Unidata

1. Rate the success and usefulness of the following components of the workshop on a scale of 1 (lowest success rating) to 10 (highest success), and provide comments on any or all of these.

(a) Lecture Presentations

Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
# of Responses					2	3	6	12	6	5

Comments:

Well organized, high-quality presentations. Interesting and useful. Speakers were excellent; much better than typical. Professionally developed and given. Fascinating material, generally well presented. Wide variety.

Presentations were very helpful in bringing the faculty up to speed.

Most were excellent. Some were outstanding; others so-so. Some were great; some were worthless

Too much lecture; not enough hands-on.

Lack of earth science content.

Could have used more info on satellite imagery/soundings.

I was especially interested in the presentations on instructional technologies.

Would like to have seen more examples of student lessons (not necessarily an entire course). Pedagogical material was very good and useful.

Would like to have lecture material hand-outs so more notes could be added.

Sometimes too general; needed to be more detailed.

Prefer the presenter show more of their research since the lab covers the HTML stuff.

Though interesting and informative, they didn't always directly relate to the activity we ultimately worked on.

Most information commonly known, especially the satellite talks.

Lectures were not coherent. More scientific applications would have been better.

Use of WWW excellent and helpful.

Enjoyed multi-media presentations.

One talk was poorly prepared, poorly presented and, in one case, even offensive.

(b) Panel Discussions

Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
# of Responses			1		1	6	5	5	7	9

Comments:

Very informative. Stimulating. Interesting and useful.

Helpful to show that all non-tenure faculty are undergoing the same pressure that keep us from improving our teaching.

Very frank discussion of academic world and problems. Different perspectives.

Good discussion about school recognition for instructional development.

There was more griping and less positive ideas for the future. Raised good issues, but no solutions.

I was particularly interested in the comments made about the future of research in education. I was motivated to pursue development of instructional technologies.

The panel on Tuesday talked mostly about the "research entitlement" days at big universities being over, yet most participants are from smaller "teaching" universities.

I remain skeptical of parts of new wave pedagogy.

Excellent, although 45 minutes not enough. More time for discussion.

Panelists talked too long; points were not new.

(c) Lab Presentations

Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
# of Responses			1	1	2	3	9	10	4	3

Comments:

Tutors were experienced and knowledgeable. Presentations were well-organized and presented in a clear manner.

Laboratory presentations were extremely practical and helpful. Much time and effort put into the presentations.

Strongly oriented toward application of satellite data to instruction. Not sufficient attention given to research applications.

First day's lab was focusless. Did not know what expected outcome was.

Needed more direction/focus. Suggest more finite goals (esp. on HTML) for each day to build gradually on web task, too much on instruction tech. Could distribute goals, topics, lab assignments ahead of scheduled events. Seemed to be not as well prepared a s lecture presentations.

Being made aware of the resources available at the Unidata Web-site was very enlightening.

Too much material was covered - racing through resources and how to do HTML, etc.

Needed more "content" earlier - a challenge given diverse group.

Sometimes overwhelming. Suggest doing a little HTML work each day.

Most people were already familiar with most of the material presented.

SatMet and HTML/AOL Press talks were good. Pedagogy of questionable value. Only 30 minutes of pedagogical discussion needed.

Need to get into modeling aspects rather than providing mere access to databases on the Web.

Would like more time spent on lab work rather than lab lectures.

Too much presentation; some of which seemed like sales for Unidata/COMET.

One-on-one instruction a plus. We learned mostly on our own or with 1-on-1 questions.

GIS sessions should have been longer - too rushed.

Should have been advised to be more familiar with HTML before workshop.

(d) Hands-on Development of Instructional Materials

Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
# of Responses					1	2	4	14	10	3

Comments:

Best part. Learned a great deal. Very valuable. Very well done. Most useful. Very helpful. I learned a lot and hope to little-by-little use it in the classroom.

Too much to grasp. More time needed. At least a couple more days needed.

More needed to be said about UCAR products and help.

This workshop finally gave me the opportunity to experiment with coding in HTML. I didn't have time to put much thought into the instructional value of my efforts.

Resource people in the labs were excellent, but not enough time was left for developing a Web page; one day is not enough. Suggest open evening labs.

