ࡱ> 7 RbjbjUU .7|7||Nl 7 7 78X7,7c\9\9"~9~9~9qJqJqJbbbbbbb$c ebqJEqJqJqJbJ~9~9 bJJJqJ"~9~9bJqJbJ JTT~9P9 @a65 7JTTb0cTfJfTJReport on Evaluation of 6th CETIS EC SIG Meeting Sarah Currier, EC SIG Coordinator, 31 March 2003 0. Response to evaluation This is the first evaluation survey carried out for a meeting of the CETIS Educational Content SIG. Evaluation forms were distributed to all 48 participants (not including the organiser/chair) at the 6th EC SIG Meeting at the University of London Library, 25th Feb. 2003. Thirty-three evaluation forms were handed in on the day, with none sent in subsequently. This represents a response rate of 69%. See Appendix for the Evaluation Form. The section numbers below correspond to the question numbers on the Evaluation Form. 1. What sector/area do you work in? (Circle as many as apply) The following tables show the number of respondents affiliated with different educational and organisational sectors, and areas of work. Respondents could circle as many sectors, organisation types and areas of work as they felt appropriate, therefore there is considerable overlap between the totals associated with each sector, and the percentages do not add up to 100%. All educational sectors were represented at the meeting, with the vast majority from CETIS intended user group, HE (70%) & FE (52%). There was considerable overlap between HE and FE (i.e. 36% of total participants stated that they were affiliated with both HE and FE), through working for collaborative projects etc. In addition to HE and FE, the sectors represented included: 6th form college (12%); lifelong learning (12%); community education (9%); secondary (9%); and primary (9%). Table 1.1 Educational sector HE2370%Lifelong learning412%FE1752%Community education39%HE + FE1236%Secondary39%6th form college412%Primary39% A smaller number of pariticpants recorded their association with organisations outwith educational institutions, including 27% working within an institution on an externally funded project. There were also three people (9%) associated with government departments, two from funding bodies (6%), four belonging to standards or specification bodies (12%) and four from companies (12%). Five people (15%) circled other body; specifics were not recorded. Table 1.2 Other type of organisation Government dept.39%Commercial412%Funding body26%Externally funded project927%Standards/specs body412%Other body515%Area of work was of great interest, as there are ongoing discussions within the SIG and CETIS about encouraging participation amongst a wide range of professions and disciplines within education. Once again there is overlap in the figures here as people were able to circle more than one area of work; moreover, many people working in learning technology wear more than one hat. Loosely dividing the categories into techie and non-techie the figures are pretty even. Techies come in at: web design 39%; software development 36%; tool development 21%; IT/LT support 27%. Somewhere in between is courseware design at 27%. Under non-techie (although some of these may actually be doing techie things within their area): research 33%; teaching 21%; educational development 36%; staff development 12%; management 9%; library/information management 24%. Its worth noting however, that there were only seven people who identified themselves as teachers (21%) and that the SIG would like to see this figure rise. Table 1.3 Area of work Research1133%Software development1236%Web design1339%Tool development721%Teaching721%Educational development1236%Courseware design927%Management39%Staff development412%IT/LT support927%Library/info management824% 2. What standards/specs are you interested in? No