Tag: KLGIS2

Posted on

Statistical Analysis of End-Course Feedback for GIS Training Camp 2 (Semester 1, Session 2024/2025)

KLGIS2

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.

Posted on

Open-Ended Analysis of End-Course Feedback for GIS Training Camp 2 (Semester 1, Session 2024/2025)

KLGIS2

By Dr. Shahabuddin Amerudin

Introduction

The GIS Training Camp 2 (SBEG3542) was conducted over a three-week period from February 17 to March 7, 2025, involving 52 students organized into 13 groups. The course aimed to provide hands-on GIS training and spatial analysis applications in the UTM Recreational Forest, supporting UTM Geotourism’s mission of sustainable ecotourism and biodiversity conservation. An open-ended survey was conducted at the end of the course to evaluate student experiences, challenges, and suggestions for improvement. A total of 47 responses were received, providing valuable insights into the strengths and areas for enhancement of the program.

Challenges Faced by Students

The most commonly reported challenge was data processing, specifically issues with software compatibility, late data availability, and difficulties in handling large datasets. One respondent stated, “The data from the drone was too late to get and got problems processing the data in ArcGIS.” Similarly, another noted, “It was hard to process high-resolution data on our personal laptops due to hardware limitations.” This sentiment was echoed by 63.8% of respondents who indicated that they faced issues with data acquisition and analysis.

Other challenges included time management, with students struggling to balance fieldwork and data processing. Some groups found that three weeks was insufficient to complete both the field data collection and analysis comprehensively. One student remarked, “We spent too much time collecting data and had very little time left for analysis and report writing.” Furthermore, 40.4% of respondents cited difficulties with field equipments, such as handheld GPS inaccuracies and tree measurement device .

Sufficiency of Course Duration

When asked about the adequacy of the course duration, 55.3% of students believed that the three-week period was sufficient, while 44.7% suggested extending the course. Among those advocating for a longer duration, most proposed an additional one to two weeks to allow more time for analysis and report compilation. One respondent suggested, “An extra week dedicated solely to data analysis and report writing would be very helpful.”

Suggestions for Improvement

The most common suggestion was the earlier provision of datasets. Many students recommended that preliminary data, especially drone imagery and base maps, should be provided before fieldwork to allow for early analysis. One respondent stated, “Providing drone imagery earlier will help us plan field data collection better and save time on processing.” This was supported by 78.7% of respondents who highlighted data timeliness as a critical improvement area.

Another significant recommendation was to improve equipment availability. Some students experienced difficulties with limited GPS units and drones, leading to delays in field data collection. One student suggested, “There should be more GPS units and a backup drone in case of technical failures.” Furthermore, 36.2% of respondents expressed a desire for additional software training, particularly in GIS automation and advanced spatial analysis.

Fieldwork Adequacy and Suggested Enhancements

The majority of respondents (72.3%) agreed that the fieldwork activities were well-structured and relevant to their projects. However, some students noted that certain field exercises, such as UAV-based thermal imaging and hydrological modeling, needed clearer instructions and better coordination. One student mentioned, “The drone thermal imaging session was interesting, but we needed more guidance on how to interpret the results.” Similarly, another commented, “Hydrological modeling for flood risk assessment was challenging because we lacked enough training in terrain analysis.”

Additional Topics for Future Inclusion

Several students recommended adding new topics or enhancing existing ones to improve the learning experience in GIS Training Camp 2. Among the most frequently suggested topics, Remote Sensing and LiDAR Data Processing received the highest interest, with 41.7% of respondents expressing a desire to include it in future iterations of the course. This reflects a growing need for expertise in handling high-resolution spatial data, particularly in environmental and terrain analysis. Additionally, 38.3% of students suggested incorporating Advanced GIS Automation and Python Scripting, highlighting the need for more efficient and automated data processing techniques. One student specifically noted, “A session on GIS automation using Python would make data processing much easier,” reinforcing the demand for practical programming skills in GIS.