Support staff was excellent. Expert guidance, if needed.

Should have started earlier in the week or better yet the entire workshop should have gone a day or two more.

Good, but would have been better to start out w/ simple HTML tasks and build to more complex forms.

Suggest having participants bring a topic/project with them from home institution.

Wanted more satellite stuff and less pedagogy.

Exercises were vague and loose.

There was enough equipment for all participants. GIS instruction was good also.

Excellent way to bring all material together and to apply what was learned.

Struggled with new HTML concepts.

Perhaps it indirectly encourages setting data images, files, etc., from the Internet free.

(e) Workshop Logistics and Organization

Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
# of Responses							2	3	8	21

Comments:

Congrats, however, over-ambitious. Excellent!

Lodging, food, transportation, and hospitality were all excellent. Very well planned.

I feel we were treated royally. Very friendly staff. Good job! Outstanding!

Well-organized, good accommodations, helpful people. Lectures & labs set up well.

Organization and schedule ran smoothly. One of the best organized conferences I've ever been to. Kept all to a tight schedule. Logistics were efficient and effective.

Enjoyed Flagstaff Mountain, NCAR tour. Facilities are excellent.

Keep the single rooms.

Fifteen-minute window on bus departures seemed to confuse some.

Order of material was good.

Every little detail was covered.

2. Describe your reaction to the merging of scientific lectures and pedagogical/ instructional design presentations in this workshop. Did it allow you to develop new ideas and methods to enhance your teaching?

Yes! But I am not sure how I will implement these ideas with limited resources.

Yes, I feel that I can enrich my lectures and facilitate group discussion.

Good mix. I certainly have the tools now to enhance the classroom and interactive assignments. I have many new ideas.

It was a nice idea, but not enough time to do justice to all subjects. There were many new concepts and not enough time to merge all ideas and techniques.

Needed more one-on-one with the pedagogical design of my project.

Pedagogical presentations were interesting but difficult to apply to specific situations, i.e., they were a bit general, more philosophy. Could have used more meat in the science side - although some talks were quite good.

Good concept. I was given some new ideas for developing teaching methods and would like to see some examples of incorporating these pedagogical concepts into teaching.

This was a useful strategy. For example, the HTML tutorial had built-in pedagogical design.

Lectures presenting examples of products developed for instruction were great, but too much lecturing on atmospheric science.

This is the first time I recall experiencing pedagogy face to face.

Didn't see all the capabilities available or many of the COMET products, especially those aimed at NWS personnel. Wish that more time was available to complete pedagogical objectives and have instructional designers evaluate our Web pages.

When I went to develop the Web page, I was able to begin developing something that would require the student to get actively involved in the learning process.

Yes, especially the lectures on instructional design. Really enjoyed seeing what other people had tried/developed.

Reluctant at first - too time consuming - could learn teaching theory, pedagogical ideas taught at own university. A little more acceptance toward end when less lecturing was done; straight forward comments and ideas were presented.

I still don't know what is the instructional technology. Distance learning can't replace personal interactions between teachers and students.

I was anxious to start with the topic at hand: satellite meteorology, etc.

No, however, I am already doing much of this in my classes.

No. Pedagogical information was not helpful.

Potential action on long-standing dreams.

Definitely. Very informative workshop.

3. How, if at all, did the workshop content and activities differ from your expectations?

Not enough on research uses of satellite data. Expected more work with satellite data with prepared materials. Expected some satellite interpretation. Satellite meteorology was not emphasized. Expected more info about what satellite and related resources are available on the Web. Expected more satellite information given.

About what I expected.

Better than I expected. Good ideas. I have many new ideas. I got more than I expected.

I learned more and developed a good relationship with my work group. We might keep working together on future projects.

Expected more McIdas, Gempack on-line activity.

I learned a lot more about instructional aids and resource materials than expected.

I had expected mesoscale content and didn't receive it.

I wasn't expecting as much on the pedagogical instruction. I thought we'd see strictly how to integrate Web-based materials into the classroom.

Thought workshop would focus more on instructional development.

Thought there would be more content given on new insights into the field of atmospheric science revealed by the new technology.

