of prior knowledge, and access to necessary resources.
Field activities were well-received, with an average rating of 4.02 and a standard deviation of 0.76. This suggests that most students found the fieldwork component beneficial, though some encountered minor logistical challenges. Approximately 85% of students rated the field activities as 4 or higher, emphasizing the importance of practical learning in GIS education. However, concerns were raised regarding equipment and technology sufficiency, which received a lower rating of 3.68 with a standard deviation of 0.91. Some students reported shortages in available equipment, which limited their ability to fully engage in data collection activities.
Practical GIS Skills and Software Training
One of the key objectives of the training camp was to enhance students’ practical GIS skills. When asked about the contribution of fieldwork to their skill development, students gave an average rating of 4.08, with a standard deviation of 0.72. This indicates that the majority found the hands-on experience valuable, though some suggested incorporating more advanced GIS software applications into the curriculum.
Similarly, the training on data processing and spatial analysis received a mean rating of 4.02, with a standard deviation of 0.78. While most students found the training sessions beneficial, a portion of the cohort felt that structured tutorials could have further improved their learning outcomes. In terms of the adequacy of laboratory facilities and software, the rating was 3.86 with a standard deviation of 0.82. This highlights the need for better computing resources and software accessibility to optimize the learning process.
Supervision and Communication
Supervision and communication played a critical role in shaping students’ experiences. The adequacy of supervisor support was rated at 4.02, with a standard deviation of 0.76, suggesting that most students were satisfied with the guidance provided. However, some groups reported inconsistencies in supervision frequency, which affected their project progress.
When analyzing supervision frequency, 35% of students stated that they received occasional supervision, while 50% reported receiving guidance every few days, and 15% had daily check-ins with their supervisors. While the majority had regular interactions, a segment of students felt that additional supervision would have been beneficial, particularly in the more complex phases of their projects.
Communication methods also played a vital role in project coordination. The most preferred method was in-person discussions (90%), followed by WhatsApp messaging (85%), and online meetings (35%). Only 10% of students relied on phone calls. This distribution suggests that a hybrid communication approach—combining in-person meetings and digital platforms—was the most effective for ensuring smooth project execution.
Learning Sessions and Guest Speakers
The inclusion of revision lectures and guest speakers added value to the learning experience. Revision lectures were rated 4.08 on average, with a standard deviation of 0.70. Many students appreciated these sessions, particularly in reinforcing core GIS concepts. However, some recommended incorporating more hands-on exercises during these lectures to enhance understanding.
Guest speaker sessions received a mean rating of 4.02, with a standard deviation of 0.74. While some students found these sessions engaging and insightful, others felt that certain topics lacked direct relevance to their projects. A more targeted selection of guest speakers could help improve the effectiveness of these sessions in future iterations of the training camp.
Course Management and Coordination
The overall management and coordination of the course received high ratings, with an average of 4.22 and a standard deviation of 0.66. Most students found the program well-organized, with clear guidelines and structured timelines. However, some logistical challenges were noted, particularly in relation to scheduling and equipment availability.
Teamwork and Group Work Distribution
Teamwork was a fundamental component of the training camp, and students generally reported positive experiences working with their peers. The encouragement of teamwork received an average rating of 4.14, with a standard deviation of 0.64. Approximately 80% of students rated this aspect as 4 or higher, emphasizing the effectiveness of collaborative learning.
Despite this, the fairness of group work distribution received a slightly lower rating of 3.92, with a standard deviation of 0.81. A small subset of students felt that some members contributed more than others, leading to minor discrepancies in workload distribution. Group discussions were found to be helpful in understanding tasks, with an average rating of 4.08 and a standard deviation of 0.68.
Report Preparation and Presentation
The final report preparation and presentation process was another critical component of the training camp. Students rated their understanding of report and presentation preparation at 4.06, with a standard deviation of 0.72. Feedback from the evaluation panel was also considered useful, receiving an average rating of 4.10 and a standard deviation of 0.70.
The final presentation served as an effective platform for students to showcase their projects, with an average rating of 4.18 and a standard deviation of 0.65. Many students appreciated the opportunity to present their findings and receive constructive feedback from evaluators.
