IALLT '01 Post-conference Evaluation Summary Report

IALLT '01 Post-conference Evaluation Summary Report

December, 2001

Judi Franz and Bruce Parkhurst

The International Association for Language Learning Technology (IALLT) held its biennial conference May 22-26, 2001 at Rice University in Houston Texas. Pre-conference workshops were held May 22-23. A total of 18 workshops were offered, 14 half-day and 4 full-day. Regular conference sessions were held from May 24-26, with a keynote each morning. In addition, several events and activities were offered for entertainment.

IALLT '01 was attended by approximately 350 people in fields related to technology and language learning: teachers, language lab directors and staff, technicians, and vendors. A vendor exhibit hall housed twenty vendors, including publishers, language lab distributors, software and book vendors, and computer company representatives.

Registration for the conference was handled through the conference website (http://iall.rice.edu). On-site registration was also available. Conference materials included a 50-page printed program, as well as information on Rice University and the surrounding community, name badges with identifying ribbons for presenters, members and the IALLT Board and Council, and a pen, all presented in the conference folder.

Individual session evaluations were done on-site, with evaluation sheets distributed and collected by session proctors. These evaluation results have been tallied and forwarded to the presenters. This report summarizes the results of an overall conference evaluation conducted online in the weeks following the conference.

The survey instrument (see Appendix A) was designed by Bruce Parkhurst and Judi Franz, and housed on a website at UC Irvine. Data was collected via a backend FileMaker Pro database. The questions were divided among sections dealing with the following topics: why they chose to attend the IALLT conference; overall conference experience; usefulness of the conference website; registration; pre-conference workshops; regular conference sessions; vendor exhibits; presenter issues (proposal submission, tech support, etc.); conference meals and entertainment; and special events.

Responses were solicited through direct email to participants, as well as announcements on LLTI. Approximately 104 responses were received. Not every respondent answered every question. Also, on some questions with yes/no answers, we mistakenly used a drop-down menu whose default was a "yes" answer. This made it difficult at times to differentiate a purposeful "yes" answer from a default "yes". The next time this is done, make sure to remedy this! I have done my best to discount the default answers in this report.

A general summary of each section follows. I have also included an appendix (Appendix B) which includes all constructive and specific comments, sorted by area. Also attached is the entire Excel workbook with all survey results (14 worksheets).

Response Summaries

Why the IALLT Conference?

I learned about the IALLT Conference from:

IALL Journal 23

Regional Group Meeting 20

Regional Group Newsletter 14

LLTI Listserv 49

Word of Mouth 50

Other* 38

TOTAL: 194

*("Other" included: Previous conference/IALL '99 (9); Department Head (3); Involved in planning/host (3); IALL website (3); CALICO (2); Colleague (2); Member (2); AATF National Bulletin (2); Regional Group member (2); Sony/TSI (2); ACTFL conference (1); Rocmelia (1); Nina Garrett (1); Internet search (1); Email (1); campus technology committee (1); IALL Board (1); "Everywhere" (1).

Most respondents marked more than one source of information. Many of the "other" sources marked ultimately boil down to "Word of Mouth."

Rate the following factors as they affected your decision to attend the IALLT Conference:

Respondents were asked to note whether each of the following factors affected their decision Favorably, Unfavorably, or if they were Not a Factor.

Favorably

Unfavorably

Not a Factor

Cost/availability

Time of year

Distance from home institution

Special events & recreational attractions nearby

Topics covered

106

Accessibility

Other

"Other" comments included:

Favorable: Seeing colleagues and friends; low cost accommodations; sessions; boss couldn't go; "peer pressure"; good organization; council member; K-12 inclusion; quality hotel; "not optional"

Unfavorable: "had to go"

Overall Experience

Respondents were asked to assign an overall rating to the following aspects of the conference, on a scale from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent), or not applicable (N/A):

	Average Rating
Advance reservations (105 responses)	4.37
On-site registration (59 responses)	4.17
The website	4.24
The printed program	4.31
Variety of session topics	4.34
Session rooms	4.55
Conference exhibits	3.32
Special events	3.97
Accommodations:
Dormitories (43 responses)	3.56
Hotel (56 responses)	4.60

Overall average of all ratings above: 4.14

By the overlap in rating of on-site and advance registration, it appears as though most of those who rated the on-site registration were in fact rating the check-in and receipt of conference materials upon arrival. Perhaps the wording can be improved in future surveys to clarify the intent of the question.

Conference Information

Did the website information available before the conference provide enough basis for your decision to attend?

This was one of the yes/no questions for which the default was yes. Seven (7) respondents answered "No" to this question, with only one providing comments. Forty-one (41) comments were received from people who answered "Yes".

