Evaluation Summary
Understanding the Value of Videoconferencing Technology
In Improving K-12 Educational Systems
Dallas TX
October 17-18, 2002

A total of 98 professionals attending the national Interactive Videoconferencing (IVC) Symposium were given a comprehensive evaluation survey at the beginning of the symposium and were asked to provide information about each of the sessions and the symposium overall, in addition to basic demographic information about themselves. At the end of the two-day meeting, 32 completed surveys (for a response rate of 33 %) were returned. The following information provides a brief summary of these responses.

Participant Demographic Data

The largest number of participants (N=15) returning completed evaluation surveys indicated that in their work they serve a statewide area and that their position title/role is as an instructional technology or distance learning staff member (N=11), followed closely by administrators (N=8). Equal numbers of participants (N=9) noted that they work for a state education agency or for a non-education entity (e.g., not-for-profit foundation or art museum); six participants indicated working for a public school. Approximately one-third to one-half of respondents specified that their job position is one that serves disadvantaged students (e.g., low income, language minority, special education, migrant, or immigrant).

Symposium Session Feedback

Participants were asked to rate each of ten symposium sessions on a scale of 1 ("low") to 4 ("high") on each of five factors: relevance of information; utility of information; transferability to my work; provision of new ideas, concepts, and strategies; and overall satisfaction. These sessions included in-person presentations, presentations via teleconference, panels, small group discussions after the panels, and a gallery walk. Participants were also asked to provide open-ended comments, as appropriate.

Mean participant ratings were overall very positive, for all symposium sessions. The figure that follows presents the range of mean participant ratings (high to low) for each of these factors, across all sessions.

Factor	Mean high rating	Mean low rating
Relevance of information	3.8	3.1
Utility of information	3.8	3.0
Transferability to my work	3.7	2.9
Provision of new ideas, concepts, and strategies	3.6	2.9
Overall satisfaction	3.7	2.9

Open-ended comments were offered by participants in response to each session. They typically included some that were very laudatory (e.g., "wonderful presenter," "excellent; fit my needs," "this session gave me a whole new look at what I have been doing and has reenergized and refocused me," "very helpful; one of the few conferences where diverse groups can exchange information," and "very nice to get a glimpse of the future and consider some of its implications") as well as some that were not so praiseworthy (e.g., "great stories; but we've been there, done that," "talked a lot about policy which didn't apply much to my work," "more interaction was needed," "too technical," and "this session really needed more direction").

Additional Comments Provided by Participants

Participants were also asked to respond to some additional questions, concerning the symposium overall. When asked, "What were the most useful parts of Day 1?" and "What were the most useful parts of Day 2?" several respondents noted that the opportunities for networking, small group discussions, and interaction between attendees and presenters were particularly valuable aspects of the meeting. Comments that exemplify these perceptions include the following: "hearing what different schools are doing in their areas," "learning about what others are doing," and "making a connection with folks who can help create a model for my state." Other responses focused on specific symposium sessions and their particular usefulness.

When asked, "What suggestions for improving the symposium would you like to offer?" respondents offered comments that included the following: "more video interactivity; a little less technical stuff and more K-12 applications," "more group discussion," "a list of video conferencing providers to take back to my districts," "need to develop user community from attendees," and "expand it [to include] more participants." In response to the request to "please share any additional comments you may have about this symposium," participants offered comments including:

• Excellent symposium. This is the first event that I've seen focused on K-12 video in my 7 years involved in distance education. Please follow-up on the discussions started.
• Glad to attend. Thought it was going to be very teacher oriented. Good information about operations/policies of IVC.
• What will happen to "desires"/needs of those of us out in the field that were identified in this conference? Who will do what with results?
• I liked the format and structure. By working in the same discussion groups for both days, we were able to save time by not having to introduce ourselves each time, and we began to understand the opportunities and challenges from different perspectives.
• Conference was good. Not sure what could be improved. Could have chosen more diverse panels.
• You did an excellent job of seeking out like-minded individuals and encouraging networking. This has been very valuable!
• Good location, setting and overall hospitality! Great idea to bring together K-12 practitioners and policymakers.
• One of the most informative I've attended.
• Such a wonderful start - don't let the effort die out.

Finally, participants were asked to indicate their preference(s) for extending the discussions and networking begun during the symposium. Their responses are summarized below.