New Learning: a different way of approaching conference evaluation

Chapman, Diane D.; Wiessner, Colleen Aalsburg; Storberg-Walker, Julia; Hatcher, Tim

doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500147

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Requiring the survey be completed as part of the registration process may be an effective way to ensure surveys are returned and sample sizes are adequate for subsequent analyses; post‐meeting surveys would also be useful, but subject to the non‐response biases exhibited in self‐selecting surveys (Vaske ). Ravn and Elsborg (), Chapman et al (), Severt et al (), Lee and Back (), and Spiegel () offer potential frameworks for improving our understanding of what attendees expect from conferences and possible ways to deliver on those expectations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication rates of presentations given at annual conferences of The Wildlife Society, 1994–2006

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Annual conferences of The Wildlife Society (TWS) are important venues to advance wildlife science research through the presentation of papers and posters. However, no longitudinal analysis has been conducted of publication rates of TWS conference presentations. We classified all conference presentations from 1994 to 2006 by publication status, publication outlet, lead author affiliation, and elapsed time between presentation and publication to analyze presentation and publication trends. Of the 6,279 presentations reviewed, 1,771 were published (28.2%), primarily in the Journal of Wildlife Management (22.9%) or the Wildlife Society Bulletin (15.2%). The average time between presentation and publication was 30.1 ± 0.6 months. Academics provided most of the presentations (52.6%), as well as publications (62.4%). We believe consideration of TWS annual conference presentation and publication metrics by TWS membership and conference organizers is warranted to ensure maximum stakeholder benefit. We discuss these implications of publication analysis and offer suggestions for increasing publication rates, if that becomes a goal of TWS. We encourage periodic investigation to quantify conference benefits and to better assess the efficacy of TWS conferences. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication rates of presentations given at annual conferences of The Wildlife Society, 1994–2006

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The “natural” place to look for empirical data on learning at conferences would be evaluation reports (e.g., Hameister, ). Indeed, the last few years have seen the development of a new conference evaluation model, tentatively termed “new learning” by its authors, Chapman and colleagues (, ; Haley et al, ; Hatcher et al, ; Storberg‐Walker et al, ). Following this model, conference evaluations should be directed toward the learner, toward the future, toward the “why and how”, and in addition should be focused on collaboration – all in contrast to classical evaluation models.…”

Section: Learning At Conferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning and interaction at a conference

Kordts-Freudinger

Al-Kabbani

Schaper

2017

New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The situation was this: Data had been collected from an ongoing study involving CoPs and how they influenced generating new knowledge at conferences (see, e.g., Aalsburg-Wiessner, Hatcher, Storberg-Walker, & Chapman, 2006;Chapman, Wiessner, Storberg-Walker, & Hatcher, 2007). Researchers were coding the data using Wenger's (1998) framework when inconsistencies arose.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wenger's Communities of Practice Revisited: A (Failed?) Exercise in Applied Communities of Practice Theory-Building Research

Storberg-Walker

2008

Advances in Developing Human Resources

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The problem and the solution. Multiple sources describe how communities of practice (CoPs) work and what their constituent elements may be. These contributions offer valuable insights into learning, meaning, identity, and practice. However,they do not explicitly take recognized theory-building steps (R. Dubin, 1978; R. J.Torraco, 2005) to develop an applied theory of CoPs that researchers can test, apply, and adapt. One solution is to submit CoPs to an applied theory-building research critique. This article reviews the analytical components of E. Wenger's (1998) abstract theory with the intent to specify each component and move the components down the ladder of abstraction.The intent of this critique is to move Wenger's (1998) theory toward an operationalized format for confirmation, application, and continual refinement.After the theory-building research analysis, it was found that the 13 analytical elements of Wenger's CoP contribution did not withstand the theory-building research critique in level of analysis or definitional clarity. Recommendations for future CoP applied theory-building research are provided.

show abstract

New Learning: a different way of approaching conference evaluation

Cited by 12 publications

References 13 publications

Publication rates of presentations given at annual conferences of The Wildlife Society, 1994–2006

Publication rates of presentations given at annual conferences of The Wildlife Society, 1994–2006

Learning and interaction at a conference

Wenger's Communities of Practice Revisited: A (Failed?) Exercise in Applied Communities of Practice Theory-Building Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About