The University of Missouri at Columbia
CIITN 2001 Conference - September 21 - 23, 2001

Conference Evaluations
5 strongly agree, 4 agree, 3 neutral, 2 disagree, 1 strongly disagree
14 of 17 participants responded

Criteria of evaluation CIITN 2001
This conference was a good opportunity to think about student learning and my teaching practices 4.79
The overall content of the conference will help me to develop effective practices in my courses 4.57
The format of the program held my interest 4.50
I enjoyed the opportunity to participate in a session with colleagues from the other campuses 4.86
There was ample opportunity to interact with colleagues 4.57
I'd welcome another opportunity to learn from Drs. Glaser and Groccia 4.62
The presenters were effective models of best practices in higher education 4.86
I acquired new knowledge and skill(s) about the use of ...
... the internet to teach chemistry 4.71
... newspapers to teach chemistry 4.71
... student-assisted teaching methods to teach chemistry 4.29
... assessment techniques 4.00
I would benefit from additional training on the use of ...
... the internet to teach chemistry 4.00
... newspapers to teach chemistry 3.83
... student-assisted teaching methods to teach chemistry 4.38
... assessment techniques 4.29
This conference would be valuable for other faculty to help improve the teaching of chemistry 4.67



What did you like best about the conference?

1.  The balance between presentation & discussion/group work was just 
    right.
2.  Just being exposed to the wealth of educational ideas.
3.  Everything.  It was a well planned, well organized conference.  I 
    particularly enjoyed group discussions.  Also, getting to know several 
    colleagues from various universities.
4.  Good how-to for something I've been wanting to do.
5.  Great interaction and discussion with colleagues and many 
    wonderful ideas shared.
6.  Sharing ideas with colleagues.
7.  I found Dr. Glaser's presentations/Lab-workshop very informative.
8.  Rainer has a nice combination of educational expertise and innovative 
    thinking, and a gentle presentation style that doesn't force his views 
    on others.
9.  The participants were excellent including facilitators (great 
    group of people).  The food and lodging choices were great.  We were 
    well-treated.  Rainer was excited, professional with his presentation.  
    He was an excellent host.
10. Informal, all participants interested in teaching.
11. It moved well, didn't lag.  Good mix of theory and practice.
12. The instructor - Dr. Glaser - his enthusiasm about the 
    subject/learning is remarkable.  No. of hours/yrs he has put in to 
    develop this tool for us is a great benefit to chemistry (students/
    teachers), learning and society as a whole.
13. Meals & accommodations were superb, good interaction w/ others.
14. Computer work - help find realistic expectations.  Connections with real.


What would have improved the conference?

1.  Minor!  In/Out access of building during breaks etc, drink options 
    other than coffee.
2.  Having the web template available all hrs.  I realize this takes 
    an enormous amount of work.
3.	
4.  Early enough to implement this semester.
5.  More time to develop a news item.
6.  The chance to talk to one or two students who participated in the 
    course.
7.	
8.  Website tools made available; more emphasis on ways to improve 
    teaching productivity; perhaps condense the workshop to one day.
9.  The section on the computers (Saturday) afternoon went a little 
    long.  8:00 was a little early to start the meeting.
10. Facilitate opportunity to discuss in group(s) informally "back at 
    the hotel".
11. Really nothing.  I might have liked to spent a bit more time on 
    actually doing one of the activities.  Our time in the lab was a bit 
    hectic.  We took too long finding an article and didn't have time to 
    develop links, questions, etc.
12. Maybe have a session with students as well.  Spend more time with 
    applications (students/etc.).
13. Too much "top-down".  Would be better to have individual presentations 
    by participants.  Slides could not be read.  Poor black board technique.  
    Glaser's website not adequately hyperlinked to itself. List of internet 
    links should be supplied to audience.  Grocchia's hand-outs extensive.  
    Glaser's were not.
14. N/A  


CIITN future activities should include

1.  Maybe conferences where people from a variety of scientific 
    disciplines participate.  A way for participants to continue a 
    discussion as they try these ideas.
2.  Follow up conferences.
3.  A couple of presentations by those who attended the conference.
4.  -Follow-up on this project.
    -Other chem classes.
5.	
6.  Ways to expand to other areas/courses.
7.	
8.  Website tools, canned packages that participants can take home and 
    start immediately.
9.  I cannot come up something right now.
10. Larger programs/schools?
11.	
12.	
13.	
14. Advancing plans for inter college peer review.


Other comments?

1.  The planning & the assistance from students allowed for all our 
    needs to be met so that we were able to focus more completely.
2.	
3.  Thank you for everything.
4.  GREAT FOOD!  I look forward to getting the software tools & using 
    them.
5.  Great workshop.
6.	
7.  A very well organized and useful conference.
8.  Rainer is a highly talented and experienced teacher with very high 
    commitment to his CIITN project.  Many instructors may feel that they 
    are not capable of trying CIITN, or committing major time to it.
9.  I don't know if I can repeat what was presented myself, but would 
    be interested once the tools are up & running.  I did learn or was 
    reminded about the importance of breaks and problem sessions.  It was 
    great that Jim G. was with us for the whole session.  I learned a lot. 
10. Thanks!  Your work is inspiring, yet almost intimidating.
11.	
12. A wonderful weekend of learning & interactions.  I strongly 
    recommend it to others (young and old).
13.	
14. I am always a little uncomfortable with comments that imply that 
    all lecturers/lectures are poor tools for learning.  They are not!  
    Often students do best with a broad combination of learning methods.