Skip navigation
print page header

For more mobile web services, visit www.lib.uiowa.edu/m

The University of Iowa Libraries

CIC Conference 2004 - ARCHIVED CONTENT

CIC 2004 Joint LT/DLIOC Conference Evaluation

A total of 32 responses were collected.
Rating scale = 1 (neutral) to 3 (very valuable).

1. Keynote Presentation:
Rating:
1
2
3
# of Responses:
6
12
14

Comments:

Provided a good background to the conference. Was sometimes difficult to follow since presenter did not use organizers of any kind.
Great choice.
Somewhat all over the map. None the less, it was interesting and a good starting point.
I found the questions asked of the presenter a bit more interesting than the presentation itself.
Interesting ideas, but he seemed to string them together. Some of my colleagues were offended by his "bubblegum" comment. I personally felt like it was trivializing the issues of integrating multiple systems which were created independently. True integration of the type he wants would take many years and may not even be possible.
CL is always excellent for this kind of talk.
Lynch identified many of the broader issues we should keep in mind while moving forward with these course management system initiatives.
I didn't follow his material well, but overall speaker was good.
well-organized, prepared, thoughtful
not many new ideas
We heard about a discussion of course mangement systems through a librarian's paradigm or way of seeing the world. On reflection, we needed a second keynote speaker that would have dicussed course management systems through a teaching/learning expert's paradigm. LTI people heard the librarian view; Librarians' did not hear the LTI view.
Thought provoking
I wish we didn't hear the same speakers at almost every conference.
Very good and thought provoking
An excellent overview of the "big picture" and what we need to be thinking about in terms of future issues.
Lots of good thoughts, but a rambling presentation.
It seemed more geared to librarians than tech folk.
Not able to attend
   
2. Monday Afternoon Small Group Sessions:
Rating:
1
2
3
# of Responses:
6
13
13

Comments:

A good introduction to the overall issues. A good way for Library and AT participants to get to know each other.
A lot of the success depended on the mix at the table.
Still feeling our way through. Discuss ranged broadly. Helped Library and LT folks get to begin to understand the issues from the other context.
I did learn about a lot of different working environments.
It was a little difficult at first for the groups to understand exactly what they needed to do; but once they did, it was useful.
Very helpful to sit at tables with people having different experiences and perspectives and share these.
Small group exercises were not valuable. Would have preferred presentations from schools about their library and CMS projects. The small groups were uncomfortable and unstructured. No organization to them. I found it to be a waste of time.
Our table was unbalanced, with fewer IT people than librarians.
It never was clear how this directly related to the subsequent work of the conference
I thought this was OK. I thought for all of the sessions the time alloted was much too long. I feel like we didn't accomplish much for the amount of time we spent talking about issues.
Did not understand the purpose of the activity where we ranked items and then never used that information. Not very well organized
I think we lost track of the library connection piece.
We had to do some internal organizational and communication business before we got to the tasks at hand.
Again, more useful for librarians than tech. But interesting to see how different groups prioritize.
   
3. Poster Sessions:
Rating:
1
2
3
# of Responses:
4
14
14

Comments:

Wide variety of information. Lots of good discussion. Always interesting to see what our CIC colleagues are doing.
Actually worked out quite well!
The short presentations were very valuable. It was useful to have opportunities to ask questions, and comments from others in the "audience" were very useful, too.
Far too much time allotted to the posters.
I didn't like the competing sessions. Why not just let everyone describe their poster for 5 minutes then let everyone circulate freely?
or you could schedule some demo start time and let people attend. Some people had demos, and others had just a poster, so it was hard to manage.
It is always helpful to see what others are doing.
As usual, it's always difficult to take everything in with simultaneous poster sessions going on. Overall, it was great to get a sense of what other institutions are doing and the posters were well done.
No organization to the format. Presenters were given information at the last minute. Coordination of the poster sessions was not well prepared.
Best part of the conference.
There were some interesting things, but most of this stuff I had seen in other venues (like Educause)
I think the information at the poster sessions was valuable, but they didn't require nearly the amount of time alloted to view them and listen to the presentations.
Space was too confined, but content was good
Although the poster sessions were valuable, too much time was devoted to them.
Again, more useful for librarians than tech.
It was valuable to see what other campuses are doing and what priorities other campuses have vis-a-vis libary/CMS integration
   