The "No" comment mentioned that some sort of progressive registration option should be provided, so that someone need not complete the entire registration process in one sitting, but could return and add special events or meals, etc.

The comments provided by those who answered "Yes" to the question ranged from praise ("I thought the site was excellent") to suggestions for improvement ("Have the website fully functional at least 2 weeks earlier than the date it was so this year." "Having a simple search engine in the webpage will be very helpful when you have so much to read and browse.") Most of the comments pertained to navigation ("perhaps similar presentations could be grouped vertically") and completeness of information provided (ie, make it clear that the workshops entail an additional fee, include time zone information, the continually changing/updated information on the webpage was confusing for some, and information on the dormitory accommodations was inadequate).

Some comments received in this section referred to the conference itself, rather than to the website. Most pertained to better signage on campus, and access to food on campus, particularly on weekend days.

What was useful and/or lacking in the printed conference program?

Seventy-two (72) positive comments were received regarding the printed program, as well as fifty-one (51) suggestions for improvement. The schedule grids for each day were very popular, as were the daily planning grids. The detailed session descriptions were also very useful to attendees. The "keyword list" also received a mention.

Several people used this space to comment on the sessions in general. Several people requested the inclusion of more "hands-on" type sessions during the conference (as opposed to pre-conference workshops).

Suggestions included: repeating keywords and thematic topics in session headings; platform information (Mac/PC) for the software to be presented; inclusion of session titles in the index; more detail on extra curricular events; day/date/timeslot headings on each page; a list of conference participants with email or snail mail addresses/URLs; an area map and transportation information.

Registration

Seventy-four (74) comments were received, mostly positive.

Henny Haliburton was (rightfully) heralded in many responses.

Comments regarding the registration process included: confusion about meal and events tickets; suggestions to identify first-time attendees on the badges; clearer parking and transportation information needed; inclusion of registrants' geographical location and/or regional affiliation in addition to name/institution; request to have a message board (especially for people in the dorms without telephones).

Pre-conference Workshops

This is another question whose default answer was "Yes." I counted here only those "Yes" answers which also included other information, such as number of workshops attended and comments. Those who indicated that they had not attended pre-conference workshops were asked which of these factors influenced their decision: Topics, Cost, and/or Scheduling of the workshops.

Forty-two (42) respondents attended at least one pre-conference workshop, and forty-nine (49) attended none.

The average number of workshops attended was 2.23. Of those who indicated the number of workshops attended: ten people attended one session, twelve people attended two sessions; thirteen people attended three sessions, and three people attended four sessions.

Reasons given for not attending workshops were as follows: four people indicated that the topics were not of interest; eighteen noted the cost; and twenty-four blamed the scheduling.

Many of the comments were positive, but vague ("Great!", "Very well taught"). They included: insufficient details in the descriptions to convince one to attend; not enough time to cover the material; suggestion to include costs in the registration fee; the timing was difficult for public school people.

Keynote and Plenary Speakers

Respondents were asked to rate the choice of the keynote speaker (Kenneth Bowersox, NASA astronaut) on a scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent). Out of 85 responses, 21 answered "N/A", indicating perhaps that they did not attend the keynote. The average rating of those who did attend was 3.59.

Comments received about the plenary speakers (Peter Liddell and Monika Dressler) were overwhelmingly positive, with only a few criticisms. As is shown later in this document, Monika's plenary was the top-rated (in this sampling) session overall. All keynote/plenary comments are collected in Appendix B.

Suggestions for future speakers included: Jim Noblitt, Open University leaders (Sinclair & similar), Chapelle, G. Davis, Andrei Codrescu, Nina Garrett, Rachel Saury.

Sessions

168 votes were cast, by 58 respondents who were asked to list their three favorite sessions. Some listed more than three, some fewer. 75 different sessions were mentioned at least once as a favorite; of these, 34 received one vote each as favorites, 14 got two votes each, 16 got three votes each.

The top session, delivered by Monika Dressler, was the plenary on the final day of the conference, introducing results from the IALLT 2001 professional survey.

A third of survey respondents named one of the remaining 11 sessions among their favorites.

In rank order, the top 11 sessions were:

1) #213 Plenary Speaker: Monika Dressler.

IALL Membership in the 21st Century: Who Are We & Where Are We Going?

2) #162 Presenter: Susan Breeyear.

The A-HAH! Factor - Tips on Encouraging Faculty to Integrate Tech in Their Teaching

3) #184 Panel presenters: Teresa Johnson, Jenise Rowekamp, Karima Benremouga, Jessamine Cooke-Plagwitz, Barbara Sawhill.

