Although I enjoyed Eamonn's keynote, I would have appreciated more time for interaction with him and the other participants through some type of discussion or activity.

The afternoon panel on "Critical Analysis of Online Discourse" was very practical with some transferable concepts that I found helpful.

As a new particpant,and having read the outlines of the topics, I was disappointed that the presentations were so academic, and so geared to the methodolgy of research rather than the results. Perhaps the write ups have to be clearer.

Overall I liked the idea that it was focused on research. It's not that often that we have a chance to have a discussion about research.

I really liked Eamonn's keynote, as I'm just being exposed to design based research.

It was very good to have a day at the beginning of the CADE/AMTEC conference devoted to research with a nod to methodology. Most of my research interests begin with "Hmm. That is interesting. Why does it happen?" Since the group is composed of a wide variety of researcher types, perhaps we could find a common question and discuss how the different methods might address it.

I also enjoyed the keynote. It sparked my thinking, especially about design research, as did the other presentations I had a chance to attend. The research focus made the workshop very useful for me. I came away from it with many ideas and renewed enthusiasm.

This was a good introduction to the day, and to the conference. Dr. Kelly's message about TDR inspired some reflection and consideration regarding distance education practices and the teacher's role in this arena. As a Masters student, I appreciated (and was impressed!) with the resource recommendations that led to deeper digging.

I really appreciated the keynote speaker presentation. Dr. Kelly's presentation was a good introduction to design based research. I will follow up on the references that he provided.

It was a great idea to arrange the pre-conference day with a focus on DE research methodology. A sound methodology for DE research has always been my dream. It was very satisfactory for me to being exposed to the trendy DE research methodologies. There are so many aspects need to be taken into account for a research -- literature review, design, implementation, technology and more. I think the presentations and the panels pretty much covered these aspects.

I think that just discussion would have kept the discussions lighter and more participant focused rather than a lecture situation.An example was the afternon- much more particpant driven than just a lecture.

I would have preferred no powerpoints and just discussion. Although the discussion needs to be driven with specific questions and perhaps these questions could be provided to discussants in advance.

It would be very good to be able to use social software techniques while engaging in a discussion about them.

This was the first conference I have been to in a few years that did not have wireless internet access. On many occasions, I wanted to visit a site referenced by the speaker, only to remember that I was not connected! It would be a great advantage to provide wireless for conference participants. This would allow real-time use of social software, as suggested by the previous participant.

More dialogue, of course (except for the keynote). Lectures and tedious presentations are always a bore and defeat the purpose of all of us being together in one place. I notice that several people asked for more dialogue in this evaluations, yet, few people actually engaged in dialogue or questions even though they could have.

Including participants in a discussion would have enhanced and added value to the understanding of the topic. Research is grounded on questioning and I would've appreciated an opportunity for inquiry. The presentations seemed rushed and driven by powerpoints and lectures ... I was exhausted by the end of the day.

It would have been interesting to integrate interactive sessions with the participants and the audience as part of the pre-conference programme.

A large group of audience made it not easy for us to participate. The audio system in the room was not that pleasant, sometimes I had to listen very carefully to the speakers. It could be beneficial to have a wireless microphone for each speaker.

Grounded theory approaches would be interesting.

More social software related to massive parallel processing.

Linking research to practice.

The role of social software in a self-selected, self-paced, and self-monitored lear ning environment.

Allison Rossett (http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/ARossett/Arossett.html)

Learning Sciences and new DE research/practice trends

Personal Learning Environment Building

Research vs Practice: CIDER is about DE *research*, so I would encourage you to ignore those who are asking for more practitioner- based panels. The rest of CADE is for them

As a Westerner experiencing a time change on the first morning of the conference, I found the start time a bit daunting. As the day progressed, I found the audience numbers dwindling, with the final session being poorly attended. Therefore, I think a more compacted day would have larger appeal --- maybe 10 AM to 3 PM.

I like the full day- especially if it becomes discussion driven- we would not get much covered in half a day

Personally I liked the full day. The afternoon session was more of a focus on demonstration or implementation and seemed less driven by methodology or research issues. I like the focus on research more.

If we had a half day, are there other tutorials, etc. that could fill the other half?

I have to admit that I experienced information overload by the end of the day and couldn't bolt out quick enough for some fresh air. Yes, a half day might work better; however, breaking the information up with discussion would've kept us awake as well.

I prefer the full day (10-3 pm)session with several breakdowns in terms of presentations and interactive sessions with audience.

Full day with a couple of breakdowns will be good. No half-day please.

I think a full day is perfect. People can come and go if they think it's too much.

It was a great idea to have the presentation from the research award winner.

I enjoyed the networking and meeting of people in DE. It was an enlightening day. I really liked the afternoon session.

great initiative. Bravo for terry!

Good idea to have a wiki for the evaluation.

Great way to kick off the conference ... good stuff!

Love this workshop -- keep us updated about the cutting edge DE research ideas.

I think I agree with most of the comments, even those that are in disagreement with one another! For me, the highlight of the pre-conference was the opening speaker. But not everyone is so dynamic and engaging a speaker – (of course, Terry, you’re always a good listen, ha!). I think the rest of the pre-conference (and indeed the entire conference) would have been more beneficial (to me at least) if the speakers had given more thought to what they wanted us to take away from their talk, and as a result, if they had perhaps disseminated less information, or at least, tried to actively engage us as learners and /or practitioners in the field. But that type of presentation is perhaps an art in itself.

YES! Re: time for reflection and authentic comments - which are not compromised because of rushing off to the next session or meeting. I also appreciate the opportunity to read others' comments. Thanks for hosting this, Terry. This is my first Wiki-experience!

A wiki is a fine way to do an evaluation. That way I can edit the comments so that everyone agrees with me about what was important. (just kidding). It also allows us all to write to it and answer more than one question, rather than have a constant roll of commentary in a blog. We should consider running a wiki during the presentations at the next conference.

I found it is very innovative. But a couple of times I had to wait until I could steal the edit lock in order to edit the page. It was a good thing though -- people were providing feedback. I guess it was because I came in at "peak hours".