Difference between revisions of "Visioneers Telecon Page"

Revision as of 13:27, September 20, 2010

visioneers Telecon August 30, 2010

notes

Visoneers Telecon – September 20, 2010

Present:Bruce Caron,Carol Meyer,Brian Rogan,Rob Raskin,Tyler Stevens,Karl Benedict,Annette Schloss,LuAnn Dahlman

There is a now wiki page posted for both the summer and winter meetings. The ExCom had no concerns about the move of the summer meeting from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. Bruce has put together the first iteration for a best practices document for Technical Workshops. It was also suggested to have one for the Open Meetings as well as one for the Breakout Sessions. Carol mentioned that if more guidance could be provided to the conveners of the sessions then it would help to generate meeting proceedings at the end of each meeting. Rahul Ramachadran is working on a way to create these documents easier and compile a proceedings document. Meeting theme Carol gave a recap of the call with Ann Doucette of the Teacher Evaluator Institute. Ann suggested a number of suggestions for workshop sessions on evaluation. This would help our community understand what is valuable to measure and look at and use the information to refine their projects mid-course and to report back to their funders. For projects that are over a significant amount of time, there is a real call for evaluation. This should be considered as the overall theme of the meeting but as ESIP history has shown, the meeting offerings aren’t always tightly focused. The plenary sessions, however, will be close to the theme. OMB has made evaluation a current priority and it isn’t clear how this will affect our sponsors. How can we make metrics valuable? Speakers There were several speaker suggestions that were listed in the wiki, including Ann Doucette, OMB, Bob Donahue of WGBH and a panel of agencies members. Karl asked if there was anyone from NSF that might talk about their evaluative components. NSF does have evaluators that evaluate various projects. Karl is willing to make a couple of inquiries to NSF to see if there is someone who could present. Heidi Cullen was asked to speak at the summer meeting but was unable to attend. She is interested in attending the winter meeting. It was noted that Ed Geary of GLOBE to attend. Could he be a speaker? The program is at an inflexion point where it is reinventing itself technologically and has a new mission to do climate change education. With the potential of a new Climate Education Working Group, there may be an interest on their part to attend. There is some travel money to help with their costs. Would GLOBE be interested in being an in-house case study as part of the meeting? It was felt that we could enter into a conversation and see if they were interested in sharpening their evaluation skill set? Strand Ideas for the Meeting Products and Services, Decisions and Energy groups will all want to have strands at the meeting. There are a minimum of five rooms but there is room to grow. Juried Posters This was an idea that Chris Lenhardt has been thinking about doing. He feels there have been a number of recycled posters and that we should begin to judge posters based on some types of criteria and offer an award. There has been a document that has been created that shows how to make a good poster. Can we find a way to keep the posters up for longer than just during the poster session? What are the criteria to judge the poster and what would the winner get? A number of suggestions were given and it was important to note that there does need to be criteria on how they are judged. How does it promote the federation is one important criteria. The criteria could also vary with the theme of the meeting. How does it reflect the community aspect of the federation? It would be important if we could pdfs of the posters to serve as metrics. Rahul described micro articles which are compressed versions of presentations that could be part of a published collection somewhere. The next telecon will be October 4th at 2 PM