New Computer Labs: Wireless, Laptop, and Portable.

4) #186 Presenter: Jian Wu

Wireless Lab - An Actual Model

5) #333 Invited Speaker: Elizabeth Hall, J.D.

Practical Issues in Intellectual Property for Language Learning Technology Professionals

6) #283 Presenters: Monique Adriaen, Diane Woody

The Fit between Technology and Pedagogy in Language Instruction

7) #271 Presenter: Russell Hansen

Brigham Young University's Multimedia Testing Center

8) #290 Presenter: Bruno Browning

Distributed Archiving of Digitized Materials

9) #237 Henderson Plenary Speaker: Peter Liddell

Language Centers Part 2: Where Does the Lab Fit?

10) #264 Presenters John Reynolds, Andrew Peterson

From Physics to Fluency: The Role of Digital Language Labs in Second Language Acquisition (SOCALL)

11) #173 Presenter: Barbara Sawhill

Implementing, Supporting, and Using a Laptop Wireless Classroom

The rest of the sessions noted can be found in Appendix C.

Vendor Exhibits

This section also contained drop-down lists whose default answer was yes. Discounting lines with all "Yes" answers but no comments, seventy-one responses were counted. Sixty-four people indicated they had visited the exhibit hall, and seven said they had not. Fifty-eight respondents said the exhibitors were helpful, while thirteen said they were not. Similarly, sixty-one people believed the literature available on various products was of interest. Only ten indicated the materials were not of interest to them. Thirty-eight people felt there were vendors missing who should have been represented. Names of vendors they had hoped to see included: Rick Kunst - WinCalis, more publishers (Prentice Hall, Heinle & Heinle), authors and producers of authoring tools, a PC hardware manufacturer, Microsoft, more books on how to practically apply the resources, more companies that sell language software, and Macromedia.

Remarks about the exhibits focused primarily on the conflict of attending sessions and having enough time to visit the exhibit hall, its somewhat isolated location, and a desire to see more vendors.

Presenter Feedback

In the next section, presenters were asked to rate their experiences in the following areas on a scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent), with an N/A option. Forty-seven responses were received.

	Average Rating	N/A Responses
Proposal submission process	4.37	4
Communications	4.49	2
Timelines for the overall process	4.44	2
Tech support	4.80	3

The student tech support staff received kudos from many respondents, and tech support was the highest rated aspect for the presenters. Suggestions for improvement unanimously urge an earlier start to the process of proposal submission and acceptance, and dissemination of technical information.

Conference Meals and Entertainment

On a scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent), the following events were rated as follows. Ninety-one responses were received.

Event	# of N/A responses	Average Rating
Opening Reception	23	4.32
Opening Dinner	18	4.46
Box lunch in Exhibit area	9	3.64
Regional Lunch	11	3.73
Closing Dinner	44	4.18
Dancing	54	4.41

Twenty-four comments were received. Many said they appreciated the number and variety of meals and the opportunities to meet colleagues in a social setting. Several vegetarians noted that the distribution of the box lunches was not as controlled as it could have been; meat-eaters did not realize that the vegetarian meals had been specifically ordered, so some took those instead, and there were then not enough for the vegetarians. There also was confusion regarding the dorm meals, particularly breakfasts. One person suggested moving the regional lunch to the first day to promote networking and connections early. The dancing and Texas barbeque were a big hit! One person also suggested moving the opening reception and dinner up an hour. Having more moderately priced restaurants within walking distance was also noted as important.

Special Events (Recreational Options)

(I would suggest for this section in the future to list the events and have the participants rank them. It will make it easier to synthesize.)

Fifty responses were collected regarding special events. Twenty-two people participated in one event, eight people in two, and four people in three events.

Alley Theater: All six responses indicated they enjoyed this event, though to varying degrees (comments ranged from "a little pricey" to "fun" to "so-so").

Bike Ride on the Bayou: The bike ride generated the most and lengthiest comments. Five of eight people said they enjoyed the ride. Logistical problems were the cause of the negative responses (confusion over locks and pickup/storage of the bikes, conflict with conference sessions, the fact that the "bayou" was a "concrete storm wash"). Several people commented that they loved the inclusion of a physically active, healthy event.

Baseball game: All ten responses regarding the ball game were positive. This is a well-received IALL tradition.

NASA: The NASA trip had the most responses in this survey, with 14 attendees. Twelve of these enjoyed the trip, and two did not. One of those who did not enjoy it blamed the timing (Memorial Day weekend which generated large crowds, and also bad weather).

Pub Crawl: Six responses. Everyone had a good time, with one even saying it should be required of all conference attendees!

Galveston: Three of four people enjoyed the trip.