surprises here: most people were interested in IMS CP, LD and LRM (and IEEE LOM) with figures between 73% and 85% for each of these. Next came IMS SS and ADL SCORM with 45% each. There was some interest in EML (30%) and other educational modelling languages (21%). Five items were listed under Other Content Related Standards/Specs: Pedagogy Forum; DRI; OAI-PMH; Accessibility and Dock Book (most likely refering to EMLs DocBook). One person (possibly the CETIS Enterprise SIG Coordinator) mentioned IMS Enterprise and IMS LIP. One pseron ticked IMS CP but wrote I think! next to it. Table 2. Standards/specs interested in IMS Content Packaging2576%IMS Learning Design2576%IMS LRM2473%OUNL EML1030%IEEE LOM2885%Other educational modelling languages721%IMS Simple Sequencing1545%ADL SCORM1545%Other content related515%Other26% 3. How useful overall did you find the 6th CETIS EC SIG meeting? Unanimously high ratings for the overall usefulness of the meeting: Table 3: Overall usefulness of meeting Very24 (72%)Quite9 (27%)Useful0Not very0 4. Do you feel that the present meeting format is still useful? All but one of the respondents felt the present meeting format was still useful. Nine people made comments and suggestions, with six of these wanting more time for discussion, or just more time. Two of these supported the idea of two-day meetings, while one supported focused meetings. However, one person said they didnt want more frequent meetings and that overflow of discussion to take place on CETIS lists/websites. One person thought that splitting the meetings between technical and pedagogy should be debated; perhaps the Pedagogy Forum will answer this to some extent, as well as having one breakout session at each SIG meeting. This was intended to happen at this meeting but the SIG agreed to change the agenda given the availability of James Dalziel to give a presentation on his IMS LD implementation. Table 4.1: Usefulness of meeting format Yes32 (97%)No1 (3%) Table 4.2: Comments and suggestions 4.2.1More time for discussion would certainly be beneficial, including more time for questions from speakers4.2.2Dont know, only been to one, but two days is probably better4.2.3No more frequent- much as I find them useful, the breeding of CETIS gps means that the more established ones should use lists/websites if more time is needed- not extra f2face4.2.4Could probably do with more time though to get through everything but no suggestions as how to achieve this4.2.5Focussed meetings would be useful. I would appreciate any of the above4.2.6Larger and longer4.2.7A lot to fit into one day- difficult to concentrate towards the end- either 2 day or more frequent should be OK4.2.8I dont think the idea of splitting things between technical implementions and pedagogy experts is a completely bad idea- perhaps it should be debated?4.2.9BUT more discussions would have been good. Not enough ??? for the meat! 5. How useful did you find the sessions? Participants also rated the usefulness of the individual sessions highly. Only one person rated one session Not Very Useful; this was the final discussion session. The form was designed to accommodate the original agenda which included breakout sessions. These were replaced on the day with James Dalziels LAMS presentation. Some participants used the space on the form for breakout sessions to evaluate this presentation, some left it blank and included this rating with their rating of James COLIS presentation. The COLIS presentation scored highest with 72% rating it Very Useful and 21% Quite Useful. The remaining 6% found it Useful. Of the 16 repsondents who used the breakout sessions section of the form to evaluate James LAMS presentation separately, 