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 plenary, track, and concurrent sessions
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Amount of team time
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Institute schedule
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:
5. Were the issues you listed in #4 different from the ones you originally expected to work on? If yes, how did your issues change?
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.
Saturday A.M. Plenary: Schneider
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 1a: Ferren, Politics and Process of Curricular Change
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 1b: Lieberman, Constituent Commitment
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 1c: Gaston, Moving Downriver
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 2a: Evenbeck, Goals for General Education
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 2b: Gaston, Curriculum—and Beyond Curriculum (“At the Source”)
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 2c: Knefelkamp, Learning Matters: Different Strokes for Different Folks
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 3a: Maki, Interrelationship
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 3b: Wright, Approaches, Reproaches: The Joy of Methods
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 3c: Maki, Planning Assessment Backwards
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 4a: Knefelkamp, Making Excellence Inclusive (Institutional Fabric)
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 4b: Blake, Retention and Graduation
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Track 4c: Clayton-Pedersen, Making Excellence Inclusive (Building Capacity)
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Sun. Concurrent I: Albertine, Yes, It Does Take a Campus
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Sun. Concurrent I: Chen, Emerging Technologies
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Sun. Concurrent I: Eynon, Faculty Development
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Sun. Concurrent I: Schneider, Connecting General Education and the Major
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Mon. Concurrent: Eynon, ePortfolios for Gen Ed
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Mon. Concurrent: Ferren, Models of Gen Ed Programs
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Mon. Concurrent: Laff, Engaging Students
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Mon. Concurrent: Rhodes, Rubrics for Learning
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Tues. Concurrent I: Chen, Assessing Campus Readiness for ePortfolios
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Tues. Concurrent I: Clayton-Pedersen, Making Excellence Inclusive
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Tues. Concurrent I: Evenbeck, Assessment and Intentional Learning
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Tues. Concurrent I: Lieberman, Personal and Social Responsibility Outcomes
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Tues. Concurrent II: Blake Community in Academia
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Tues. Concurrent II: Rhodes, Student Transfer
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Tues. Concurrent II: Wright, Look before you Leap/LEAP
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Tues. Concurrent II: Ad Hoc Session - Gaston, Bologna Overview
Content:
Presentation:
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Closing Plenary: The Wabash Study
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.