Lab tours: One positive response, no comments.

Houston trip: One positive response (comment: "OK").

General comments

"In general, how well did the conference meet your needs?"

Scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)

Eighty-nine responses received: average rating is 4.37.

Comments were overwhelmingly positive, with much-deserved praise for Claire Bartlett and Henny Haliburton. Some suggestions were made regarding logistics – scheduling the plenaries and start of sessions a bit later in the morning, making sure the tech committee has enough people so that the burden is lessened on each if possible.

Seventy-seven people indicated an intention to attend IALLT 2003 at the University of Michigan, while twelve said they would not.

Fifty-three said they would like to volunteer to help out within the IALLT organization, but only thirty-three gave their name and/or email address. This list appears in Appendix D.

Appendix A

Print-out of IALLT 2001 Post-conference Evaluation form.

Appendix B

Suggestions received, by category.

Program and Sessions:

What I found most useful about the program was specific demonstrations of applications of programs

What I found most useful about the program was great variety of presentations--I do not run a lab, but found useful information for instructors who want to use technology for language acquisition.

What I found most useful about the program was the juxtaposition of session descriptions with a blank grid for each time slot, so that registrants could plan the day's preferred sessions in advance and use the grid as a quick reference.

What I found most useful about the program was the practical aspects of most of the programs

Workshop and session descriptions were clear and to the point. Gave enough info to make decision on attending the session.

I am in public schools. I would like to see more public schools represented.

It would be nice to have a listing of all participants.

I found the workshops to be incredibly useful. It may be useful to have the forum sessions work in a similar way as the workshops do - with a topic and something to manipulate. This may encourage more positive active movement.

Fewer, longer sessions & more panel discussions

Offering sessions twice

Require presenters to offer online "handouts" if they are not available onsite

There were just a few little things that could have been improved (e.g., in program, having presenters keyed to page number, not just session ID)

More activities besides workshops

I wish the program had included more accurate descriptions of the presentations. I realize that such is the responsibility of the presenters, but some of them could be accused of false advertising.

I wish the program had included was clear information about the platform(s) under which the software in question could be used. Many times I found myself 15 minutes into a session only to find out that the software was Mac only and thus did not apply to my institution. Frustrating!

I wish the program had repeated the keywords and thematic topics in the heading of the session description

I wish the program had included a cross-reference for sessions - by page number (i.e., look up the session by presenter and find the page #)

I wish the program had included an indication of the expertise of the presenter/s. On one occasion, the presenter of an online testing application was the programmer and was unable to respond to content questions. The audience wanted to ask mainly content-type questions.

I wish the program had included black bar on right margin edge in different location for each day to separate each day's sessions for easier lookup

I wish the program had included headers indicating the day/date/timeslots on the top of each page.

I wish the program had included a better way to find individual presentations. Each session had a unique ID number, but they weren't in order. The index in the back author names and ID numbers, but it was impossible to locate a session since the IDs were not in order. A session should be findable based on any criterion--date and time (in the main listing), author (from the index) and topic.

What I found most useful about the program was very happy with the sessions except most presenters do not have their complete paper that can be referred to, no information whether the papers will be published in the proceedings or selected publications.

I wish the program had included screen shots of very useful materials. Perhaps a little more info about presenters & relevant URLs.

However, the conference was geared to the university program. I would like to see some sessions directed to the elementary, middle and high schools.

I wish the program had included 1) whether or not the presenter was promoting software through his/her presentation or simply demonstrating (if demonstrating, was the software going to be available through purchase or shareware?). I found it very frustrating to encounter promotion by surprise or to find out after sitting through a presentation that what I had become excited about was impossible to obtain.

I would have liked to see more discussion not about how to interest teachers but rather how teachers can teach in the labs. Maybe that's more CALICO?

I wish the program had included more computer programming help. For example, "here is a nifty applet that we made. Here is why we did it, and what it is meant to accomplish. Here is how we did it."

I wish the program had included the use of web + database for language instruction.

I wish the program had included a few more "how-to" offerings -- use of programs, materials etc

I wish the program had included a bit more detail about session content. Not enough info about meals, restaurants and shops in local area.

I wish the program had included information about Houston attractions.

I wish the program had included a much better and larger map of campus as well as a map of the Houston area around the campus.

I wish the program had included the email addresses of the participants. (or these might have been distributed as a separate handout.)

I wish the program had included more "how to's" on IP issues

Meals and Housing:

Single dormitory rooms would be better with private bathrooms instead of shared bathrooms.

Saturday meals on campus: this was also a problem at IALL '99.

Transportation between campus and hotel(s) needs to be improved in the future.