12 rated it Very Useful and 4 Quite Useful. Close behind was the Specs/Standards Reports section, with 67%, 22% and 6% respectively. The CETIS reports and announcements session was still highly rated, but less so than the other two, with 45%, 36%, and 17% respectively. The final discussion session did least well, but was still valued. Thirteen people didnt fill in this section, which may be due in part to participants having to leave early. Of the remaining 20 replies, 4 rated it Very Useful; 10 Quite Useful; 5 Useful and 1 Not Very Useful. This may relate to earlier comments about the day being long and tiring, and there not being enough time for discussion. Table 5.1: CETIS reports and announcements Very15 (45%)Quite12 (36%)Useful6 (17%)Not very0 Table 5.2: Comments on CETIS reports and announcements 5.2.1Good to get an overall picture5.2.2Prob. need more info. from ped., enterprise and accessibility at a future meeting5.2.3I can see that very new people need this needs to be done (This person rated this session Quite Useful). Table 5.3: Spec/standard reports Very22 (67%)Quite9 (27%)Useful2 (6%)Not very0 Table 5.4: Comments on spec/standard reports 5.4.1Good overview of SCORM very interesting and easy to understand5.4.2Fantastic! Especially IMS update! (NB: Presenter of IMS update wrote this one!)5.4.3Though even if you know a lot about the subject there is too little time to not only listen to what happened but also discuss the topics (This person rated this session Very Useful) Table 5.5: Presentation/demo on COLIS (James Dalziel) Very24 (72%)Quite7 (21%)Useful2 (6%)Not very0 Table 5.6: Comments on COLIS presentation/demo 5.6.1ODRL v. interesting5.6.2Can we get hold of the presentation and access to a demo version of COLIS?5.6.3Information on learning objects useful in particular5.6.4Very useful to see this fascinating work. Brilliant that James is willing to share his work. Great to see IMS in action5.6.5Discussed the same issues as our project. Offered interesting version of learning design design!5.6.6Excellent, puts Learning Design into perspective of user interface5.6.7COLIS demo helps to show what can be done with specs and helped make concept of Learning Design clearer As noted above the breakout sessions did not take place, and James Dalziel gave a presentation of WebMCQs product in development, LAMS. One person noted that they were unable to attend this session, 15 left the space blank, with one of these adding comment 7 in table above. One person ticked Not Very Useful, but didnt make it clear whether they were referring to the actual session, or to the fact that the breakout sessions didnt happen. Table 5.7: Comments specifically on the LAMS presentation 5.7.1Too bad cant show this demo at home yet!5.7.2Very impressive looking product and interesting presentation5.7.3Great intro to LD5.7.4It was great to see JDs application Table 5.8: Final discussion Very4 (12%)Quite10 (30%)Useful5 (15%)Not very1 (3%)No response13 6. Which topics discussed at the meeting would you like to discuss further/have further information on? The following two paragraphs refer to questions 6, 7 and 8, summarised in tables below. IMS Learning Design was the most popular choice for topics on which more information was wanted, with seven people suggesting it. This was followed by requests for information on pedagogy and standards (three people); metadata (three people- this information and the relevant comments will be passed to the Metadata SIG Coordinator); COLIS/WebMCQ developments (three people). Two people wanted more on IMS CP, and this was also reflected in the final question about topics for future SIG meetings, where four people requested presentations/demos