4. Tuesday Small Group Sessions:
Rating:
1
2
3
# of Responses:
9
14
9

Comments:

Some difficulty in my group in keeping on topic and on track with our "assignment."
Particularly if we have follow up!
These were big problems that easily could have been the focus of an entire conference. Discussion was good, but there really wasn't enough time for this portion, I think.
Great debates. Lively and focused.
Nothing new came out of this session. It seemed to be a rehash of the Monday session, and thanks to a poor facilitator, it wasn't even as good a discussion.
Interesting discussion, although I felt like ideas were too abstract/general to discover many practical solutions.
I thought the groups really began to gell by Tuesday afternoon.
Didn't seem like enough time for our group to really get down to identifying specific next-steps and how CIC institutions could effectively collaborate. Perhaps could have used several more time for sessions like Monday's session.
Did not stay.
Not very useful at all - was not clear what the point of the exercise was
Again, it was not clear what the point of the exercise was. Seemed to be covering the same ground as the day before
I think we lost track of the library connection piece. (same comment as above)
Useful discussion once we found our focus.
Again, more useful for librarians than tech. Format somewhat troublesome, not everyone got a chance to talk.
It was valuable to share stories and ideas within a small group setting
   
5. Conference Facilities & Arrangements:
Rating:
1
2
3
# of Responses:
0
6
26

Comments:

Great location (downtown Chicago, overlooking the river). Would have liked easier access to food/drink within the building. Catered food was great, but would have liked something Monday afternoon.
Very comfortable, convenient
Great job across the board.
More snacks! I'm happy to get lunch on my own in downtown Chicago.
Best meeting food I have had in a long time!
Facility was good.
Very nice. thank you.
Excellent place to meet. The room was great and the hotel was convenient. However, I was able to get a cheaper rate using the Chicago visitors bureau and their winter promotion.
Better than most conferences of this size and type
A wonderful place for a conference.
   
6. Overall Conference Evaluation:
Rating:
1
2
3
# of Responses:
6
9
17

Comments:

Everyone did a great job!
It is wonderful to be able to talk with CIC colleagues who share similar library environments.
I found this well worth my while, and hope it will stimulate project partnerships at our institution
I thought this was quite useful - bringing together the IT and library constituencies proved especially worthwhile for this challenging for important topic.
Would not do that again unless the format changes. Would prefer to see multiple tracks or a single track of presentations similar to a conference format.
Pretty much this could have been done in one day, most of it was a waste of time
Overall I thought the conference was an excellent way to find out what other CIC institutions are doing and where they are heading.
It was illuminating to see the range of practices.
Thanks so much for all the work putting on this conference. I think it will go a long way to getting librarians up to speed on what tech folks can do.
I think that librarians and Academic Technology staff should get together more often... both within the context of conferences and on our own campuses.
   