"Single" dormitory rooms should also provide for "single" bathroom occupancy.

I wish the program had included vegetarian restaurants in Houston.

1) Provide tips for people staying in dorms. For example, where can we mail a letter. Also, I assumed we'd have access to things like TV and radio, and was unprepared to do without them. I was extremely grateful for access to computers in the dorms so I could check the weather forecast, get news, etc.
2) Provide tourist info to people staying in dorms. (I had a hard time figuring out where to go and what to do).

Also, meal info (dorms) was a little confusing. I did not receive meal tickets and it took some effort to find out when/where to go for breakfast.

Don't forget our friends with special dietary needs. Vegetarian meals can be done very creatively!

With the restaurants so far away from the college, I felt that there should have been recourse for dinners. It got expensive to go to Rice Village every evening, not to mention dangerous when I couldn't find anyone to walk home with after dark! I also think it would be probably better to have the "opening dinner" a little later in the conference, maybe the second day instead of the first. The dancing was great fun, and we definitely should continue that tradition.

More local cuisine!

The IALL'01 closing dinner and dance proves that we must ALWAYS have a dance band! IALLTers ROCK!!!

A lunch option with "lighter fare" would have been nice; couldn't eat it all.

Although the staff was very pleasant, the quality of food served in the dorm breakfast line was poor. Unfortunately, the location left no alternatives within walking distance.

I was glad to see vegetarian meals offered at all events. I was disappointed that the vegetarian meal at the opening dinner was not as nicely prepared presented as the meat entree. I would have enjoyed the potatoes and vegetables served with the meat rather than the inevitable pasta with cream sauce! But on the whole, very well done! I loved the band and the dancing.

The first day in the residence for breakfast. The times were not adhered to, and we were not informed ahead of time that it would be so. Also, it hadn't been clear where the breakfasts would be. Therefore, by the time that I made it there the breakfast was long gone and yet according to the times we were told, it should have still been offered.

For vegetarians, the boxed meals were a bit underwhelming. Also, it wasn't clear to non-vegetarians that those lunches were specifically requested by others. Eventually, the veggies meals were gone and vegetarians had no lunch. Bad deal.

Exhibits

Nice location and well arranged, especially with the food at the far end so we all had to walk through to get to it.

a bit small space and not enough time to spend with the vendors.

As usual at conferences you have to choose between attending sessions and visiting the exhibit hall.

Didn't feel harassed by vendors. I could walk by booths and interact at a level I was comfortable with.

In many ways it would have been nice had the exhibits opened later and stayed open later past the last session. I found that it was important to me to attend as many sessions as possible to learn what others are doing. Yet, it didn't then offer me a chance for exploring the exhibits except during breaks which was awkward. Had the exhibits been more centralized where one could walk past them between sessions, it may have been easier.

Presenter issues:

Improve the communication on acceptance or denial of a session proposal

Tech support at the conference itself was excellent. The staff persons and volunteers were knowledgeable and eager to help. But the whole process of notifying presenters of the tech facilities was started much too late.

For planners of iallt03 - you need to allow more time for everything procedural. The call needs to go out earlier. The decision process needs to happen NOT over the holidays please! There needs to be more time for the Henderson selection and refinements process.

Schedule for presenters needs to be done earlier. I luckily had an early presentation, but if it had been scheduled later in the conference, it might have conflicted with my departure. Since inexpensive airfare can usually only be come by if one reserves seats far in advance, it's difficult to know which day and time to come and go if the sessions haven't been scheduled as early as possible.

Website and Registration:

Clear warning that no letter of confirmation would be sent later, so that I would have known the importance of printing off the appropriate web pages while still at home.

More clarity about registrations/reduction in registration problems/questions

We need to be able to "add" special events or meals or whatever after we have initially submitted our registration. The site was unable to accept or process these requests. We aren't always able to complete all facets of registration in one sitting.

It would have been nice to be able to print out all of the session descriptions at once and not one by one

Having a simple search engine in the webpage will be very helpful when you have so much to read and browse

The website was slightly difficult to understand. It was not clear that the workshops were charged (and registered for) separately from the sessions. The schedule was hard to follow, especially identifying sessions that were meeting at the same time. I think a grid (as in the handbook) would work better.

Less need for toggling back and forth between various screens of the program would have been useful

Possible improvement: Navigation back to list of sessions from a session description. Example: As far as I could tell, after one clicked on a session description, if one wanted to return to the list of sessions for a particular day, one could only get back to the very top (day#1) of the complete conference sessions list. I would have preferred to have been linked back to the section of the list from which I exited in order to investigate a session's description.

Implement multi-year membership options

It could have been put up a little earlier and it was a bit confusing when it did get up there. The info on the dorms was not enough.