on RELOAD/X4L and other CP tools. Other topics which people wanted more information on (one person each suggested these) were: JISC project support; IMS SS; run-time engines and standards; SCORM; and how EC SIG standards/specs relate to other standards/specs. Topics requested for presentations and demos at future meetings included (as well as the CP tools mentioned above): four requests for case studies and practical implementations (Getting learning objects into VLEs); and single requests for: NLN materials; college-created materials; portals; user (rather than developer) perspective; and more of the same. Concluding comments were all glowing. Table 6.1: Summary of meeting topics for further discussion / more information IMS Learning Design7Metadata3 (including 1 secondary metadata)IMS Content Packaging2 (1 CP tools)JISC project support1COLIS/WebMCQ developments3IMS SS1Run-time engines & standards1SCORM1Pedagogy & academic support / pedagogy specification interface / Stuff that is in use in the classroom3How EC SIG developments interact with other specs1 Table 6.2: All comments on meeting topics for further discussion / more information 1.Learning Design2.Content Packaging, metadata standards, support for JISC projects3.Learning Design/COLIS and WebMCQ developments in Learning Design4.Respondent scribbled out Learning Design, saying amendment to afternoon session welcome5.COLIS6.Development of MD to IEEE binding7.LD, how EC SIG work is impacted upon/impacts that of other specs- esp. Enterprise & LIP8.Slides online?9.IMS Sequencing10.Run-time engines and standards / secondary meta data.11.Learning Design & seeing implementation of it was very useful & seeing how it develops with other scenarios would be great. COLIS & the LD environment.12.Its all useful. I can feed back to other project members. Learning Design most valuable as very new.13.SCORM14.More on pedagogy- how to assist academics in use of LDs.15.Learning Design16.CP tools17.Tools that can be used by tutors. Pedagogy / specificaton interface.18.Stuff that is in use in the classroom, institutions. So its not just R&D/hypotheticals. 7. What would you like to see discussed, presented or demod at future SIG meetings? Table 7.1: Summary of ideas for future SIG meetings Case studies / practical implementations etc.4 (including getting LOs into VLEs)RELOAD / X4L / CP tools4NLN materials1College-created resources1User perspective1Portals1More of the same1 Table 7.2: All comments on ideas for future SIG meetings 1.More of the same (how it is done elsewhere)2.Any implementations of specs/based on specs3.More on portals4.How web designers & web application developers can use IMS in practice5.RELOAD tools6.NLN materials7.X4L (esp. tools- RELOAD & JORUM when theyre ready) (Ed. Clarkes presn. At Staffs was v. useful)8.If possible already: X4L tools and content development so far9.Case studies getting learning objects into a VLE10.CP tools11.Perspective of users as well as developers12.College created resources e.g. MS Word, MS ppt? Feel could present on that mixing in college created stuff 8. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for the EC SIG? Table 8: Other comments and suggestions for EC SIG 1.Great, as usual. Orgn. was v. smooth, venue fine2.Hope you manage to turn this into a regular service. Would be a real shame if CETIS and the SIGs would end!3.Thank you for organising this very informative & professional meeting4.Thanks for a great meeting I learned a lot in one day and it was a very effective use of time5.Keep up the good work!6.If youre thinking about more manageable meetings how about a general SIG for report backs? 