Workshop Evaluations: Open-ended questions
Here is a summary of the responses to the last four questions on the evaluation questionnaire. The question posed is followed by analysis of the responses it generated.
8. Which portions of the workshop were most helpful to you, and why?
The most frequent response to this question was the invited talk given by Larry Lesser of the University of Texas, El Paso. It was mentioned by 12 of the 23 respondents, or just over half. A close second, mentioned by 10 respondents, was the presentation made by Jonathan Osler.
Three aspects of the workshop were mentioned by 7 respondents; they were: (i) the opportunity to meet and interact with other participants, (ii) the library session led by Terese Heidenwolf and Amy Abruzzi, and (iii) "everything." Beside these indications of blanket approval, virtually every aspect of the workshop was mentioned or inferred by at least one respondent.
Here is one memorable response to this question:
"All of it--especially interaction with other participants! I'm very impressed with the local talent (mathematicians, recently tenured English Prof., librarians, Bonnie...)" Although the workshop had a shoestring budget, I am fortunate to be at an institution that provides exceptional resources, and I am happy to have this confirmation of my confidence that they came together to provide a key component of the workshop.
9. Which portions of the workshop were least helpful to you, and why?
This question drew a few responses of "nothing," and fewer responses overall than the preceding question. Four aspects of the workshop came in a tie as most commonly mentioned as least helpful, although each drew only 4 negative responses. Dennis's talk spoke to issues that some participants (none of whom came from community colleges) did not find salient to their situations. Similarly, several participants mentioned that they were not considering using writing in their courses, and so didn't get much out of John and Bianca's panel. Another least-helpful session according to multiple respondents was the blogging session. This is natural, since the blog ended up not serving the purpose I intended. A final common response to this question regarded the placement and structure of the small group discussion session. I address this issue below, in the analysis of question 11.
10. How would you like to see the work begun at the conference continued?
The most popular response to this question was additional workshops, with 13 respondents requesting more, and some specifically requesting at least one more workshop before arranging for a conference session where the results could be presented. Such a conference session was the next most popular request, with 8 respondents. All other respondents requested all or some part of the workshop's final outcome: working groups developing curricular modules and the entire group staying in contact at least until this process is completed.
11. If there were to be another course development workshop, how would you alter the structure and content of this one to improve it?
The most common request was for more time at the workshop. Most of these requests were coupled with a desire to begin the actual module development at the workshop, but others said that they needed time to digest all that the were exposed to in the workshop. The decision to keep the workshop short was made out of a desire to be economical, both with money and with participants' time. Given the breadth and strength of interest in the topic, I might have asked participants for both more time and more money, and made the workshop last a full three, or even four days.
Two other issues were raised less frequently, but deserve consideration: First, that the breadth of pedagogical sessions (writing, service-learning, library) might have been replaced with sessions devoted to the content of the modules to be developed. The decision on my part to offer sessions on pedagogy rather than content was primarily an economical one: I knew of local talent who could speak effectively to the pedagogical issues, while professionals prepared to speak to content are few and far between. It was cheaper to address pedagogy than talent. With a full year to prepare and awareness that I might spend a few more dollars, I would probably naturally move in the direction these participants indicate.
Second, that there needed to be more opportunities for group discussion, particularly in small groups. This is another legitimate request that might be fulfilled with more time, or fewer panels/presentations. Looking back, we might have been served better by more presentations on the first day and more time to talk on the last two days. This is a rookie mistake.
In closing this post, I'd like to share a delightfully positive unsolicited comment included at the bottom of one evaluation: "This was the most fun, energetic, inspiring workshop of this type that I have ever attended." Thanks for sharing this. The workshop has been a transformative experience for me, as well. Here's hoping that the energy and inspiration keeps us all going through the hard work of module creation this summer, and beyond.
8. Which portions of the workshop were most helpful to you, and why?
The most frequent response to this question was the invited talk given by Larry Lesser of the University of Texas, El Paso. It was mentioned by 12 of the 23 respondents, or just over half. A close second, mentioned by 10 respondents, was the presentation made by Jonathan Osler.
Three aspects of the workshop were mentioned by 7 respondents; they were: (i) the opportunity to meet and interact with other participants, (ii) the library session led by Terese Heidenwolf and Amy Abruzzi, and (iii) "everything." Beside these indications of blanket approval, virtually every aspect of the workshop was mentioned or inferred by at least one respondent.
Here is one memorable response to this question:
"All of it--especially interaction with other participants! I'm very impressed with the local talent (mathematicians, recently tenured English Prof., librarians, Bonnie...)" Although the workshop had a shoestring budget, I am fortunate to be at an institution that provides exceptional resources, and I am happy to have this confirmation of my confidence that they came together to provide a key component of the workshop.
9. Which portions of the workshop were least helpful to you, and why?
This question drew a few responses of "nothing," and fewer responses overall than the preceding question. Four aspects of the workshop came in a tie as most commonly mentioned as least helpful, although each drew only 4 negative responses. Dennis's talk spoke to issues that some participants (none of whom came from community colleges) did not find salient to their situations. Similarly, several participants mentioned that they were not considering using writing in their courses, and so didn't get much out of John and Bianca's panel. Another least-helpful session according to multiple respondents was the blogging session. This is natural, since the blog ended up not serving the purpose I intended. A final common response to this question regarded the placement and structure of the small group discussion session. I address this issue below, in the analysis of question 11.
10. How would you like to see the work begun at the conference continued?
The most popular response to this question was additional workshops, with 13 respondents requesting more, and some specifically requesting at least one more workshop before arranging for a conference session where the results could be presented. Such a conference session was the next most popular request, with 8 respondents. All other respondents requested all or some part of the workshop's final outcome: working groups developing curricular modules and the entire group staying in contact at least until this process is completed.
11. If there were to be another course development workshop, how would you alter the structure and content of this one to improve it?
The most common request was for more time at the workshop. Most of these requests were coupled with a desire to begin the actual module development at the workshop, but others said that they needed time to digest all that the were exposed to in the workshop. The decision to keep the workshop short was made out of a desire to be economical, both with money and with participants' time. Given the breadth and strength of interest in the topic, I might have asked participants for both more time and more money, and made the workshop last a full three, or even four days.
Two other issues were raised less frequently, but deserve consideration: First, that the breadth of pedagogical sessions (writing, service-learning, library) might have been replaced with sessions devoted to the content of the modules to be developed. The decision on my part to offer sessions on pedagogy rather than content was primarily an economical one: I knew of local talent who could speak effectively to the pedagogical issues, while professionals prepared to speak to content are few and far between. It was cheaper to address pedagogy than talent. With a full year to prepare and awareness that I might spend a few more dollars, I would probably naturally move in the direction these participants indicate.
Second, that there needed to be more opportunities for group discussion, particularly in small groups. This is another legitimate request that might be fulfilled with more time, or fewer panels/presentations. Looking back, we might have been served better by more presentations on the first day and more time to talk on the last two days. This is a rookie mistake.
In closing this post, I'd like to share a delightfully positive unsolicited comment included at the bottom of one evaluation: "This was the most fun, energetic, inspiring workshop of this type that I have ever attended." Thanks for sharing this. The workshop has been a transformative experience for me, as well. Here's hoping that the energy and inspiration keeps us all going through the hard work of module creation this summer, and beyond.
posted by Rob Root at
9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home