Furthermore, 31.9% of respondents expressed interest in Machine Learning Applications in GIS, indicating a recognition of the increasing role of artificial intelligence in spatial analysis. These suggestions collectively emphasise the importance of integrating more advanced GIS training to complement the fieldwork experience, ensuring that students are equipped with the necessary technical skills for real-world applications.

General Feedback and Final Comments

Overall, 85.1% of respondents found the course to be a valuable learning experience. Many appreciated the practical, hands-on approach of the training camp, with one student stating, “This was the most engaging GIS course I’ve taken; it really connected theory with real-world applications.” However, some students suggested incorporating more industry engagement, such as guest lectures from GIS professionals and potential collaboration with external agencies.

Recommendations for Future Improvements

Based on the survey findings, several recommendations can be made to enhance future iterations of GIS Training Camp 2. One key improvement is to ensure early data availability by providing essential datasets, such as drone imagery, LiDAR scans, and base maps, before fieldwork begins. This would allow students to plan more effectively and optimize their time in the field. Additionally, increasing equipment availability is crucial to mitigate delays in data collection and processing. Expanding access to GPS units, drones, and high-performance computing facilities would help students complete their tasks more efficiently.

Another important recommendation is to extend the course duration by an additional one to two weeks, particularly to allow more time for data analysis and reporting. Many students found the current timeframe challenging for conducting in-depth spatial analysis, and a slight extension could significantly enhance the learning experience. Furthermore, introducing advanced GIS training would be beneficial, particularly in areas such as Python scripting for GIS automation, machine learning applications, and LiDAR data processing. These technical skills are increasingly relevant in modern geospatial analysis and would better prepare students for industry demands.

Improving field instruction is another critical area for enhancement. Providing clearer guidelines for data collection, particularly for UAV-based thermal imaging and hydrological modeling, would help students navigate technical challenges more effectively. Lastly, enhancing industry engagement through guest lectures by GIS professionals and fostering collaborations with external organizations would provide students with valuable industry insights and networking opportunities. Implementing these recommendations would not only improve the overall course structure but also ensure that students gain a more comprehensive and practical understanding of GIS applications.

Conclusion

The GIS Training Camp 2 provided students with an immersive, hands-on learning experience in applying GIS techniques to real-world environmental and geotourism challenges. The feedback from respondents highlights both the strengths of the program and areas for improvement. While students found the course highly beneficial, challenges related to data processing, equipment availability, and time constraints were frequently mentioned. By addressing these concerns and incorporating the suggested improvements, future editions of the course can be further enhanced to provide an even more impactful learning experience for students.

Acknowledgement

The success of GIS Training Camp 2 (SBEG3452) is a testament to the collective dedication, expertise, and support of numerous individuals and organisations. We extend our deepest gratitude to Sr Dr. Othman bin Zainon, Director of the Department of Geoinformation, for his invaluable leadership and unwavering support. Our heartfelt appreciation goes to Dr. Alvin Lau Meng Shin for providing access to cutting-edge drone technology, including the DJI Matrice 300 RTK equipped with LiDAR and thermal sensors, which significantly enhanced our data collection capabilities. We are also profoundly grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zulkarnain Abd Rahman for his expertise in LiDAR and thermal data processing, which played a crucial role in analyzing geospatial datasets. Special thanks go to Mr. Khairunizam bin Md Ribut for his guidance on drone pilot and permit application, ensuring compliance with operational standards. Additionally, we sincerely acknowledge Ts. Dzulzazreen bin Mohd Zubir, Head of UTM Geotourism, and Mdm. Akmalinnisa binti Md Hidiah from UTM Geotourism for their dedication in incorporating geotourism elements into the program, enriching students’ learning experiences.

We are also immensely grateful to all UTM Geotourism staff for their unwavering support and guidance during field data collection at Hutan Rekreasi UTM. Their expertise and assistance were invaluable in ensuring smooth field operations, particularly in trail tracking and river mapping, which significantly enhanced the accuracy and efficiency of our geospatial data collection efforts.