9. How many SIG meetings have you attended? Table 9: No. of EC SIG meetings attended One24 (72%)Two5 (15%)Three1 (3%)Four1 (3%)Five0Six2 (6%) Thirteen participants out of 49 (27%) were not members of the CETIS EC SIG mailing list at the time of the meeting. Conclusion Overall the 6th EC SIG meeting was a success in terms of how useful participants found it. The problem remains that, as we try to squeeze more and more into the one-day format, people are finding it a long and intense day, and are also wanting more time for discussion. Given that most also think the present format and sessions are useful, and only one or two want longer or more frequent meetings, it appears that ripping a hole in the space-time continuum is the only answer. However, as this is beyond the EC SIG Coordinators capabilities at present, the intention is to follow the lead of the Metadata SIG and cut back on the one area which was rated least useful (by a negligable margin it must be added): the CETIS SIG reports. The information given here can be gleaned by participants by joining the relevant SIGs, so only announcements of direct relevance to the EC SIG will be included. The final discussion session may also be shortened, and comments and suggestions gathered at each relevant discussion session during the meeting. Most people are very tired by the end of the day anyway, and a number leave early for transport reasons. These two measures could free up to an hour and a half for extra discussion time. Additionally, as many of the requests were related to pedagogy and learning design, working closely with the Pedagogy Forum and perhaps holding meetings on subsequent days with them may help. Obviously further evaluations will be carried out to monitor the evolving needs of the EC SIG. Appendix: Evaluation Form for 6th CETIS EC SIG Meeting 1. What sector/area do you work in? (Circle as many as apply) UK Europe North America Australia Other geographical region HE FE 6th Form College Lifelong learning Community education Primary Government dept. Funding body Other public body/institution/association Commercial enterprise Research Software development Web design Tool development Teaching Educational development Courseware design Management Staff development IT/LT support Library / info management Externally funded project Standards/spec development body Please add anything you dont see listed here which you would like recorded: 2. What educational content related interoperability specs or standards are you interested in?  IMS Content Packaging IMS Learning Design IMS Learning Resource Meta-data OUNL Educational Modelling Language IEEE Learning Object Metadata Other educational modelling languages IMS Simple Sequencing ADL SCORM Other content related Other Please name: Please name: 3. How useful overall did you find the 6th CETIS EC SIG meeting? Very useful Quite useful Useful Not very useful 4. Do you feel that the present meeting format is still useful?  Yes No If not please add any suggestions you may have (such as: smaller, more frequent meetings; meetings focused on a particular area; 2-day workshops with more time for discussion). 5. How useful did you find the sessions? (Please add comments and suggestions). CETIS reports and announcements Very useful Quite useful Useful Not very useful Spec/standard reports Very useful Quite useful Useful Not very useful Presentation/demo on COLIS (James Dalziel) Very useful Quite useful Useful Not very useful Breakout sessions Very useful Quite useful Useful Not very useful Final discussion Very useful Quite useful Useful Not very useful 6. Which topics discussed at the meeting would you like to discuss further/have further information on? 7. What would you like to see discussed, presented or demod at future SIG meetings? (Include your own work here if you feel it would be useful to the SIG) 8. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for the EC SIG? 9. How many EC SIG meeting have you attended? One Two Three Four Five Six 10. If you would like an individual response to any of your comments, please give your name and contact details here. PAGE  PAGE 9 1IK N R k n u   / 5 @ U^*1IU>FMV^gn6z{HIq 5H*\5\H* 5CJH*\ 5CJ\\1bcdeBC* + H K N R d f j $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If$a$$a$$a$|RRj k n q u HB99B9 $$Ifa$$If$$Iflֈ \ &   V064 la ?|99$If$$Iflֈ \ &   V064 la $$Ifa$ ?9$If$$Iflֈ \ &   V064 la $$Ifa$ 94$a$$$Iflֈ \ &   V064 la $$Ifa$$If $If $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If$a$   HB99B9 $$Ifa$$If$$Iflֈ \   4( V064 la   / 1 5 @ ?99$If$$Iflֈ \   4( V064 la $$Ifa$@ B F G =>U?=86$a$$$Iflֈ \   4( V064 la $$Ifa$U^aez}$If $$Ifa$$IfHB99B9 $$Ifa$$If$$Iflֈ \    V064 la?99$If$$Iflֈ \    V064 la $$Ifa$?9$If$$Iflֈ \    V064 la $$Ifa$9$$Iflֈ \    V064 la $$Ifa$$If*,01I9$$Iflֈ \    V064 la$If $$Ifa$IKOPQRS6$$Iflֈ \    V064 la $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$STU"69=$If $$Ifa$$If$a$ =>FIMVYHB99B9 $$Ifa$$If$$Iflֈ \   I V064 laY]^gjn?99$If$$Iflֈ \   I V064 la $$Ifa$?9$If$$Iflֈ \   I V064 la $$Ifa$9$$Iflֈ \   I V064 la $$Ifa$$If9$$Iflֈ \   I V064 la$If $$Ifa$56z{ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$a$"$a$$$Iflִ 8a ))))))**06    4 laHIqu~ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$a$ qu~#`h!jr XZ\ !!!!!!i#t#y###### $!$x$$$$$$;%A%%&3&9&y&&&&''''+(1(F(L(((((U)[)))* *++o,u,,,,,,-*-F- 56\]6]5\_nig^^ $$Ifa$$a$$$Ifl\8 RRSS064 la#abh!8d $$Ifa$k$$Ifl0L 064 laklr  YZ[\*+|<$a$k$$Ifl0L 064 la $$Ifa$+ $!$L$Q$Z$`$i$p$r$x$$$ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$a$$$$"$a$$$Iflִ 8a ))))))**06    4 la$$$$$$:%;%A%%%%%%%d{ $$Ifa$$a$k$$Ifl0L 064 la $$Ifa$%%%%%%%%&& $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ &&&"$a$$$Iflִ 8a ))))))**06    4 la&3&9&x&y&&&&&'''''\$a$$a$k$$Ifl0L 064 la $$Ifa$ ''''''''''' $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ '''"$a$$$Iflִ 8a ))))))**06    4 la'+(1(E(F(L(((((((T)U)[))Hk$$Ifl0L 064 la $$Ifa$)))** *u*v*w*x*4,5,o,u,,,($a$ $$Ifa$k$$Ifl0L 064 la,,,,,,,-(-)-*-+-G-L-dx $$Ifa$$a$$a$k$$Ifl0L 064 la $$Ifa$ L-N-T-Z-c-j-l-r-{-}---------V.W.}1~1 3 3 3$a$$a$Ff $$Ifa$$If $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$F-r-{----}1~1 3 3\3p3s3|333333334 4&4(4/4244444(5+5<5?55555&6)60636V6Y666666677778#8)8.8h8l8|888888882949999:,:.:=:?:Z:\:n:p:y:{::::::::*;-;>;A;; 5>*\6]5\` 3\3p3r3s3|3333333333`tk$$Ifl09 064 la $$Ifa$$If$a$33344 4&4(4)4/414244444($$Ifk$$Ifl09 064 la $$Ifa$4444(5+5;5$a$k$$Ifl09 064 la $$Ifa$;5<5?5555555%6&6)6/60636U6V6(p $$Ifa$k$$Ifl0 064 laV6Y6666666666777777LLtk$$Ifl0 064 la $$Ifa$788#8)8*8.8g8h8l8|8}888888,T8(k$$Ifl0 064 la $$Ifa$888192949599999:t~u $$Ifa$$If$a$ $$Ifa$k$$Ifl0 064 la ::,:.:/:=:?:@:Z:\:]:n:p:q:y:{:lDtP, $$Ifa$$Ifk$$Ifl09 064 la{:|::::::::P~$a$ $$Ifa$$Ifk$$Ifl09 064 la:::);*;-;=;>;A;;;;;;;;;P,DH $$Ifa$k$$Ifl0 064 la;;;;;;<<V<Y<<<<<<<====[>^>>> ? ?$?'???@@@@FFFFWGYGAIIIIIJJrJtJJJKKKKKKKKKKKL=L>L@LLLLL\M`MMMMINj5UmHnHsH 5 6H*\] 56] 6\] jUjUmHnHsH \ 5H*\H*6]5\K;;<<<U<V<Y<<<<<<<<<<8k$$Ifl0 064 la $$Ifa$<>=?=@=A========Z>[>^>($a$$a$k$$Ifl0 064 la $$Ifa$^>>>>? ? ?#?$?'??????l$a$$a$k$$Ifl0 064 la $$Ifa$????????@ @@@@@"@#@$@@@@@@@FFF$a$Ff $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$a$F G GMGNGGGGGAHHHHH@IAIIIJrJJKgKKKK$a$$a$   0`PK>L@LLL`MaMMM2N3NINNNN/O4OLOOOOP  P  ,P^,   ,P^, ,^,`  kP k,P^,INMNNNLOPOOOPPQXQYQQQQRR{R|R}RRRRRRRRRRRRR0J j0JUjUmHnHsH \ 6\]5\j5UmHnHsH  PPzP{PQQYQZQQQRRR|RRRRRRRRR&`#$ 9r $a$ ,^,`  P,1h. A!"