–ѕа°±б>ю€ 24ю€€€1€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€м•Ѕ7 рњ=$bjbjUU .07|7|# €€€€€€lЮЮЮЮЮЮЮ≤8H T≤I ґtt"ЦЦЦЦЦЦ»      $€  ¶оЮЦЦЦЦЦоЏЮЮЦЦ ЏЏЏЦ"ЮЦЮЦ»ЏЦ»ЏаЏЇЮЮЇЦh ај@Ю™ч¬≤^Є"Ї» 0I Ї≈ Џ≈ ЇЏ≤≤ЮЮЮЮўReport on Evaluation of 6th CETIS EC SIG Meeting Executive Summary Sarah Currier, EC SIG Coordinator, 31 March 2003 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%. Composition of Meeting Participants Thirty-six (73%) of the total 49 meeting participants were already SIG members, i.e. they belonged to the SIG JISCmail list, at the time of the meeting. Only one non-member (out of 13) has subsequently joined at the time of writing this report. For the rest of this section and the next, it should be noted that respondents could circle any number of educational sectors, organisation types or areas of work, as many people working in learning technology wear various hats. Therefore the percentage figures do not add up to 100%. All educational sectors were represented at the meeting, with the vast majority from CETISТ intended user group, HE (70%) & FE (52%). There was considerable overlap between HE and FE (i.e. 36% of total respondents 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%). A smaller number of respondents recorded their association with organisations outwith educational institutions, including 27% (nine) 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 Уother bodyФ; specifics were not recorded. Loosely dividing the Area of Work categories into УtechieФ and Уnon-techieФ the figures are as follows: УTechiesФ come in at: web design 39%; software development 36%; tool development 21%; IT/LT support 27%. Somewhere in between УtechieФ and Уnon-techieФ is courseware design at 27%. Under Уnon-techieФ (although some of these may actually be doing УtechieФ things within their area): research 33%; teaching 21%; educational development 36%; staff development 12%; management 9%; library/information management 24%. ItТs 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. Interest in the Standards and Specs 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: УPedagogy ForumФ; УDRIФ; УOAI-PMHФ; УAccessibilityФ and УDock BookФ (most likely refering to EMLТs DocBook). One person (possibly the CETIS Enterprise SIG Coordinator) mentioned IMS Enterprise and IMS LIP. Usefulness of Meeting, Meeting Format and Individual Sessions In this section, each question offered respondents the choice of: Very Useful, Quite Useful, Useful or Not Very Useful. There were unanimously high ratings for the overall usefulness of the meeting: 72% (42) found it Very Useful, 27% (9) Quite Useful. Only one person thought that the present meeting format was no longer useful, with 97% finding it still useful. Nine comments and suggestions were recorded here however, 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 Уfocused meetingsФ. However, one person said they didnТt want more frequent meetings and that overflow of discussion should 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 a 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. 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 COLIS presentation scored highest with 72% rating it Very Useful and 21% Quite Useful. The remaining 6% found it Useful. Of the 16 respondents who used the breakout sessions section of the form to evaluate JamesТ LAMS presentation separately, 12 rated it Very Useful and four 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 didnТt fill in this section, probably due in part to participants having to leave early. Of the remaining 20 replies, four rated it Very Useful; 10 Quite Useful; 5 Useful and 1 Not Very Useful. Future Topics and Information Wanted 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 (УGetting learning objects into VLEsФ); and single requests for: NLN materials; college-created materials; portals; user (rather than developer) perspective; and Уmore of the sameФ. Concluding comments were all glowing. 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 CoordinatorТs 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. PAGE  PAGE 3 1CUWОР– “ p{|ЙКТФ§)ъ kvЛІ≠5@JV!-17>MBD#$$$*$+$,$.$/$5$6$7$8$9$=$ъуъпнннййййййййййййййййнвявявявявя0J j0JU6Б]БH*5Б\Б 5БCJH*\Б 5БCJ\Б91CtuМB78UV< =  ђ≠—пр.¶ІНОOъъъъхррхррррррррормррмркррр$a$$a$$a$#$<$ююOPuЫЬ)*5#$,$-$.$9$:$;$<$=$ъшцъъъшънлйнлййъДь€Д&`#$$a$,1Рh∞В. ∞∆A!∞"∞#Р†$Р†%∞∞ƒ∞ƒ Рƒ i@@с€@NormalCJ_HaJmHnHsH tH u2`2 Heading 1$@&5Б\Б8`8 Heading 2$$@&a$5Б\Б<A@т€°< Default Paragraph Font,B`т, Body Text$a$,@,Header  ∆9r &)@Ґ& Page Number= 807€€€€1CtuМB78UV<= ђ ≠ — п р . ¶ І НОOPuЫЬ)*5# . 9 : > Ш0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0АА0ААШ0ААШ0АА0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0АА0ААШ0ААШ0АА0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0АА0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0АА0ААШ0ААЪ@0ААШ@0ААШ@0АА 0 =$O=$<$ !Х!і€ХА # ; > (# ; > €€CurrierrC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\cetis\CETISECSIG\ecsig_meetings\meeting_6\meeting6evalsum.docCurrierpC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of meeting6evalsum.asdCurrierpC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of meeting6evalsum.asd @€@А4:Ф= А@€€Unknown€€€€€€€€€€€€GРЗz А€Times New Roman5РАSymbol3&Р Зz А€Arial"сИр–hVьs&Ъьs&Оьs&&¶ 8!р†ііББr0dК 2ГQр€€0Report on Evaluation of 6th CETIS EC SIG MeetingCurrierCurrierю€аЕЯтщOhЂС+'≥ў0®Ш†№иш  0< X d p |ИРШ†д1Report on Evaluation of 6th CETIS EC SIG MeetingEepoCurrierurrurrNormalCurrier28rMicrosoft Word 9.0n@dьN@ЉІл®ч¬@ДэІ°ч¬@ѕШ™ч¬¶ю€’Ќ’Ь.УЧ+,щЃ00 hpФЬ§ђ іЉƒћ ‘ дUniversity of Strathclydei8 К † 1Report on Evaluation of 6th CETIS EC SIG Meeting Title ю€€€ ю€€€"#$%&'(ю€€€*+,-./0ю€€€э€€€3ю€€€ю€€€ю€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Root Entry€€€€€€€€ јF PЮ™ч¬5А1Table€€€€€€€€€€€€WordDocument€€€€€€€€.0SummaryInformation(€€€€!DocumentSummaryInformation8€€€€€€€€€€€€)CompObj€€€€jObjectPool€€€€€€€€€€€€ PЮ™ч¬ PЮ™ч¬€€€€€€€€€€€€ю€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ю€ €€€€ јFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8ф9≤q