7. Did the conference meet your expectations? Why or why not?
Yes, it helped me coalesce my thinking about these issues. It brought the LT and Library groups from our campus together.
I was surprised to learn where other campuses stand at the moment. I thought we were behind the trends, which was incorrect.
Yes. A good step in bringing together the quite different worlds of CMS management and use, library management and services.
Yes it did in the sense that it got me thinking about some new possibilities; brought up ideas that I had not thought of before (some new ways of looking at things...)
More than: the poster sessions supplied valuable suggestions that could be implemented other places.
Yes; the mix of IT and library folks really did give a broader perspective and seeing successful collaborative efforts presented in the poster session was encouraging.
Yes. I really came a way with a larger understanding of the issues.
Not entirely. Trying to mix Librarians and IT people is a good idea, but I'm not sure that either group is all that unified amongst themselves. Trying to establish a glossary was helpful in a way, but the level of jargon was tough to cut through at times.
Actually yes.
Yes
Yes. Because all participants seemed willing and interested in discussing the issues and sharing what they're currently doing. Not quite sure where we go from here, though.
No. I didn't get much time to discuss with anyone. Most of the sessions were unstructured. The poster time was noisy and congested in some areas on the floor.
Yes--got people to identify common issues and begin talking about their needs and concerns.
It really seemed to be a little too much of the same thing.
Small group exercises did not have clear purpose or timing/pacing.
No it did not. I would have expected some tangible outcome from this conference. There seems to be none.
No, I thought I would learn more about what others are doing. I guess what I did learn was that libraries are not very involved in CMS systems.
Yes. Lot's of very useful interactions.
yes
Yes. I cannot say it was fun, but it was necessary work, and it was accomplished with minimum stress.
No. Outcomes of the conference were (and still are) unclear and undefined
Not so much because we strayed a bit from the library/CMS connections. I still don't have a good feel for these connections.
Yes
yes and no. I learned a lot, but it was so broad that I wanted to be able to get more specific on one or two areas. This would be my biggest suggestion for the next iteration. It was also overly long for what was planned (3 1/2 hours for posters).
Not quite. It seemed more geared towards informing librarians.
Yes
   
8. What was the best part of the conference? Why?
Always, the interactions with others, but in a structured way that helped move the agenda and discussion along.
Poster sessions and chance to talk with the mix of folks.
First day discussions.
I thought the small group discussions were the best part--good mix of people and the ability to continue discussions afterwards
Small groups: in depth exploration of problems.
Small group discussions and the poster session.
The morning small group sessions. The focus of a single issue really helped draw out discussion.
The Monday discussions was the most fruitful part. The facilitator drew in opinions and thoughts from all around the table.
I liked the walking around and rating issues exercise. Discussion is always good, but one afternoon is generally enough for me.
Opportunity to brainstorm with others from within the CIC (both IT and Libraries)
Opportunity to share experiences and help LT and DL people understand each other's perspectives.
Didn't really have a particular best, but the poster sessions were the most informative.
Small group discussions, values clarification exercise
Poster presentations.
Learning what is valued in different working groups.
Keynote. So well thought through.
Clifford Lynch - was a thought provoking talk
Talking with other librarians.
I always enjoy Lynch.
This was my first CIC event and I enjoyed meeting my colleagues.
The first day roundtable discussions. These were very well thought out and run. Great job preparing the discussion leaders.
free time to connect
Talking with other participants, both in small-group sessions and during breaks.
Clifford Lynch
Keynote because it got me thinking about things I hadn't before.
Being able to hear both library and IT perspectives on a particular issue.
Lots of time for discussion with colleagues about professional issues/challenges.
small group meetings, gave chance to get concrete idea of how others were approaching problems
Interaction with others. To share ideas for mutual benefits to various system implementation ideas.
Realizing that librarians and campus IT folk (namely the AT side) can work together to provide value added access to resources within the shell of the CMS.
Poster Sessions, keynote
   
9. What one change would make the biggest improvement in the conference?
can't think of anything.
More formal poster presentations.
I thought the poster session presentations were a little confusing; not the people making the presentations but the format; needed more time to get around and here the various people speaking; I would have liked for each presenter to present to the whole group--I understand that takes more time overall.
More time for the second day session on the issues
Couldn't say.
Change the format of the Tuesday discussion - it was too freeform. Assign people to topics.
More formal presentations of different projects. I felt like I missed out on other schools because I was too busy with my own poster.
Nothing in particular
Have more of the "other stakeholders" Lynch mentioned in attendance. Seems we need to be focusing on making forward movement on many fronts simultaneously.
Take out the small group work. It was not valuable.
Widen the topic.
I think all would have benefited if we had had a session about the multiple systems with which Course Management Systems need to link - portfolios, student systems, library systems, portals.....a look at the big picture.
Better direction for small groups.
There should have been an identified outcome - it's still not clear what the point of the conference was
Add more substance. Or make it shorter.
It would have been helpful hear a quick summary from each poster session in fron of the entire group. I could have then gone around to the poster sessions knowing the highlights and better prepared to ask question.
No changes.
A wireless mike would have been great!
I would not have a conference like this again
Less time devoted to poster sessions.
see above - more single aspect focus
skip the dots thing
Speakers that could provide a snapshot of CMS/Library integration across campus instead of speakers that provide a much broader technology overview... I think many of us have a good sense of the broad overview... it is specific 'here's what's happening on the ground across the country' picture that we're missing.
   
