At the end of the seminar, each participant was given an evaluation form on which to express his or her opinion of the way in which the course had been designed and delivered, and on ways in which it could be improved. The form began with “closed” questions, the participant being asked to state his or her degree of satisfaction on a scale running from 1 (the lowest mark) to 5 (the highest). There were also “open” questions inviting comments and suggestions from the trainees.

From these results, it is apparent that the participants' general appreciation of the course was very positive. For instance, the general quality of the course (4.69), the way in which it was organized (4.75) and the suitability of the course content to the objectives of the seminar (4.63) were all rated considerably more highly than the average for activities run by the ILO Training Centre in 2004.

Particularly striking were the high levels of satisfaction expressed in response to some areas covered by the questionnaire. This was true, for example, of the documentation provided (4.69), the contribution made by resource persons (4.56), and the quality of the secretariat (4.50).

However, some aspects of the course were rated less favourably. This was true, in particular, of the time devoted to each topic and the usefulness of the video-conferences. It should be pointed out that the marks for the preliminary information received by the participants (3.50) and the extent to which gender issues were dealt with during the seminar (4.06), though not very high, were nevertheless better than the average for activities run by the ILO Training Centre in 2004 and for all the activities organized by the Freedom of Association Programme in 2005. In our opinion, this reflects, on the first topic, the provision of a course website with preparatory reading and exercises for the participants and, on the second one, the fact that the course included a special session on collective bargaining and equal employment opportunities.