Feedback :: Report
Report on delegate feedback ‘Institutional Impact’ – JISC Institutional Innovation/ Lifelong Learning & Workforce Engagement Programme Event, 9 July 2009
Of the 62 delegates attending the event (this is excluding the support team and JISC members), 16 submitted responses to the feedback form which is a 25.6% return rate. (The feedback form can be accessed at:
This summary report outlines the feedback from the submitted forms including how the platform was experienced, nature of participation, what delegates valued, and what they would like to be different at future events. It concludes with a list of recommendations arising from selected feedback.
Representation of programme phases
Table 1: Feedback forms submitted and attendance totals
All submissions found registration easy with one delegate (perhaps external to the email lists?) receiving information insufficiently in advance. From the registration details it appears that a few delegates registered more than one with one delegate mentioning they did this when they had not received confirmation of registration.
Using the Elluminate audiographic platform
To meet the needs of delegates who might be unfamiliar with the online Elluminate audiographic application platform, a series of familiarisation sessions with the platform were run during the weeks leading up to the event. These were small group, 2-hour sessions of basic training with the platform as well as hands-on practical experience with participating and presenting. Of the 62 delegates who attended the event 34 signed up for a familiarisation session. Taken only from the feedback forms, the figures in Table 2 illustrate the levels of familiarity with Elluminate together with the proportion that signed up for familiarisation sessions. These indicate that not all delegates new to the platform took up the opportunity to get practice in a hands-on interactive session. Conversely there were delegates who did take up the opportunity despite previous experience with the platform.
Table 2 Elluminate platform familiarity and sign ups to training sessions
Based on their experience of the event, 12 of the 16 who submitted feedback would consider using Elluminate for their future project meetings or assemblies.
Favourable comments about the platform referred to:
Conversely difficulties with the platform included:
While the above difficulties were not confined to those who had not attended familiarisation sessions the following issues that were dealt with in familiarisation sessions were:
Tables 3 and 4 illustrate respectively the audio equipment used by delegates during the event and the type of Internet connectivity. In addition to the audio equipment listed three delegates linked up with a webcam.
A quarter of those who submitted feedback forms made use of external speakers for the sessions. Given that some of the audio problems encountered may have been aggravated by the use of external speakers, this is referred to later in the section on Recommendations.
Table 3 Equipment used during the event
Table 4 Internet connectivity
Participation methods and level
Almost all (13/16) who submitted feedback forms participated with text chat during the event, with the remaining three listening and observing only without using text or voice options. Eleven also participated in the voice chat while three of the Phase 3 and one of the Phase 2 delegates who responded also gave presentations during the event. Two of these also connected via webcam.
Table 5 Participation methods
Table 6 includes the totals that attended the various types of plenary sessions (excluding support team members) as well as of those who submitted feedback forms.
Table 6 Session participation
The totals reflecting participation on the day in the break-out sessions is illustrated in Table 7.
Table 7 Attendance at break-out sessions
To approximate the overall level of engagement as perceived by delegates they were asked to individually rate this on a 5 point scale from very weak to very strong. The level of engagement of those who provided feedback ranged across all the categories with an equal number of delegates rating their level of engagement 2 and below as did those 3 and above (see Figure 1), with median scores of 2.5.
Figure 1: Level of engagement provided by delegates in feedback forms
Most valued at the event
Reported by those who submitted feedback, what they valued most from the event included:
In contrast to the value given as ‘taking away many positives’ there was also one response that there was ‘Nothing’ of value, two that suggested a ‘return’ to face to face events, while another elaborated on the event as a ‘..grotesque parody of an academic meeting…’
Requests for future events
In response to what delegates would like to be different in future online events the requests in the feedback included:
As some of the sound problems were caused by delegates using external speakers and others not disengaging sound when they were not speaking, consider providing a set of key recommendations for equipment use with the platform. These would be useful not only for future events but also for those projects who have expressed interest in using the platform for their project meetings and assemblies. The guidelines could include the practicalities of interface management and profiling and other functions as were outlined during the familiarisation sessions.
There are likely to be delegates, as there were in this event, who consider text chat ‘rude’ during presentations. There may be the need to provide information on the genre of (online) events given the practice of participating in multiple channels that is developing in online and face to face conferences.
Suggestions of how to manage multi-tasking by dividing tasks across team members might also be helpful to those new to online event interfaces. In addition a reminder of the opportunity to revisit recorded sessions after the event could be included.
Compiled by Patsy Clarke