Past Visioneer Telecons

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ===notes===
-Visioneers Telecon – August 30, 2010
+'''Visoneers Telecon – September 20, 2010'''
-Present:
-Bruce Caron
-Brian Rogan
-Carol Meyer
-Karl Benedict
-Annette Schloss
-Tyler Stevens
-Rob Raskin
-Ana Prados
-LuAnn Dahlman, NOAA
-Emily Law, JPL
-Bruce Wilson
-Brand Nieman
-Kerry Tilifer, Information Associates
+Present:Bruce Caron,Carol Meyer,Brian Rogan,Rob Raskin,Tyler Stevens,Karl Benedict,Annette Schloss,LuAnn Dahlman
+There is a now wiki page posted for both the summer and winter meetings.  The ExCom had no concerns about the move of the summer meeting from Albuquerque to Santa Fe.
-'''Recap of Summer Meeting'''
+Bruce has put together the first iteration for a best practices document for Technical Workshops.   It was also suggested to have one for the Open Meetings as well as one for the Breakout Sessions.
+Carol mentioned that if more guidance could be provided to the conveners of the sessions then it would help to generate meeting proceedings at the end of each meeting.
-'''Workshop Discussion'''
+Rahul Ramachadran is working on a way to create these documents easier and compile a proceedings document.
+Meeting theme
-It was noted in the evaluation of the summer meeting that there was a need to distinguish between a workshop and a presentation.  There should be activities that include interaction between the participants and there should be a defined learning objective.  It was asked if it would be worth posting the presentations from an exemplary workshop to show people what it means to have a more active means of instruction.  There was a general consensus that it would be a good idea.
+Carol gave a recap of the call with Ann Doucette of the Teacher Evaluator Institute.  Ann suggested a number of suggestions for workshop sessions on evaluation.   This would help our community understand what is valuable to measure and look at and use the information to refine their projects mid-course and to report back to their funders.   For projects that are over a significant amount of time, there is a real call for evaluation.
-It might be an worthwhile to have people give a description of their workshop that might involve downloading materials ahead of time.  It needs to be hands on and an interactive experience.  What you are expected to download or exercise ahead of time would be helpful.
+This should be considered as the overall theme of the meeting but as ESIP history has shown, the meeting offerings aren’t always tightly focused.  The plenary sessions, however, will be close to the theme.
+OMB has made evaluation a current priority and it isn’t clear how this will affect our sponsors.  How can we make metrics valuable?
+Speakers
-'''Open Meeting Discussion'''
+There were several speaker suggestions that were listed in the wiki, including Ann Doucette, OMB, Bob Donahue of WGBH and a panel of agencies members.  Karl asked if there was anyone from NSF that might talk about their evaluative components. NSF does have evaluators that evaluate various projects.   Karl is willing to make a couple of inquiries to NSF to see if there is someone who could present.
+Heidi Cullen was asked to speak at the summer meeting but was unable to attend.  She is interested in attending the winter meeting.
-The open day had a lot of offerings and we need to be able to have a way for people to get to more presentations than they were able to attend.  It would help if the idea of the Open Meeting Day could return to its roots.  Could there be a way to set rooms aside for evolving meetings versus meetings that are established.   Might there be too much going on for a full day of Open Meetings?
+It was noted that Ed Geary of GLOBE to attend.  Could he be a speaker?  The program is at an inflexion point where it is reinventing itself technologically and has a new mission to do climate change education.   With the potential of a new Climate Education Working Group, there may be an interest on their part to attend.  There is some travel money to help with their costs.
+Would GLOBE be interested in being an in-house case study as part of the meeting?  It was felt that we could enter into a conversation and see if they were interested in sharpening their evaluation skill set?
-People did not sign up for open meeting offerings.  Rather than allow it to be more “open”, the open meetings were more set in stone and people did not realize they were able to offer a session.
+Strand Ideas for the Meeting
-Should we allow for tracks to get locked down but also have time for meetings to “evolve” where necessary?  If we set aside rooms for “emergent activities” would that serve the same purpose?  It might be worth renaming what it might be called; possibly “emergent meetings”.  It seems as if people have lost the purpose of what an ESIP meeting is all about.
+Products and Services, Decisions and Energy groups will all want to have strands at the meeting.  There are a minimum of five rooms but there is room to grow.
-Kerry Tilfer offered her perspective as a new attendee.  It would have helped her to have had a more general meeting which would allow for an ESIP orientation. It was noted that for the ESIP education workshops, the teachers were given an orientation on ESIP at the very beginning.
+Juried Posters
+This was an idea that Chris Lenhardt has been thinking about doing.  He feels there have been a number of recycled posters and that we should begin to judge posters based on some types of criteria and offer an award.  There has been a document that has been created that shows how to make a good poster.
-'''Action items'''
+Can we find a way to keep the posters up for longer than just during the poster session?
+What are the criteria to judge the poster and what would the winner get?  A number of suggestions were given and it was important to note that there does need to be criteria on how they are judged.  How does it promote the federation is one important criteria.  The criteria could also vary with the theme of the meeting.  How does it reflect the community aspect of the federation?
-It might be worth creating a workshop template that could be used by presenters who put together.  Bruce will put together something that could be used for this purpose for the next meeting.
+It would be important if we could pdfs of the posters to serve as metrics.  Rahul described micro articles which are compressed versions of presentations that could be part of a published collection somewhere.
+The next telecon will be October 4th at 2 PM
-The Open Meeting idea will be “rebranded”
+'''
-It might be worth having a check box for new attendees and offer a telecon online for orientation for those who would be interested.
-'''Preliminary Planning for Winter Meeting'''
-The hotel is the Dupont Renaissance for the meeting.    The theme for the meeting was discussed; Several ideas were put forth including Metrics.  It was determined that while this topic would provide a value to the federation, it wasn’t broad enough to draw interest.  Rob Raskin raised the idea of how we evaluate the impact of what earth science data and information does.   There might be a way to learn from George Washington University to see what they do.  They have a semi-annual evaluators institute and they might be able to have them to the meeting to help ESIP do metrics better to get a better return on the investment on collecting data and doing science.  What is the impact of that data being used by a large range of organization and constituencies?
-It was noted that, increasingly, the communities will need to report more on metrics and we could be in on the ground floor and education other communities on how to do a better job.
-LuAnn suggested the idea of using Making Data Matter of an overarching theme.  It might be too broad but could have a sub title that would help to focus the theme.
-The winter meeting has more plenary time and has larger strands that can attract people to give talks.  The hotels have larger rooms at greater costs, so we try to do what makes sense in DC.
-'''Action Items'''
-The next task is to look for a data related theme for the next call
-Topics will be added to the Visioneers Wiki page
-'''Summer Meeting 2011'''
-There was a discussion of having the meeting a week earlier in order to move the meeting to Santa Fe.  Carol has posted the information on both the Albuquerque and Santa Fe locations.  Both locations could offer the government per diem rate.   Other locations in Santa Fe were much more expensive and could not accommodate us for the space we would need.
-A call was made to St John’s College but there has been no response.  The hotels were much more open to dealing with us as a group.  There needs to be a quick decision about locking in a location.  There are plusses and minuses to each location.
-Santa Fe has a lot more attractions and close walking distance to the downtown area.  Once they get there they can settle in.  In Albuquerque, the lack of adjoining hotel is a problem.  The closest is a Mariott is a three mile drive from the University.  Most of the other hotels are a distance away from the university.
-It seems as if Santa Fe is more conducive to keeping the group more cohesive rather than the problems with Albuquerque where people would be all over the city.  There was a consensus that Santa Fe was the better choice for a meeting rather than Albuquerque.
-Carol will take up the change with the ExCom next week.
-The next telecon will be September 20th at 2 PM EST.
 [[Past Visioneer Telecons]]<br>