It was hard to keep track of the information coming in on the website, as it was done piecemeal. I know this was necessary, but it was very hard to plan ahead when things kept changing all the time.

The tie-in to membership registration could have been better. It would have been nice to have on-line or credit-card membership registration.

A detailed map of the location of the dorms/hotel would have been useful.

Perhaps similar presentations could be grouped vertically

Have the website fully functional at least 2 weeks earlier than the date it was so this year.

I'm not sure why everyone received a "member" ribbon. There were some folks who weren't members but got the ribbon and they didn't have much meaning when everyone had one anyway. It would have helped more to perhaps identify officers or something if that was to help people know who they could go to with questions or some indication of regional groups on the badges.

Two times when I visited the registration desk there was no one there to help me. I waited around and no one came to my assistance. If there is going to be posted hours that the registration desk is going to be open, someone should be there to work the desk area.

Registration was very easy. I wish the badges indicated whether the attendee was a first-timer, Council member or Board member, plus indication if an official affiliate representatives.

Unclear what the April 13 deadline really meant (e.g., no changes after that?) Badges needed ribbons for IALLT Board/Council, first time attendees. Not needed for "Member" but yes for "Vendor." Could have used tickets for all events, not just some... hence I couldn't remember when to bring tickets (e.g. to dinner)

Please print names and organizations in larger font on name badges so it's not so obvious when I'm looking for somebody's name or organization

The badge/lanyard is convenient because you don't have to stick it to your clothes and you can hang your dorm key on it and not lose that.

Yes, but the registration was moved from the student center to the hotel on Wednesday, and I didn't know this and actually walked from the hotel, to the student center, and then back again!

Institutions need to be invoiced immediately, especially if the conference is held in May/June. My registration fee was not processed in time to be charged on rgw current FY01 budget.

Registration was a bit disorganized. Would have been better to have had all event tickets issued at time of registration rather then at time of actual event. Transportation to and from Hotel was also a bit odd.

In addition to a registrant's school affiliation, it might be a good idea to include the geographical location (city, state/country) of the school, since there are schools by the same name in different parts of the US at least. Badges might also include the regional affiliation of the registrant, if applicable. Yes, I did receive all necessary info. and tickets in my packet. Instructions about parking could have been more clearly indicated or explained.

I might have appreciated an update on special events, which I did not participate in but might have done in a couple of cases if I'd been aware of availability, such as last minute cancellations.

The online registration was very handy, but it would be better if we could get an official receipt from the registration office.

The packet was complete. I had all I needed. However, the lack of a message board proved problematic when colleagues wanted to make plans and couldn't communicate across the many buildings. A place to leave notes would have been helpful.

I had to make changes to my initial registration, and I never got a confirmation on that final version of my registration until after the conference was over.

Transportation and Navigation/Signage:

I arrived Tuesday evening and it was not easy or cheap to get to campus, find the dorm and campus police etc. and then there was a problem with the room. This aspect could use some improvement. Because of the difficult transportation situation, I was driven all the way to the airport on Saturday, for which I am most grateful.

Better, larger signs posted on or around buildings would make locations easier to find.

Better marking / signage of where to go to register / check in on-site.

The one thing that I found really confusing was trying to work out which zone the conference was in. It was hard to tell from a little map. Plus there was only the one map - which I believe was from the Hobby airport, and so that was no help when arriving from the other airport.

The buses that ran to Rice village also stopped too early. They may have run until 10:00, but the last pick-up in the village was 9:30.

a tour guide on campus would be very helpful.

Having someone (monitors?) at the buildings where the sessions take place who can direct participants afterwards with directions on where to go and how to get there.

Special events:

It is difficult to sign up for special events ahead of time without having the session program (don't want to miss an important one)- however, waiting for the program may entail that the special events are filled

Although the closing dinner's band was very good, the volume level of their playing was so high that conversation was nearly impossible. I'm sure the need to move the dinner and entertainment inside due to inclement weather contributed to the problem.

I wish the opening reception/dinner was just a little earlier (6 instead of 7 for cocktails, 7 instead of 8 to eat).

That's what sets IALL(T) apart! One suggestion might be to have the regional lunch on the first day to promote better connection. The band was great and the dancing was still wonderful but not the same without Jose-Luis.

Not enough room for reception--poor acoustics

"Bookending" the conference with an opening reception and a closing dinner provides a very nice way to get to know people at the beginning and to keep everyone together at the end (rather than having everyone just fade away, as happens with many other conference groups).

Pre-conference workshops:

Although some of the topics were interesting, there were insufficient details such as one would find in syllabi or on someone's well-designed website to convince me of their merit or relevance to my needs.