10. What did you take away from the conference that you will share with colleagues at your home institution?
An assessment of how our efforts and services compare to other CIC schools. Ideas for continuing to integrate systems on our campus.
The excitement of getting involved in the cms
the one thing that came up for me is how we librarians are still trying to automate our paper processes--not thinking about whehter it makes sense to simply automate a process or do something completely different; e-reserves was the case in point for me.
Information about how different tools like Blackboard, RefWorks, and SFX are being integrated at other institution -- gave us some good ideas of directions to work in
The importance of understanding institutional data as it pertains to CMS.
Instructional Designers and Librarians need to cross train on each other's tools.
A realization that we all are roughly at the same stage in our work with CMS and the need to share information with other institutions
Need to collaborate across multiple fronts at the same time.
Learned a few things about what the other CIC organizations are doing.
Need for Library and educational technologies people to work collaboratively on LMS implementation and resulting service programs
Links provided during the poster sessions.
There is a lot of work to do!
LibData at UMinn
Nothing
That we aren't that far behind everyone else.
Hmmm.... I guess that there's a great variety of ways the different institutions are approaching these issues. We're all very early on in dealing with the issues, and it's extremely valuable to get together and share.
I shared what other campuses are doing (or not) in terms of sharing with libraries.
There was nothing really new that was discussed at the conference.
That we are not alone in our technical issues with integrating library services.
This conference has already led to opportunities for campus librarians and campus IT folk to work more closely together.
   
11. What follow-up to this conference would be beneficial to you?
Would like to see reports from each of the small group sessions. Would like a follow-up event (meeting, conference) next year.
Summary listing of attendees and what's happening on their campuses.
Best practice groups to digest current policies into reality.
Maybe a follow-up in a year to 18 months to see what has changed and what has not.
what you are doing--providing access to the poster information; a summary of the notes; it seems to me this group ought to be meeting on some kind of regular basis
Some action on the part of the CIC that might demonstrate possible consortial activities (e.g. shared policy on copyright).
Having the poster sessions up and able to be shared with others in the institution. Additional work done to pursue some of the ideas for CIC efforts put forth in the second day afternoon session
The report outs, listing of products and services, the voting.
Links for demos in the poster.
Summary notes from all the sessions; possible CIC coordination of meetings that could include the other campus stakeholders - general counsel, audits, registrars, records mamagers, faculty, etc.
None. Who's planning this event next year? Will you call for volunteers?
not sure
Another meeting around same topic but with broader participation from CIC techies and librarians.
I don't know that the role of the CIC is in this area. Action to integrate CMS and LMS systems (if that is the point of all this) has to occur at a national level
A recommendation that incorporating library resources into course management software should be a priority of those either developing the software or managing it.
Maybe meet again in a year or 18 months.
Summary of our deliberations, and a plan for how they will be used in the future.
Perhaps a follow up in six-months to a year to see what institutions have worked toward/managed to achieve since the last conference.
I think we need more information on how librarians and campus IT folk are teaming up to offer students and faculty more integrated access to library resources and services through the pipeline and shells that the IT folk provide.
   
12. Any other comments about the conference:
Great job to the planning committee!
Please do follow up with all this interest. We need that encouragement of our peers.
well done; great job of mixing us up for the small groups; it's always a learning experience for me to hear Clifford Lynch.
Great buidling with a great view.
excellent work--many thanks to the planners
This survey instrument is totally bogus. You can't have a scale that goes from No opinion to Good without a corresponding Bad to No opinion option.
This evaluation form is inherently biased toward a positive outcome. There is no way you can get an honest evaluation of the conference with a Likert scale system that is not balanced between positive and negative.