#$% $$Ifl g ~ oRs !980x!6((((4 laO$$Ifl  ;kO M  0600004 la i@@@NormalCJ_HaJmHnHsH tH u2@2 Heading 1$@&5\>`> Heading 2$$@&a$ 56\]<A@< Default Paragraph Font,B@, Body Text5\0P`0 Body Text 2$a$,@,Header  9r &)@!& Page NumberN761bcdeBC*+HKNRdfjknqu    / 1 5 @ B F G = > U ^ a e z } *,01IKOPQRSTU"69=>FIMVY]^gjn56z{HIqu~#abh!klr  YZ[\*+ ! L Q Z ` i p r x :!;!A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""""3"9"x"y"""""#################+$1$E$F$L$$$$$$$T%U%[%%%%&& &u&v&w&x&4(5(o(u((((((((()()))*)+)G)L)N)T)Z)c)j)l)r){)})))))))))V*W*}-~- / /\/p/r/s/|////////////00 0&0(0)0/010200000000(1+1;1<1?1111111%2&2)2/20232U2V2Y222222222233333344#4)4*4.4g4h4l4|4}4444444415254555555566,6.6/6=6?6@6Z6\6]6n6p6q6y6{6|6666666666)7*7-7=7>7A7777777777888U8V8Y8888888888>9?9@9A99999999Z:[:^::::; ; ;#;$;';;;;;;;;;;;;;< <<<<<"<#<$<<<<<<<BBB C CMCNCCCCCADDDDD@EAEEEFrFFGgGGGG>H@HHH`IaIII2J3JIJJJJ/K4KLKKKKLLzL{LMMYMZMMMNNN|NNNNN00000 00e0e0e0e0e0e0e0e0e0e0e0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+000+0+0e000000000000000000000000e0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0e000000000000000000000000000000000000000000e0}0}0}0}0}0}0}0}0}0}0}0}0}0}0}00e0L0L0L0L0L00e00000000000000000000000000000000000000e0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 00e0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000e0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!00e0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "00e0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0e0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0=(0000@000=(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(000,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0,(0U0q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q000U0x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x100U0k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40k40U06060606060606060606060606060000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0@0@0 0 qF-;INR,GWbij  @ UIS=Y+$$%&&'''),L- 334;5V678:{::;<^>?FKPR-/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVXYZ[\]^_`acdefghjR. !!845@ +4X (  <  # ? <  # ? <  # ?<  # ? <   # ?<   # ?<   # ?<   # ?<   # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?<  # ?#<  # ?"<  # ?!<  # ? < " # ?< # # ?< % # ?< & # ? < ' # ?< ( # ?< ) # ? < * # ?< + # ?< , # ?< - # ?< . # ?< / # ?)< 0 # ?(< 1 # ?%< 2 # ?'< 3 # ?&< 4 # ?$B S  ?EEEFrFsFFFGGGGGHHHIIIIIJJJKJLJJJJJLKMKNKOKKKKKMMMMMMN*"#t+"#t%y Pty Pt," #t'y Pt-")#t(y "Pt."+#t)y $Pt&`N7%t>t>kt@ >t# J !t"CJ!t <t BZt  B t 'BtN%tJN!%t N %t 'N%tJY!0tY0t Y 0t'Y0te<tJe!<t e <t'e<t7tpZGt p Gt'pGt4!"t15 t3^t2t0 t/^5t6E>E|NNN|NNNCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docCurrieruC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evaluation.docHKNRdfjknqu    / 1 5 @ B F G U ^ a e z } *,01IKOPQRS"69=>FIMVY]^gjnqu~#abh!klr  YZL Q Z ` i p x :!;!A!!!!!!!!!!"""3"9"x"y"""""############+$1$E$F$L$$$$$$$T%U%[%%%%&& &u&v&o(u((((((((()()))G)L)T)Z)c)j)r){)))))\/p/r/s/|////////////00 0&0(0)0/01020000000(1+1;1<1?1111111%2&2)2/20232U2V2Y222222222233333344#4)4*4.4g4h4l4|4}4444444415255566,6.6/6=6?6@6Z6\6]6n6p6q6y6{6|666666666)7*7-7=7>7A7777777777888U8V8Y8888888888>9?999999Z:[:^::::; ; ;#;$;';;;;;;;;;< <<<<<"<#<N@?E?Eh?E ENp@UnknownG: Times New Roman5Symbol3& : Arial"h rs&s&RLZ @!!r0yO2Q&Evaluation of 6th CETIS EC SIG MeetingCurrierCurrierOh+'0 $0 L X d p|'Evaluation of 6th CETIS EC SIG Meeting valCurrierurrurrNormalCurrier82rMicrosoft Word 9.0E@>a.@U@F5>@fg^Z @՜.+,0( hp  University of Strathclyde !yO 'Evaluation of 6th CETIS EC SIG Meeting Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijkmnopqrsuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FaData l1TabletfWordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPoolaa  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q