There was one I wanted to attend, but it was too early. I couldn't see spending an entire week away.

I wish each workshop had been about 4 hours. We had to hurry through everything.

I would have attended more if they had not been so expensive.

Two were as excellent and followed the descriptions posted, one should have been labeled an "in progress" demonstration, not a presentation.

General

I have made a lot of critical comments here but those were just detail-y things. Overall, and especially as a first conference in a field I am just entering, this IALLT was amazing and definitely worth it. I CANNOT imagine trying to be a lab director without the ideas and information that I was able to get at this conference. Also the conference organizers did a great job making everything run well, helping people with their dilemmas and handling unforeseen events.

The conference was definitely worth attending. I would like to suggest starting a little later than 8:15am, maybe 9:00am or 9:30am, out of consideration for those from westerly time zones. The empty block Saturday 4:30-7:00pm could have been used to cover early sessions. At least, don't schedule the plenaries, which everyone wants to attend, at those very early hours when many of us are still mentally asleep even if our eyes are open (I did arrive early --- on Monday.). As the next conference is also in the Central Time zone, I hope these comments help.

I always say "The LLTI list is my university". The same goes for this conference. Now a comment on the next questions: I would very much like to attend IALLT'03, but I cannot say I expect to do so. My answer is "I don't know!" And I don't think I would be of much use within the organization.

The techno-infrastructure of Rice was ideal. The hardware in the beautiful classrooms and lecture halls was the best that I have ever experienced in terms of hassle-free operation. It was an outstanding place to hold a conference for language learning technology. Hats off to Claire and SOCALL.

My goal was to be able to come back to my K-12 school with software and the know-how of how to run a lab for the following school year. Not only have I ordered the software, but I have been in contact with several IALLT people who have helped a lot with questions I have had

Appendix C

Session ratings beyond the top eleven:

Honorable mention

#210 Henderson Nominee and Plenary Speaker: Rachel Saury

Interconnection, Technology and the Future: The Road to Effective Uses of Instructional Technologies

#170 Presenters: Eric Granquist, Claire Bartlett

Extemplate: A Multi-Media Web Based Tool to Assess Language Learning

#175 Presenters: Susan Moreland, Yumiko Guajardo, Ryoko Keaton, Scott Allen, Miguel Verano, Myrna Cronin

Technology-Based Courseware and Language Maintenance: Processes and Outcomes (SOCALL)

#215 Panel Presenters: Philomena Meechan, Lynne Crandall, Monika Dressler

Nurturing Foreign Language Instructors: Resources, Programs, Services, and Suggestions

#266 Presenter: Read Gilgen

What's The Point? Powerpoint in the Foreign Language Classroom

#292 Workshop Presenters Chris Higgins, Lynne Crandall

Grant Writing 101

#298 Presenters: John Sullivan, Gitonga M'Mbijjewe

Capture Essentials for Digital-Video (SOCALL)

#329 Presenter: Anthony Vanchu

Language Learning Technology in Houston: NASA’s JSC Language Education Center (Lab Tour)

#334 Presenter: Otmar Foelsche

Digitizing 101 – A Primer for the Brave New World of Virtual Labs

#346 Keynote Speaker: Kenneth Bowersox, Captain, USN

Across Barriers:Space and Language

#336 Moderator: Claire Bradin-Siskin

Language Pedagogy & Instructional Design: The Baby and the Bathwater

#337 Moderator: Caroll Hightower

New Technologies: Scoping the Horizon

#339 Moderator: Ed Dente

Running a Lab on a Shoestring

#340 Moderator: Dan Soneson

Whither (and Whence) the Profession?

#341 Moderator: LeeAnn Stone

Recruiting, Training and Maintaining Staff

#342 Moderator: Barbara Sawhill

Language Labs in K-12 Schools

Special mention

#168 Harold Hendricks: USING DVD IN THE CLASSROOM

#193 Sarah Withee: SO YOU WANT TO BUILD A MULTIMEDIA LANGUAGE LEARNING PROGRAM: SOME THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE YOU START

#207 Dan Soneson: TESTMAKER: AN INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA TEMPLATE FOR ASSESSING COMMUNICATIVE

#229 Marlene Johnshoy, Cheryl Alcaya: COBALTT! CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY

#231 Reid Paxton, Sabine Gabaron: ALL ABOARD THE METRO: AN ONLINE TRIP THROUGH FRENCH CULTURE

#261 David Pankratz, Panel Moderator: DELIVERING WHAT IS DELIVERED: HOW CAN PUBLISHERS AND MEDIA PROFESSIONALS WORK TOGETHER TO FOSTER THE PRODUCTIVE USE OF MULTIMEDIA MATERIALS? [with special thanks to the IALL members & publishers on the panel.]

