- How would you rate the Institute overall?
- The overall format for the Institute:
- Effective (16) or 76%
- Somewhat effective (4) or 19%
- How could it be improved?
- Timelines were too tight - more pace needed to allow for overruns
- Plenary session 2, although excellent, was too long
- Ensure that mid-day breaks allow a little time to stretch beyond
just eating
- The workshops:
- Very successful (13) or 62% - Very informative (1) or 5%
- Moderately successful (7) or 33%
- How could they be improved?
- Longer - speakers were rushed
- Limited Q & A time
- More interaction needed and less "lecture"
- Ensure speakers have microphones
- The sessions were too tightly squeezed. Presentations could have
been better enjoyed with less presenters and longer times (depending
on the topics). Also there was too little time to enjoy St. John's.
Would have been fine to have sessions - a.m. or p.m. off - return
for supper meal and have a session 6 - 7:30 - evening off after that
time. (Only a suggestion for a future conference). With 90 people
present and the excellently prepared presentations, they could have
been delivered in a plenary session, not in small groups. I would
have appreciated hearing from all presenters. As a presenter, I believe
we have lots to share and time was too tight to be truly effective.
- Not enough time and too many people in the room downstairs
- The caucuses:
- Very successful (16) or 76%
- Moderately successful (4) or 19%
- How could they be improved?
- Longer - maybe 2-2 ½ hours
- Good idea to break up the groups like this. Ensure enough time to
allow thoughtful discussion (day 2)
- Reporting back to all delegates
- The plenary sessions:
- Very successful (15) or 71%
- Very informative (1)or 5%
- Moderately successful (5) or 24%
- How could they be improved?
- Not so many videos
- Too many presenters in each
segment - break up the presentations with breaks
for
those who mind sitting for long periods.
- Too constrained
re time