1
FINAL REPORT TO SNI
The CSUED2009 Conference proved to be an outstanding event, with 150 delegates, 59 papers
scheduled for day 1, 53 scheduled for day 2 (112 papers in total) and 10 Poster presentations, drawn
from across all Colleges. The pre-conference workshops appeared well attended, with over 60
delegates attending.
In addition, three speakers of international renown spoke at the Conference. The Thurgoona
Campus and Learning Hub were showcased.
Full details of the feedback will be provided to the CSUED2010 Planning Team, but in summary
the following will be useful –
Consider a shorter final day
Avoid 15 minute sessions
Appoint a timekeeper for shared sessions
Have fewer papers
Include a research strand on UL&T
Timing and Number of Papers
Having looked after CSUED2008 and 2009, I know that the Conferences have attempted to find a
happy medium between the various wishes we have for a great conference. This “happy medium”
has been governed by the principle of inclusion. That is, to include as many papers as we can in an
open process, mediated by the sub-deans top the extent that abstracts be relevant. I hope this
principle continues in 2010. However, it does mean we have more papers than time. In 2009 this
meant we ended later than we might have wanted on Day 2, and had more 15 minute papers than
one would hope (intensified by not having session chairs!).
I think new compromises need to be reached between time and papers. Here are some ideas,
but I feel sure the L&T team will have many more.
1. Invite specific groups to do a Round Table. For example, for CSUED2010, FLI Teaching
Fellows will submit as a group to do a Round Table, and ask for 1 hour, rather than each
doing 1 presentation. Groups could be targeted to do the same, in addition to the open call
for abstracts, so that you compress the number of papers, yet strengthen the quality of
presentations because more time can be allocated, and ideas can be more deeply explored. I
do not think this will happen however, without inviting groups to do it- we aspired to do this
in 2009 via the abstract process in 2009, and it did not work doing it this way.
2. The past two years has seen a Program that included a pre-conference workshop, and 2 days
of the main conference. Perhaps consider a 3 day conference, structured in a different way?
This may have implications for cost (accommodation) which is why we did not do this in
2009 – but perhaps letting go of the structure of the past two year would allow new ideas to
emerge?
3. Consider not having a key note speaker or plenary on day 2 to create more space for CSU
papers/ workshops.
4. End with an exciting panel then conference close before lunch on the final day. Include
giving a fun prize, and perhaps a “people’s choice” prize for best workshop - further
2
motivation for people to stay. However, for this to occur, and for the principle of inclusivity
to apply, other things also need to change (eg see 1. and 2. above).
Themes
In 2008 it became clear that a “showcase” approach might allow more academics from disciplines
not accustomed to ‘eduspeak’ to engage in the conference – I think adding the showcase approach
achieved this very successfully in 2009. However, it is the case that a research strand might provide
an opportunity to report research about UL&T in a scholarly manner for those who wish to consider
ideas at the teaching-research nexus.
Budget
Final details of the budget will be provided by Judy Ogden at the SNI meeting. However, we
remained on target, with excellent catering and sponsorships well allocated.
Slideshare
At the time of writing, 17 presentations from CSUED2009 have been shared. I think this is a much
better outcome than 2008 when we had no archival strategy, or post-conference sharing. Much
more can be made of the Slideshare resource. I recommend it be retained, and that the login be
updated in January to an email account related to the CSUED2010 team. The site could be renamed,
and adjusted for 2010, whilst keeping the material from 2009. In this way, over time, archival
materials can be consolidated from conference to conference.
Wild Apricot
Running a conference is labour intensive, and administratively dense. The 2009 team found the use
of wild apricot improved the process enormously, at a very low cost. Minor issues emerged, but
Lesley Reid, who was involved in 2009 is well aware of these as she carries on her involvement in
2010. The Blog/Forum for feedback was not used. Not sure why, and this needs to be reviewed.
SNI Advisory Group
Accountability to the SNI advisory group was a really important touch stone for the CSUED2009
team. It grounded us in the CSU structure and gave us legitimacy and mentoring support.
2010
The CSUED2009 team wish Learning and Teaching Services well as they prepare for CSUED2010.
Merilyn Childs - on behalf of the CSUED2009 Team - in alphabetical order; Mike Keppell, Betsy Lyon,
Judy Ogden, Lesley Reid, Rosemary Symon – and the Flexible Learning Institute.
10/12/2009
3