1) How would you rate this institute's usefulness to you and your team's work?
Very useful
Useful
Marginally useful
Not at all useful
2) How would you rate the general intellectual quality of the Institute?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
3. Please rate these items:
Amount of time spent in sessions
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Amount of team time
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Communications from AAC&U ( pre-institute mailings, notices, etc.)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Food
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Lodging
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Meeting facilities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
4. List two major issues that your team discussed or grappled with during the Institute and then briefly tell us what way(s) the Institute helped with or neglected those issues.
Issue A:
How well the Institute provided for Issue A:
Issue B:
How well the Institute provided for Issue B:
4a. Were the issues you listed in #4 different from the ones you originally expected to work on? If yes, how did your issues change?
5. Were there any issues that you would have liked to have covered at the Institute that were missing? Issues that you would have liked more coverage of?
6. What value did your team gain from interacting with other teams throughout the Institute?
7. Which institute faculty members were most useful to your teams' work? How would you rate the individual consultations with Institute faculty?
8. What two things at the Institute did you find most useful?
9. What two things might have been done to make the time more productive for your team?
10. Please rate the sessions that you attended for their content and quality of presentation. Track sessions are listed in sequence. Concurrent sessions listed by day and time.
Opening Plenary: Carol Geary Schneider
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 1: Educational Leadership
Track 1a: Joseph Wood, The Curriculum Reform Process and Leading for Success
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 1b: Katherine Bergeron, Intentionality and Liberal Learning
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 1c: David Brakke, Administrative Support for Making “Curricular” Things Work
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 1d: Joseph Wood, Rewarding a Faculty Focused on Student Learning
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 1e: Katherine Bergeron, Integrating Departments: Putting the Concentration in Context
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 1f: Gubbi Sudhakaran
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Faculty Work, Track 2
Track 2a: Kenny Morrell, Interdepartmental Collaboration: Why and How
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 2b: Jo Beld, Inquiry in Support of Student Learning: Linking Assessment to Faculty Work and Identities
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 2c: Liz Clark, From Isolated Individuals to Engaged Community
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 2d: Adele Wolfson, Goals for the Major
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 2e: Kenny Morrell, Helping Students Get More from their Major Programs of Study
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 2f: Liz Clark, From Here to There: How General Education Learning Communities As a Conduit to the Major
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
The Learning, Assessment, and Improvement Cycle, Track 3
Track 3a: Carol Schneider, Our Students’ Best Work: Frameworks for Assessment That Are Worthy of Our Mission
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 3b: Peggy Maki, Part I: A Framework for Anchoring A Commitment to Assessment and Developing A Process of Inquiry into Student Learning
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 3c: Susie Leslie, Post Institute: When Inspiration Meets Paralysis—Moving Forward
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 3d: Peggy Maki, Part II: A Framework for Anchoring A Commitment to Assessment and Developing A Process of Inquiry into Student Learning
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 3e: Jo Beld, Practical Strategies for Gathering “Actionable” Evidence of Student Learning at the Department Level
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 3f: Susie Leslie, Using Results—Closing the Loop
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Concurrent Sessions
Thursday, 9:00am—Alma Clayton-Pedersen, Making Excellence Inclusive through High Impact Educational Practices
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Thursday, 1:15pm—Nancy O'Neill, Education for Personal and Social Responsibility: A Major Focus?
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Friday, 9:00am—Gubbi Sudhakaran
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Friday, 1:15pm—David Brakke, Communicating Results of Assessment and Other Public Sharing
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Saturday, 9:00am—Terry Rhodes, VALUE and E-portfolios
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Saturday, 1:15pm—Adele Wolfson, The Role of Undergraduate Research in a Liberal Education
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Closing Plenary
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Your institution (not required):
Thank you. Please feel free to contact
us at sauvey@aacu.org if you have any questions
or have additional comments.