This format gave me the opportunity (forced me) to get my feet wet in HTML (which I ultimately had to do).

Expected more emphasis on research than education. Extreme emphasis on teaching; not much on how to use remote sensing data. Bias toward teaching with little to no emphasis on research.

Expected more scientific lectures. Content on too elementary a level.

More talks; less hands-on. The GIS demo was a nice surprise!

There was less or little emphasis on the earth sciences; too much on atmospheric content.

4. Please describe how you might implement the materials, resources and methods which were presented and developed at this workshop.

I will probably encourage and require more student use of existing WWW resources in doing class assignments. I am inspired to begin producing Web-based instructional material. Using the Internet, we can use more new, complete data.

Web design. Possible new approach in survey course. Vary the learning environment.

Will produce a Web page with help from computer support people at my university. May use a homepage to collect (and link) resources and materials and to communicate with students.

I've started a Web exercise and plan to develop a home page for this fall which is impressive because I never did HTML before.

I will start using my Web page to develop the "real" one ( any many more).

I have the hardware and students to help me. I probably will start putting my lab sessions of the Introductory Meteorology class on the Web.

I might design some labs w/ Web-based assignments - searching out examples of interesting cases on the Web, HW assignments, etc. Develop some creative classroom activity using the Web.

I hope to use some of the techniques learned here to create more innovative teaching methods including use of the Internet and possibly creating Internet exercises.

I will try to take advantage of the templates which provide a good basis for development.

I want to gradually move toward the "guide on the side" and to think about how I can get students to discover, rather than being told, the key principles.

Exercises and evaluation (problem sets) - 70% for lower division general education course and 30% for graduate course. I teach 7 to 8 courses per academic year - I will have no problem implementing much of what I learned.

Gives me a good start in getting familiar with remote sensing. Will implement my teaching, especially using information from the Internet.

Not sure yet, but some will no doubt be useful.

My meteorology course this fall will involve PC McIdas and the Internet. It will be a different and much improved course.

Plan to include syllabus and assignments for my courses on the Web.

5. What challenges do you anticipate in finding the time or resources for this implementation?

You name it!!! Time and resources. No time. Many difficulties - financial, logistical.

Twelve units of teaching load. Heavy teaching and administration loads each quarter will make it nearly impossible to do all the things I would like. My teaching load is 12 contact hours plus all the other responsibilities.

Great challenges, especially finding time to develop materials and for getting school recognition for instructional development. Challenge is to make the time to become involved in the development of instructional materials. Time will be a big issue.

I have to implement this technology little-by-little since "publications" carry much higher weight to achieve my tenure.

Major challenge. I will likely do this at night or, if lucky, get help from a TA who can handle it. It is worthwhile and will be done.

I think the functionality of integrating course work on the Web will make it time well spent. It really isn't all that hard.

I only have the time for taking selective modules one at a time. I don't have a staff of graduate students to assist in our instructional design. Module development will be progressive. Web pages will take a lower priority, but I will get to it as time permits.

Institution provides encouragement, but his will require my own time.

I will probably be the only personnel in our department doing HTML work.

No incentive provided by employer for this type of activity.

I'm sure that my university will provide funds and resources to help implement new concepts.

A system administrator is crucial to the success of Internet teaching. Many departments do not have a full-time computer technician .

Unfortunately, the evaluation scheme judging my performance would show this time only if I do it through a funded project.

Saving photocopying time will, in the end, save course time.

6. Please make suggestions for subject/focus topics and format of the next Unidata Faculty Workshop.

New undergraduate meteorology program needs and how to meet them. Format: Same but reduce to 2-3 days.

Keep the same format and try to get a little larger rooms for the lab work. Keep the time as is - one week.

Labs in synoptic met (low tech & high tech solutions). Developing an electronic lab manual, electronic (virtual) texts in synoptic, dynamic, physical meteorology. Strategies for the Year 2000 for meteorology. More scientific content. More modeling.

Radar data use (WSR-88D overview, severe weather signatures, etc.). Severe weather. More weather system analysis. More on remote sensing. Using the satellite data and radar image to estimate the distribution on precipitation.

