|
|
- The first year the group of participants was very mixed and comprised teachers with little hockey experience and trainers without any background in method. It would have been better, if 2 different 'pre-courses' had preceded the MoU courses: one for teachers to improve their knowledge of hockey and another to inform trainers about methods and didactical aspects.
- In the second and third years the group level was far more homogeneous. This meant that fewer hockey trainers dropped out of the programme. The Dutch proposed running the programme with two levels while the instructors were visiting: a lower level in the morning and a higher one in the afternoon (or vice versa). This proposal was rejected.
- Only 25 participants attended the entire three-year course. The main reasons were inadequate communication (the course was announced late) and little or no follow-up after the course ended. In a future project, mentors should be assigned to guide individual participants.
- At all centres participants were highly motivated throughout the three years of the course.
|
|
|