Self-evaluation report of third thematic conference

“Self-evaluation is a dialogue”

I-probenet, Comenius 3 network

in Graz, 22 – 26 Sept. 2004

by Christa Bauer

I. Introduction

The self-evaluation of the conference was carried out in three different strands. This is the report of one of the network partners, Christa Bauer, who was responsible for the self-evaluation of this conference and also local organizer. She was supported by some teachers from Schulverbund and she asked two more people to contribute: network partner Chris Williams, UK, to do a foto documentation at the end of the conference and Carlos Van Kan from Leiden university, NL, to act as conference rapporteur and produce a summary of events and evaluation also at the end of the conference. Both documents are also available, but not included in this report.

In this report I will present the concept, an overview of instruments applied and a summary of the results.

II.Self-evaluation concept of conference and design

It was a goal of the self-evaluation to apply instruments for data collection during the conference that encourage dialogue and interaction in order to match the title “Self-evaluation is a dialogue”.So the key principle of the self-evaluation was to make ideas of quality visible so that different people’s perspectivescould be shared and enriched by mutual feedback.

The actors of the self-evaluation team were commissioned by the members of the networkwho needed evidence for the quality of the conference in order to learn and professionalize for future events and because they are accountable to the European commission.

As mentioned above the evaluation was carried out by Christa Bauer & team from Schulverbund, enforced by two international members:

Chris Williams, UK, fotografic impressions (“paparazzo”)

Carlos van Kan, NL,conference reporter.

The content of the evaluation were the following areas:

-overall quality of the conference

- quality of the input

- organisation: frame/accommodation/food/location

- cultural programme

- impact on professional life

- transnational element: exchange, variety of approaches, ideas etc.

Data were collected from all the participants at the conference by different interactive means: Written and real dialogue, foto snapshots, quality ratingsof keynotes, “instant” feedback instruments that make different ideas of quality visibleon the spot. Two slots of 15 minutes were reserved on different days of the conference for self-evaluation.

The report will go into the final report of the network activities addressed to the European commission and to the network members. A short version was published at the end of the conference and will be put on the website of the network.

III. Overview of instruments applied during the conference

  1. Wall Charts

Wall Chart 1: Moments of quality, Wall Chart 2: Areas of improvement

Task: Start a written dialogue, by signing your contribution you indicate that

contributors may also be approached orally on the topic

Point in time: throughout the conference in area of coffee breaks

  1. Continuum

Public ratingby positioning oneself on a scale from 1 – 100% in the plenary

room, followed by some shortinterviews

Question: How satisfied are you with the conference?

Point in time: morning of day 2 (Friday) at conference

  1. “Blueboard”

Information board making important things visible

Area: Impact of the conference

Task: Take a post-it note and write downone thing you are going to do as a

consequence of the conference

Point in time: last morning of conference

4.“The conference&Me”

Indicating personal impacton a poster of a human body

Question: Where did the conference touch you?

Point in time: last morning of conference

  1. Evaluation target

A poster with concentric circles, divided in four areas according

to the 4 questions.

Question: How satisfied were youwith the organisation/food/accommodation /

location?

Task: Mark your satisfaction with the area with a dot. Centre: 100%, outskirts 0%

Point in time: last morning of conference

  1. Quality rating of keynotes

After every keynoteindividual rating on a slip of paper

Quality of keynote / 1 Very good / 2good / 3satisfactory / 4 unsatisfactory
Novelty/interest
Usefulness for professional life
Relevance of topic
presentation
material
practicality

Lottery in order to encourage participation: Win a “change of perspective”!

8. Foto snapshots:

Taken throughout conference, chosen by self-evaluation team, displayed on

pinboard in reception area

Task: Comment on the pictures

9.Oral comments & feedback

Collected by self-evaluation team throughout the conference

IV. Results and Summary

IV.1 Results

a) Satisfaction

There is evidence that the conference was found very satisfying in the following aspects:

General Frame:

  • appropriate number of participants (110)
  • variety of different nationalities present (19),
  • contribution to the conference working climate by guitar and students’ improvisation at the beginning

Content:

  • number and quality of keynotes (number 2 particularly good)
  • number and variety of workshops (mentionedas particularly good: workshops 2.1, 2.5, 3.1,3.4)
  • balance of theorypractice
  • diversity of languages visible in panel discussion

Organisation:

  • locationservice
  • cultural programme
  • students present at the beginning and during the conference

b)Impact

The impact as seen by participants on the last day was on the following levels:

  • Topic: Participants felt encouraged and motivated to inform themselves more on the topic, promote self-evaluation in their schools, countries
  • personal level: 50% of participants felt touched intellectually among other factors because they “got new glasses”; about 30% emotionally, 5% felt empowered for carrying out self-evaluation activities themselves, 15 % mentioned diverse other areas
  • school level : Participants felt motivated to inform and encourage their colleagues at school and start/carry on doing self-evaluation, e.g. project on digital portfolio…
  • European level: Many participants have established European contacts for further projects

c)Areas of improvement:

The following areas of improvement were mentioned by the participants:

-more diversity of languages in workshops (only one in French, one in German)

-more workshops in French, Spanish, Portuguese

-even better balance of theory and practice, longer workshops

-more interactive workshops

-new elements in organisation: indication on website that payment has to be made on the spot in cash and that local transport will be arranged

d)Self-reflection on the evaluation

It is more difficult than imagined to be the local organizer and self-evaluator of a big conference at the same time. There is not enough time for necessary negotiations with the people affected and to prepare a presentation of data at the end of the conference. So the necessary care was neglected with the presentations of the quality ratings of the keynotes.

IV.2 Summary

An average of two thirds took part in the quality ratings and around 50% - 60% were actively taking part in the two reserved time slots, a great number of people gave feedback during or after the conference.

Data show that the conference was a highly successful event in many different aspects. Participants were very satisfied with the topic and programme, the quality of the input, organisation and cultural programme. There was impact on many levels that suggests that some people came for the topic and others to find European partners for new projects.

Only some points were mentioned that should be improved. In a next conference it should be made sure that all workshops are more interactive and that some are offered in different languages and some conference material should also be offered in different languages.

One organisational aspect that could be improved is registration via the website. Participants suggested additional boxes to tick:

- I need a room from … to … and I will pay cash

- You will be met at your arrival if you tell us your arrival time one week in advance