A sincere appreciation is extended to all professors, lecturers, group supervisors, and laboratory staff whose tireless dedication, mentorship, and technical support have played a vital role in guiding students through data collection, spatial analysis, and project development. Their commitment to academic excellence and hands-on learning has significantly enriched the students’ experience.

Furthermore, we express our deep gratitude to the financial contributors who generously supported the Majlis Berbuka Puasa, allowing us to foster a sense of unity and togetherness during this meaningful occasion.

A special acknowledgment goes to the students who have actively and voluntarily contributed to the program’s success. This includes those who took on the role of emcees, showcasing their leadership and communication skills; those who managed the borrowing and returning of equipment, ensuring seamless execution of field and lab activities; and the treasurer, who handled financial matters with diligence and responsibility.

Finally, we extend our heartfelt thanks to every individual who has contributed, directly or indirectly, to the success of this training camp. Whether through logistical coordination, administrative support, or voluntary participation, your efforts have been invaluable in making GIS Training Camp 2 a truly enriching and impactful learning experience.

To all who have played a part, we sincerely appreciate your dedication and contributions—your support has been fundamental to the success of this course.

Posted on

Analysis of Mid-Training Feedback for GIS Training Camp 2 (Semester 1, Session 2024/2025)

Prepared by Dr. Shahabuddin Amerudin

The GIS Training Camp 2 (SBEG3542) serves as an integral part of the curriculum, providing students with practical exposure to geospatial technologies and real-world data collection methodologies. This mid-training feedback survey aimed to assess participants’ experiences, challenges, and overall satisfaction with the program. The results provide valuable insights into various aspects, including conceptual understanding, field data collection experiences, teamwork dynamics, technical challenges, facilities and logistical support, and overall learning effectiveness.

Understanding of GIS Concepts and Application of Software

A critical component of the training camp is the application of GIS concepts through hands-on software use. The majority of participants rated their understanding of GIS as satisfactory, with most responses scoring a 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. This suggests that students have gained substantial knowledge of geospatial analysis techniques, spatial data management, and map-based decision-making. One respondent stated, “The training helped me grasp how GIS works in real-world applications, especially in environmental mapping.” This indicates that the course structure effectively bridges theoretical knowledge with practical applications.

However, some students expressed concerns regarding the complexity of advanced GIS techniques and the steep learning curve of certain software tools. A few respondents noted that they struggled with data processing workflows, particularly in integrating various data formats and ensuring spatial accuracy. One student mentioned, “The data processing steps were overwhelming, and I needed more guidance on spatial analysis techniques.” This suggests a need for additional tutorial sessions or structured troubleshooting sessions to ensure all participants can effectively apply GIS tools without confusion.

Field Data Collection Experience in UTM Recreational Forest

Fieldwork is a crucial aspect of GIS training, providing students with hands-on experience in data collection, spatial accuracy validation, and real-world geospatial problem-solving. The feedback revealed that the majority of students found the fieldwork engaging and educational, with many highlighting the value of using GPS devices, drones, and field mapping tools. One respondent stated, “Collecting real-time data using GPS devices helped me understand the practical limitations of spatial accuracy.” This indicates that field exposure significantly enhanced students’ awareness of data quality challenges.

Nevertheless, several technical and logistical challenges were identified during fieldwork sessions. Some students encountered difficulties related to equipment functionality, as a few GPS units and drones reportedly malfunctioned, causing disruptions in data collection. One respondent expressed frustration, saying, “Our GPS device kept losing signal, making it difficult to ensure data accuracy.” Additionally, time constraints and field site accessibility issueswere mentioned as factors that hindered the smooth execution of data collection tasks.

Given these challenges, a pre-fieldwork briefing on troubleshooting equipment issues and more flexible data collection schedules could enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of field sessions. Moreover, ensuring all equipment is well-calibrated before field deployment could minimize unexpected disruptions.

Teamwork, Collaboration, and Project Progress

Collaboration is essential in any GIS-related project, as successful spatial analysis often requires team coordination, data-sharing strategies, and synchronized efforts. The survey results indicate that while most students reported positive teamwork experiences, a notable percentage faced difficulties in task delegation and communication. Some groups encountered coordination problems due to unclear role assignments, leading to overlapping efforts or incomplete tasks. One participant noted, “There was confusion in our group about who was responsible for data processing, which led to delays in our project timeline.”

