ACGS Summer Scientific Meeting 2016

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A New Way to Plan Supporting local authorities and developers to deliver mobility management through planning Matthew Prince Smarter Travel Unit Transport.
Advertisements

Business School 1 Module Assistants Berry ODonovan PL Student Experience Business Faculty.
Primary MCQ Course Evaluation September 2010 Mean score, maximum being 5.
Feedback from FCRC 2013 Conference Creswick – 11 th – 13 th September.
A Guide to Attending Conferences/Meetings Tim Lucas 23 rd November 2012.
Ncfe Academy Advert Project By the Rising Stars Academy.
College Algebra Course Redesign Southeast Missouri State University.
UIT 2014 – EVALUATION REPORT Hilton Prague Hotel 22–24 January 2014.
Powered by Portlethen Primary School - Parent Survey Sunday, September 21, 2014.
Evaluation of Electronic MCQ/EMQ Examinations 2008/9.
Writing Workshop Constructing your College Essay
Unit 1 – Improving Productivity. 1.1Why did you use a computer? What other systems / resources could you have used? For unit 10,I had to make a power.
What is an article? An article is like a direct conversation with the reader. The exam question might tell you who your readers are. For example, the students.
How Do I Find a Job to Apply to?
Creating a service Idea. Creating a service Networking / consultation Identify the need Find funding Create a project plan Business Plan.
Registration Management Committee 2014 RMC Workshop Feedback September 17, 2014 Jeff Long.
Revision and Exam Skills
We asked……….. You said……………… At St Thomas More we are constantly striving to improve and value the opinion of our parents.
Pflichtmodul Master Conference – Mastertagung Aim: The aim of the module is the organization of a geosciences conference over two (02.– ) days.
TWEPP Scientific Committee Ph. Farthouat, CERN. Agenda  Feedback from TWEPP-12  TWEPP-12 Proceedings: status  Scientific.
Powered by Parent Questionnaire - Funzone Service 2015 Wednesday, March 11, 2015.
Supported by The Skills Show, the European Social Fund and the National Careers Service.
Alain Thomas Overview workshop Background to the Principles Definitions The National Principles for Public Engagement What.
Final FRCA VIVA Course Evaluation 11 th and 12 th June 2009.
Primary MCQ Course Evaluation September Mean score represented as bar charts. 1= poor 5= excellent Mean score for each subject is presented as bar.
ESDGC Conference 2013 Evaluation. Setting the scene! Welcome Phil Williams.
Prefects Questionnaire
Disabled Children's Social Care Families & Carers Feedback Summary April – October 2015.
INFSO-RI Enabling Grids for E-sciencE Report on feedback received from the 3 rd EGEE Conference in Athens Jim Buddin TERENA, Netherlands.
Y axis represents number of candidates OSCE/VIVA course: 26&27 April 2012 course evaluation and candidate feed back Total candidates: 37 1: very poor 2:
E VALUATION Q UESTION 3 W HAT HAVE YOU LEARNT FROM YOU AUDIENCE FEEDBACK ?
Board Brief , Attach 1 Survey Results & analysis for NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November 22, 2008)
Networking Rachel Woolley Jim Baxter Research and Innovation Support Conference.
Commercial Awareness Top Tips!. What is Commercial Awareness? Commercial awareness is a term that refers to a candidate's general knowledge of business,
Starting pointResearch strategiesImpact What are you doing now ? We are  Teaching science through our key topics where possible  Teaching science.
109 Wardens Survey – 16/17 Season End of Season Get Together –
Preparation and practice are essential for success in your examination
IEEE TCRTS Survey for Conference Planning
Training processes for extension education
Nursery/P1 Transition Evaluation Feedback
How to define what you are actually looking for…
Four day shadowing programme
Hello and welcome to today’s training.
RST Coaching Services Community Sport and Coaching Conference
Consultation: Your Say ….
y axis represents number of candidates
Breaking the Communication Barrier: forming a Clinical Research Professionals Group at your Institution Dena Martin, CCRP Annie Pennella MS, CCRP.
Credit Risk Skills Workshop Training Evaluation Report
NSW Community Housing CONFERENCE 2006.
BBS Learning and Teaching Conference 2016 Feedback From Staff
y axis represents number of candidates
Recommended Future for HCP and PLHC after 2012
Primary FRCA MCQ course evaluation February 2015
Course name: Weekly Planning
Intro to Parliamentary Procedure and How Conferences Work
We asked……….. You said………………
Session 8 Exam techniques
Friday 6 March 2015 etc. Venues Prospero House Conference Evaluation
Understanding the student journey – from pre-arrival to graduation
August 1-2 All Staff PD Survey results
AASHTO / TRB State Reps Meeting
Workforce Engagement Survey
Levels of involvement Consultation Collaboration User control
Planning Your Time Effectively
Developing a User Involvement Strategy.
Comments written by Pupils about particular strategies used in English which helped their writing As you will read, some of our pupils commented about.
STUDENT COMMENTS IS EDUCATION
Gemma Pugh & Jane Clarke
Engagement Planning - Communications
Levels of involvement Consultation Collaboration User control
Presentation transcript:

ACGS Summer Scientific Meeting 2016 Responses to Feedback Questionnaire July 2016

65 =45% Total Responses Out of 145 delegates invited to give feedback Response rate

100% of delegates rated the meeting good, very good or excellent Q1: Overall, how would you rate the 2016 ACGS Summer Scientific Meeting? Answered: 65 Skipped: 0 100% of delegates rated the meeting good, very good or excellent

Q2: Did the time of year suit your calendar for attendance or would you have preferred a different time Answered: 65 Skipped: 0 82% of delegates were either happy with a summer meeting or have no preference

Q3: Did you feel that there was ample time for discussion in the scientific sessions? Answered: 64 Skipped: 1 Just 1 delegate felt that the time set aside for discussion was poor

Q4: Did you feel that the meeting contained new ideas and materials? Answered: 62 Skipped: 3

Q5: Would you consider implementing any of the ideas/concept learnt in your workplace? Answered: 64 Skipped: 1 94% of delegates felt there was a good chance or better of them implementing ideas in their own lab!!!

Q6: Did the facilities & catering meet your requirements? Answered: 65 Skipped: 0 88% rated the facilities as very good or excellent

Q7: Was there sufficient space in the programme for breaks and networking? Answered: 64 Skipped: 1

Q8: Would you have liked the option to submit an abstract for poster presentation? Answered: 60 Skipped: 5 85% would like the option for posters to be considered for the next meeting…we’ll make sure we look at this next year

Q9: Do you think expanding the meeting to a larger venue with concurrent sessions would be an improvement? Answered: 57 Skipped: 8 74% of delegates feel that expanding the meeting could have a negative impact Comments included: “It was good to be able to attend all of the talks rather than having to decide between which one to go too and it meant a nice atmosphere in the lecture theatre” “Not sure, would probably like single day focussed meetings and then a larger meeting once a year with parallel sessions”

Some great suggestions for future conferences include: The return of the Conference dinner Inviting international speakers A forum where delegates can put their questions and ideas to the professional body A trainee presentation session / poster session (aimed at presentation of research projects) Future sessions on CEQAS, solid tumours, NIPD, PGD, HSST training projects, commissioning, bioinformatics, more on 100,000 genomes…

Other comments: Suggestions for improvement………. “The sessions were very long with few breaks-it was sometimes hard to maintain concentration even though the talks were interesting.” “(need to) check for trainee clashes. It was exam and OSFA week and I imagine many trainees would have liked to have the opportunity to attend, also maybe to present.” “I feel there was too much time taken up with talks about policy and high level national strategy issues. Only very few people are involved in making these decisions so perhaps a head of labs meeting is more appropriate. Understand general workforce should be aware of some key issues though. Much prefer the scientific/problem solving/best practice presentations from the afternoon sessions. Much more useful from my point of view for my practice at work.” “I worry we tried to fit too much into a short amount of time. I attended the Monday and the afternoon felt very rushed, and there was very little time to ask questions.”

“The meeting and quality of talks were great.” More comments: Positive feedback………. “The meeting and quality of talks were great.” “Overall the meeting was excellent!” “The themed session on variant interpretation worked well” “ I think you have done a fantastic job, and the meeting was a real success. Well done to the organising committee!” “Excellent meeting, with a good and relevant range of topics! I like the smaller venue of Austin Court, and would prefer a longer day so I can attend all talks, rather than concurrent sessions where you sometimes have to miss some of the talks due to location/logistics of moving around. Well done for a great conference!” “A great meeting!”

Thank you to everyone who took the time to complete this feedback!! ACGS 2016 organising committee