#281 Lisa Jansen: CURB CUTS IN THE DIGITAL LANGUAGE LAB: MAKING MATERIALS ACCESSIBLE

#286 Dennis Pollard, Jan Stewart: USING VIXEN (VIDEO INTERACTIVE EXERCISE ENGINE) TO CREATE CONTENT-BASED EXERCISES FOR STUDENTS.

#304 Claire Bartlett, Karima Benremouga, Gabriela Flores Irwin: LANGUAGE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY IN HOUSTON: LAB TOURS

#314 Paula Bilstein: TEACHING ENGLISH FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES AT NASA: AIR-TO-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS

#328 Janet Flewelling, Donald Snider: FROM INTERVIEWS TO THE LANGUAGE LAB TO COMPUTERS: BRINGING THE EVALUATION OF ORAL SKILLS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAMS INTO THE NEW MILLENIUM

#338 Elizabeth Hanley,Jack Burston: FACE-TO-FACE WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (Forum)

#343 Ute Lahaie: MANAGING CHANGE: GOING DIGITAL (Forum)

#344 Sharon Scinicariello: FACULTY INVOLVEMENT & USER SUPPORT (Forum)

Session numbers earning a vote - good work, folks!

Pete Smith, Laurel Mayo (#174); Lauren Rosen (#183); Lilly Chen, Peter Schultz (#187); Bruce Parkhurst, Robert Fischer, Patricia Miller, Otmar Foelsche (#190); Keeta Martin, Michael Jones, Claire Bradin-Siskin (#191); Rasma Lazda, Hajime Kumahata, Janet Norden, Ute Lahaie (#195); Claire Bradin Siskin, David Malicki, Keeta Martin (#197); Houghton Mifflin (#198); Shutang Zheng, Jun Da (#203); Tomas Bevia (#206); Samantha Earp (#209); Samantha Earp (#211); Marlene Johnshoy, Frances Matos-Schultz, Roy Ketchum, Citlali Miranda-Aldaco (#216); Julie Evershed (#220); Scott Gerrity (#224); María Erickson (#225); Judi Franz, Stan Woo-Sam (#227); Sharon Scinicariello (#228); Lynne Crandall, Philomena Meechan (#230); LeeAnn Stone, Barbara Sawhill, Mikle Ledgerwood, Julie Evershed (#262); Cindy Jorth (#265); Harold Hendricks (#269); Coral Noonan, Lindsey and Greg Noonan (#275); Sandra de Bresser (#285); Eric Granquist (#288); Sara Wilson (#299); Dreux Ste. Marie, Gary Dauphin (#300); Joel Goldfield (#305); Vanessa Arnaud (#306); Marlene Johnshoy (#308); Peter Schultz, Jane Verm, Hiroko, Eric Granquist (#311); Ron Remschel (#330); Yuangshan Chuang (#331); Bruce Parkhurst (#345).

Appendix D

Name and/or contact information of those who wish to volunteer in the IALLT organization.

Jean Amick, jean.amick@kcd.louisville.ky.us

Gamin Bartle, gbartle@as.ua.edu

Sue Breeyear, breeyear@polyglot.uvm.edu

Yuangshan Chuang, rocmelia@pagic.net

Judi Franz, jmfranz@uci.edu

Guess!, read@lss.wisc.edu

Harold Hendricks, harold_hendricks@byu.edu

Dennie Hoopingarner, hooping4@msu.edu

Teresa H. Johnson, johnsoth@slu.edu

Frank J. Kruger-Robbins, fkruger-robbins@pinecrest.edu

Ute S. Lahaie, Ute_Lahaie@baylor.edu

Mike Ledgerwood, Mike.Ledgerwood@sunysb.edu

Deborah Majzoub, majzoub_d@hccs.cc.tx.us

Iris Myers, imyers@roanoke.edu

Barbara Need, language-labs@uchicago.edu

Mary Kiyoko Ohno, mohno@carlosrosario.org

Grant Olson

Bruce "Program" Parkhurst, brucep@bu.edu

Jeffrey D. Samuels, jsamuels@goucher.edu

Dr. Reyna L. Sirias-Ortiz, sirias_r@hccs.cc.tx.us

Carine Ullom, cullom@stlawu.edu

Bridget Yaden, yadenlbe@plu.edu

Anthony Vanchu, avanchu@ems.jsc.nasa.gov

Renzhong (Bill) Wang, bwang@leacock.lan.mcgill.ca

Carmen Zeisler, czeisler@mail.aim-net.mx