Evaluation+Committee

Peggy Connell phconnel@samford.edu Erica Tanner etanner@uwa.edu Erica King eking@uwa.edu Roberta Fugett frugett@mrtc.com Mindy Crain-Dorough mindy.dorough@selu.edu
 * Volunteers from the 2012 Annual Meeting: **

Spring 2013 Report ** Evaluation Committee **** I would like to do a survey of conference attendees concerning the use of displays as a means of gaining tenure. **** Also, those members who attend should be more timely in completing conference evaluations. We still don't get enough each year. **** Dianne **

MSERA Spring Board Meeting

February 24-26, 2011

Evaluation Committee: Rose Jones & Janet Boyce

** MSERA Annual Meeting Evaluation Report **

November 2010

Mobile, Alabama

Evaluation forms were returned at the evaluation table and two were completed on-line. The meeting in Mobile, Alabama was well received by attendees. Most were professionals, current members, and attended all three days. Of those responding to the survey, 95% indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of the papers presented, 97% were satisfied or very satisfied with the grouping of the presentations, 95% were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall planning and organization of the meeting, 98% were satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of the meeting program, 92% were satisfied or very satisfied with the meeting facilities, and 96% were pleased with the overall quality of service provided by the hotel.

A majority indicated this was an excellent conference and they plan to attend next year. Some compliments about the conference were the quality, the professionalism, and the warm and friendly atmosphere. The Research in Progress (RIP), mentoring, and professional development opportunities were also appreciated by more than a few. Concerns included the use of two hotels, parking ease, and technology availability. Suggestions included continuing to offer RIP sessions and make them open to non-grad students, better coffee service, and more and better technology (a code for free wireless access).

** MSERA Annual Meeting Evaluation Report ** ** November 2010 **


 * 1) **Membership Status** Professional: 40 Graduate Students: 16
 * 2) **Are You a new member:** Yes: 17 No: 37

Wednesday: 46 Thursday: 46 Friday: 33
 * 1) **On which days did you attend the conference?**

Opinion || Very Dissatisfied || Dissatisfied || Satisfied || Very Satisfied ||
 * **4.**
 * How satisfied were you with the following aspects of the meeting? ** || No
 * a. Over quality of papers presented || 2 || 1 ||  || 32 || 24 ||
 * b. Grouping and scheduling of papers in sessions ||  || 1 || 1 || 24 || 33 ||
 * c. Overall planning and organization of the meeting ||  || 1 || 3 || 21 || 35 ||
 * d. Overall quality of the meeting program ||  || 1 ||   || 29 || 30 ||
 * e. Overall quality of the meeting facilities ||  ||   || 5 || 22 || 36 ||
 * f. Overall quality of service provided by the hotel || 2 ||  || 1 || 23 || 31 ||

Poor (0) Average (1) Good (25) Excellent (31)
 * 1) **As a Whole, how would you rate this year’s Annual Meeting?**

Yes (48) No (0) Not Sure (10)
 * 1) **Do you plan to attend next year’s annual meeting?**