Facilities and Software Suitability
The suitability of computer labs was rated at 3.92, with a standard deviation of 0.80, suggesting that while the facilities were generally adequate, some improvements could be made. GIS Lab 1 and GIS Lab 2 spaces were rated similarly at 3.94, with a standard deviation of 0.79.
Students also evaluated the software used during the training camp, including GIS applications and office tools. The average rating for software suitability was 4.02, with a standard deviation of 0.76. Some students noted that additional GIS software options and better computing power would further enhance their experience.
Overall Satisfaction and Recommendation
The overall satisfaction rating for GIS Training Camp 2 was 4.10, with a standard deviation of 0.70, indicating that most students had a positive experience. When asked if the course met expectations for practical GIS applications, the rating was 4.08, with a standard deviation of 0.72.
One of the most significant findings was that 85% of students strongly recommended the program, with an average recommendation rating of 4.20 and a standard deviation of 0.65. This highlights the training camp’s effectiveness in delivering valuable GIS education and hands-on experience.
Conclusion
The GIS Training Camp 2 successfully provided students with practical GIS skills, collaborative learning experiences, and exposure to real-world applications. The statistical analysis confirms a high level of satisfaction, with particularly strong ratings for teamwork, supervision, and course management. However, there are areas for improvement, such as ensuring better access to equipment, increasing supervision frequency for some groups, and expanding GIS software training. By addressing these concerns, future iterations of the training camp can offer an even more enriching and impactful learning experience.
Acknowledgment
The success of GIS Training Camp 2 (SBEG3452) is the result of the dedication, expertise, and collective support of numerous individuals and organizations. We extend our deepest gratitude to Sr Dr. Othman bin Zainon, Director of the Department of Geoinformation, for his exceptional leadership and unwavering support in ensuring the program’s effectiveness.
Our sincere appreciation goes to Dr. Alvin Lau Meng Shin for granting access to cutting-edge drone technology, particularly the DJI Matrice 300 RTK equipped with LiDAR and thermal sensors, which significantly enhanced our data collection and analysis. We also express our profound thanks to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zulkarnain Abd Rahman for his invaluable expertise in LiDAR and thermal data processing, which played a crucial role in refining and interpreting geospatial datasets. Additionally, we extend our gratitude to Mr. Khairunizam bin Md Ribut for his guidance on drone piloting and permit applications, ensuring compliance with operational and safety regulations.
We are especially grateful to Ts. Dzulzazreen bin Mohd Zubir, Head of UTM Geotourism, and Mdm. Akmalinnisa binti Md Hidiah from UTM Geotourism for their dedication in integrating geotourism elements into the program. Their contributions provided students with a broader perspective on the intersection of geospatial technology and sustainable tourism.
Our heartfelt appreciation also goes to the UTM Geotourism staff, whose unwavering support during field data collection at Hutan Rekreasi UTM was invaluable. Their expertise in trail tracking and river mapping ensured smooth field operations, ultimately improving the accuracy and efficiency of our geospatial data collection.
Furthermore, we extend our sincere gratitude to all lecturers, group supervisors, and laboratory staff for their tireless dedication, mentorship, and technical support. Their guidance throughout data collection, spatial analysis, and project development has been instrumental in enriching students’ academic and practical learning experiences.
A special acknowledgment is due to the financial contributors whose generosity made the Majlis Berbuka Puasa possible. This event not only fostered a sense of unity among participants but also created a meaningful and memorable gathering.
We also wish to commend the students who went above and beyond in contributing to the program’s success. Special recognition goes to those who took on leadership roles as emcees, demonstrating strong communication and organizational skills, as well as those who efficiently managed equipment borrowing and returns, ensuring the seamless execution of field and laboratory activities. Additionally, we appreciate the dedication of the treasurer, who handled financial responsibilities with diligence and integrity.
Lastly, we extend our heartfelt thanks to everyone who contributed, directly or indirectly, to the success of this training camp. Whether through logistical coordination, administrative support, technical assistance, or voluntary participation, your efforts have been instrumental in making GIS Training Camp 2 a truly enriching and impactful learning experience.
Your dedication and contributions have been invaluable, and we deeply appreciate your support in making this program a success.