Learning Task #1: Investigating a Professional Development Conference Jane Dosemagen Please note: This is the corrected version. I sent the previous one by mistake before it was finished.

I attended the conference, "Healthy Plants and Healthy Environment: Exploring the Alternatives" on March 16 at the U of M, St. Paul Campus. This conference was sponsored by the University of MN Extension Service. The conference began with a discussion on our reasons for using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and our feelings on their use. I designed a written survey and gave it to 5 people at each of 3 sessions. My summary of the surveys is as follows:

Survey of Participants Healthy Plants and Healthy Environment: Exploring the alternatives March 16, 1999

SESSION #1 GUEST SPEAKER: Roger Becker TOPIC: Alternatives for Managing Weeds

1. How well did the presentation meet your expectations? # people responding: 2 1 2 10----9----8----7----6----5----4----3----2----1----0 Very well Satisfactory Disappointing

2. What would have better met your expectations? 7 Would like more information on how to get rid of weeds 7 More structure, more information on relative toxicities of common herbicides (pre and post emergent) 7 A more organized approach would have been better and a bit less technical too 7 More structure and more specific information 7 Too heavy on chemical control

3. How well did the presenter relate the material to the audience? # people: 2 1 2 10----9----8----7----6----5----4----3----2----1----0 Very well Satisfactory Disappointing

4. What were the strengths of the presentation? 7 "Plethora" of weeds and methods of treatment 7 The root carbohydrate chart was useful information and corn gluten meal was useful too. 7 Humor and rapport

SESSION #2 GUEST SPEAKER: Vera Krischik TOPIC: Alternatives for Managing Insects

1. How well did the presentation meet your expectations? # people: 4 1 10----9----8----7----6----5----4----3----2----1----0 Very well Satisfactory Disappointing

2. What would have better met your expectations? 7 She needed more time.

3. How well did the presenter relate the material to the audience? # people: 5 10----9----8----7----6----5----4----3----2----1----0 Very well Satisfactory Disappointing

4. What were the strengths of the presentation? 7 The "risk/need to control or not" ratings 7 Variations of approaches 7 Access to the web site 7 Relevant information, energetic presentation, understandable 7 The continuum of risk of insect damage was very helpful. A handout in it would have been dandy. She's a good presenter, with her enthusiasm about bugs. Slides are good too.

SESSION #3 GUEST SPEAKER: Jody Fetzer TOPIC: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) at the U of M Landscape Arboretum

1. How well did the presentation meet your expectations? # people: 1 1 1 1 1 10----9----8----7----6----5----4----3----2----1----0 Very well Satisfactory Disappointing

2. What would have better met your expectations? 7 More time!

3. How well did the presenter relate the material to the audience? # people: 3 1 1 10----9----8----7----6----5----4----3----2----1----0 Very well Satisfactory Disappointing

4. What were the strengths of the presentation? 7 How IPM works for the arboretum. 7 Relevant, understandable, applicable.

Not all of the questions were answered by each person. The responses were copied verbatim.

A written survey is sometimes hard to read, and often people limit their comments. I also spoke with several people about the conference, and people talk at length when asked their opinion on the sessions. I would consider doing both the written and oral survey in the future.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 1999

Answers

Thank you. I agree about the advantage of "letting people talk" in an oral interview.

You may find interesting, as Vince did, the chapter about designing surveys in the Complimentary Research Methods book.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 1999