**Additional Comments** 2011, 2012 Rose Jones, Co-Chair, University of Southern Mississippi, ROSEBJONES@aol.com
 * 1) **What did you especially like or consider to be especially good about this year’s meeting?**
 * Encouragement of graduate students
 * The LCD projectors in all presentation rooms
 * Fellowship with friends
 * I liked receiving feedback and suggestions on my research
 * The choice of presentations and groupings
 * Quality of presentations and networking
 * Sessions were well thought out and papers built on each other
 * Grouping and sessions
 * Variety of sessions
 * Meeting times great, enjoyed, and still had time for lunch
 * Food was excellent, poster sessions, students were welcome
 * Thematic grouping of sessions was excellent
 * The enthusiasm among all
 * Good schedule – enough time between sessions, activities, etc.
 * The variety of research topics
 * The groupings of presentations especially well done - Strands were well chosen and generally very tightly followed
 * Quality of sessions
 * The variety of sessions
 * Training session
 * Content
 * Training sessions on APA style and writing were very helpful
 * Groom Mentors Training Sessions
 * This was my first MSERA without friends / collaborators from my school, but you would never know it. The warmth, welcome and wealth of gatherings were truly appreciated!
 * Friendly faculty – very supportive
 * Presentation by faculty from South Alabama – I also appreciate the mentor sessions for Grad students
 * Adequate restrooms! That was great – really! – Nice Facilities
 * Research in Progress
 * RIP
 * The Continued professionalism and friendliness
 * The participants
 * Training Sessions
 * RIP sessions
 * Variety and choices of sessions
 * Friendliness of hotel staff
 * The organization of topics per sections
 * The mentor session was extremely good
 * The meeting is very friendly, especially to graduate students. I enjoyed the RIP session.
 * The papers were diverse and high quality. The papers represented a good mixture of theoretical and research based articles that gave ideas for future research.
 * Strong program! Good job of grouping papers!
 * Organization was very professional and efficient
 * 1) **What did you especially dislike or consider to be especially bad about this year’s meeting?**
 * Several presentations were not related to research although their titles led us to believe they were (probably abstracts were misleading) These presenters also did not have papers prepared.
 * Location- I didn’t have a car to find other places to eat outside of the hotel.
 * Having to migrate between two venues for only one event
 * Elevator stuck
 * We need to have projectors
 * Map of hotel was difficult to read. No designation of which hotel the session rooms were in- 2 hotels used and rain/wind made it hard to go between them
 * No easy access to coffee – everything else was good
 * Would like to be only one meeting hotel
 * Pre-knowledge of where meetings were going to be held would’ve been very helpful. The choice of room for “how to publish” was poor. Should’ve considered how popular the topic would be at a research meeting.
 * Program distribution- I preregistered but never received a program. I was told they were only printed for onsite registration and ran out.
 * No program given at registration
 * Our preside did not show up in our session
 * Facility was confusing to locate rooms and the shipbuilder’s table too close to MSERA table for registration
 * 1 session of Bloom’s Taxonomy was not helpful at all (Assessment in Higher Ed)
 * Having two hotel buildings with different meetings in different locations
 * Several sessions scheduled together at same time, but in different rooms – I could not attend them all – Great thanks to all for door prizes at meetings
 * Having to walk to lunch in a downpour!
 * Chairs on 4th floor – Why couldn’t the hotel provide enough? They have known that we were coming for 12 months!
 * Professional Development was limited
 * I would like to see more accessibility to technology
 * The 2 hotels
 * Parking, lack of interest, lack of tech available, small session spaces
 * There was a shortage of chairs - changing projectors
 * Rain – ha – ha
 * The overlap with the other conference was confusing – 2 hotels were tiring
 * Cost of parking – Would it be possible to have complimentary parking or validations?
 * A significant minority of presenters did not provide papers at their presentation.
 * The keynote speaker was weak - Would have liked coffee / hot tea stations in a.m. in lobby
 * I would have wanted to know that meetings were to be in both hotels
 * 1) **What type of sessions or activities would you like to see offered or expanded upon in future annual meetings?**
 * Same as this year variety
 * These were all fine
 * I liked the mentoring and the research in progress activities.
 * The ones we had were great!
 * Dossier prep for promotion and tenure
 * Applying appropriate methods in research design
 * What designs match problems / research questions
 * Research in Progress
 * Perhaps more workshops and panel discussions
 * More involvement of Graduate students
 * Research in Progress session for any member (not only Graduate students)
 * I realize this sounds ridiculous, but coffee service is really important and should’ve been available on site - All else was really well done!
 * Longer time for Mentor sessions – 1hour block did not allow enough students the opportunity to ask questions
 * More info / longer time in sessions for writing, publication, APA
 * Presentation session and Training Session
 * Round Table Discussions on Research Methodologies
 * Parties
 * Keynote – big one
 * Better food at luncheon
 * STEM research
 * Accessing Data, Networking for opportunities, Technology Training
 * Definitely continue the research in progress sessions
 * Innovative learning environments – distance presentations – improve MSERA website
 * Seminars in panels
 * Keep up the great sessions and activities
 * Technology
 * Virtual presentations
 * Technology sessions
 * RIP and poster sessions
 * I would like to have a choice format that allows researchers to send their papers early to be reviewed and then commented upon after presented to provide constructive criticism to the researcher.
 * Have electronic repository for power point presentations, so can easily access power point – as some presenters did not provide paper copies
 * How can we get our graduate students on the program for exposure and mentoring? I this open to everyone?
 * 1) **What type of sessions or activities do you think should be discontinued, reduced, or changed for future annual meetings?**
 * I am fine with all of them –but would like to see more poster sessions
 * Perhaps require longer abstract to screen submissions for appropriateness
 * Social activities a little more
 * Longer time for Mentor sessions
 * There is a good Mix
 * The 40th Celebrations
 * Displays were poorly attended – Didn’t have full papers
 * Choice format and papers reviewed early and after papers presented given constructive criticism
 * Consider a coding listing to align people with sessions-e.g. Jones 2C (Thursday, 3rd session 10:30) to facilitate locating people
 * Had excellent time as usual! Keep up your fine work. Glad to see so much recognition and attendance at the enjoyable business meeting!
 * Every presentation required to have a full paper, not just a power point handout
 * Excellent conference overall! Thanks
 * I like the membership dues being part of the conference registration. The dues and registration costs are very reasonable.
 * Good group of folks – Well done
 * Loved the speaker this year - Hope next year’s will be as fun as he was
 * I was particularly impressed with the close connections between participating presenters at every session I attended (and I attended a lot). This made for excellent discussions among presenters and between presenters and audience.
 * Why not have a code so we can have free wireless access?
 * Podcast was Excellent as was RIP and the Mentoring
 * I am not sure if it was clear to graduate students that if they present a paper and also win an award, they must present again on Friday. Make sure they understand this tradition.
 * Program suggestion: Each page of the program should have MSERA and the date so that every page shows the organization and year.

2011, 2012 Dianne Richardson, Co-Chair, Walden University gloria.richardson3@waldenu.edu or overworked5377@yahoo.com