Additionally, several respondents pointed out that differences in technical proficiency within teams created disparities in workload distribution. While some members were proficient in GIS software, others struggled, leading to an imbalance in contributions. One student mentioned, “Some team members are more experienced with GIS, and they end up doing most of the work while others are left behind.” This highlights the importance of structured peer-learning activities and guidance from facilitators to ensure all members contribute effectively.

To improve teamwork dynamics, implementing regular progress meetings and structured task delegation systems could be beneficial. Assigning specific roles (e.g., field data collector, data processor, report writer) with clear responsibilities could help streamline efforts and ensure equal participation from all members.

Technical Challenges and Data Processing Difficulties

Data processing and analysis are core aspects of GIS training, requiring proficiency in spatial data manipulation, geoprocessing, and visualization techniques. While some students found the technical aspects manageable, others encountered challenges in handling large datasets, ensuring spatial accuracy, and performing advanced spatial analysis. One respondent shared, “I struggled with integrating multiple data sources and ensuring projections were correctly aligned.” This suggests that some students require additional guidance on coordinate reference systems and data standardization.

Furthermore, software-related issues, such as crashes and slow processing speeds, were frequently mentioned. These technical disruptions negatively impacted workflow efficiency. One student commented, “Some GIS software crashed multiple times when processing large datasets, which was frustrating.” Addressing this challenge may require optimizing lab computer configurations or providing alternative software solutions that can handle large-scale spatial analysis more efficiently.

Quality of Facilities and Support from Facilitators

The availability of appropriate facilities and instructor support plays a pivotal role in ensuring a smooth learning experience. Most respondents expressed satisfaction with the GIS lab facilities, including the availability of workstations and software tools. One student remarked, “The lab environment was well-equipped, and we had access to all necessary GIS tools.” However, a few respondents pointed out that certain computers experienced slow performance, which affected their workflow.

Regarding instructor and facilitator support, most students praised the guidance provided by lecturers and lab assistants. Many found the facilitators approachable and willing to assist with technical difficulties. One student noted, “The instructors were very supportive and provided helpful feedback on our project progress.” However, a few students suggested that more structured one-on-one mentoring sessions would be beneficial, particularly for those struggling with specific GIS tasks.

Overall Experience and Recommendations for Improvement

Overall, the majority of students expressed positive sentiments about their GIS training experience, stating that it provided valuable practical exposure and enhanced their understanding of geospatial analysis. Most respondents rated their overall satisfaction as 4 or 5 out of 5, reflecting a high level of engagement and perceived learning outcomes.

Nevertheless, based on the feedback, several key recommendations for improvement can be identified:

  1. Enhancing fieldwork efficiency – Ensuring all equipment is tested before field deployment and allowing additional time for data collection to mitigate unexpected issues.
  2. Providing additional software training – Organizing supplementary workshops on advanced GIS techniques, particularly focusing on spatial data integration and analysis.
  3. Improving teamwork structure – Implementing clearer role assignments and peer-learning mechanisms to balance workload distribution.
  4. Optimizing lab facilities – Upgrading lab computers to handle large datasets more effectively and ensuring consistent software performance.
  5. Expanding facilitator engagement – Offering more personalized mentoring sessions to assist students facing technical difficulties.

By addressing these areas, the GIS Training Camp can further enhance its effectiveness and continue to provide a comprehensive, real-world learning experience for students pursuing careers in geoinformatics and geospatial sciences.

Conclusion

The mid-training feedback for GIS Training Camp 2 highlights both strengths and areas for improvement. While students generally found the experience rewarding and educational, challenges in technical aspects, teamwork, and equipment functionality need to be addressed to optimize future training programs. The suggestions provided in this report aim to refine the training structure, ensuring that students gain maximum value from their participation. By implementing these improvements, the program can reinforce its role in shaping skilled GIS professionals with strong practical expertise in geospatial technologies.