Focus more on earth systems. Must bring in geologists, biologists , chemists, etc.

COMET modules and their use in earth science education - similar to this one but showing more the uses of these products and less in trying to create our own.

Given the variety of interests/background of the participants it would be difficult to suggest improvements.

When people come to NCAR, they expect up-to-date development in the field.

Take the participants through a classroom experience, hands-on, like a large lecture format.

How to integrate multi-disciplines. How to attract, stimulate and motivate students.

Try again for the two-week session on the technical/scientific aspects of satellite imagery.

Unidata stresses "community", yet this event had a big-school bias.

Presenters talk more about their research advances and problems existing in the current technologies.

More focus. Any of the topics could serve as the basis for a future workshop (satellite meteorology, instructional design, instructional technologies).

Detail what participants are expected to do in the workshop, such as develop Internet-based teaching materials.

More time on HTML and web-page templates. Establish HTML understanding early on, then frame lecture/panel discussions in future lab work.

Separate HTML and pedagogy into two workshops.

If teaching is to be a focus, state so, and then build the basics more rigorously. Most of us do not have experience (degrees, etc.) in education.

Morning: Discussion of new applications and pedagogy. Afternoon: Construction of projects with hands-on work each day.

With a variety of participants, provide choices for presentations so people don't end up on a presentation which is inappropriate for them.

7. Would you recommend a regional focus for a future workshop, and if so, would you be interested in hosting such a workshop?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes, I would be interested focusing on the use of NCDC data.

Okay, if you mean regional workshops. I don't think a regional focus is necessary.

A regional focus would be great - how about UW-Madison?

No. National is better. I like having the workshop in Boulder. I don't think a regional focus is necessary. The facilities at COMET and Unidata are unparalleled. I do not have the expertise or facilities to support a workshop. Would be interesting if it related to my region.

We might be interested in doing a Midwest workshop - we will have the computers for it in six months.

I think we have the facilities (computers, rooms, dorms) but I would need a lot of help from Unidata/COMET.

I think it would be difficult to find a location adequate to present a workshop like this without exporting a lot of UCAR types there.

The national workshop in Boulder was much better than the regional one I attended.

I would be although I do not quite understand the phrase "regional focus".

Boulder is a good place. The cookout was great. Colorado is a great place to have this, especially if housing/food expenses are included.

Can't think of a focus now but would be interested in hosting a workshop.

No strong opinion.

8. Please identify the most effective and least effective components of this workshop?

Most Effective

Hands-on experience!!!

Enthusiastic presentations. Scientific presentations. Excellent lectures. Hard-core satellite/remote sensing information.

The lecture and lab components. Labs.

Prefabrication of Web modules.

Logistics was excellent.

Organization and innovative ideas.

Panel discussion, science lectures, social interaction, lab hands-on.

Pedagogy as a valid area of consideration in teaching.

Knowledge of educational resources and Web page development. Exposure to databases and resources. Presentation of Web resources.

Instructional project development.

Interaction with other faculty. Group projects were good.

HTML tutorial on lab Web page. HTML programming. Use of WWW page editor software. Learning HTML Web page-making techniques and seeing excellent examples.

Least Effective

Too long; 2-3 days is enough.

Set of focus. The first day's afternoon work was unexpected. Too many topics and too little time.

Panel discussions. Panel because it didn't represent the group.

Instructional design (needed more application to our situation and less philosophy).

Lectures.

Trying desperately to complete a presentable Web-page in such a short time. Needed more time on the HTML learning curve.

Lectures on teaching theory and "here's my Web page" talks. Talk (explanatory) sessions in the labs regarding pedagogy projects.

Too much Web surfing and Web designing.

The GIS lab (people are not as familiar with the system - too fast).

Lack of development of modeling, data integration, and manipulation skills.

Educational Component. Pedagogical material was not useful. Pedagogical presentations. Pedagogy and instructional design.

Satellite meteorology basics and instructional design.

Lab work sessions; I do better with quiet. Crowded classrooms.

Determining learning objectives.

Tuesday's lab presentations.

9. Rate (1 = lowest; 10 = highest) the overall value of the workshop to you:

Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
# of Responses					1	1	4	14	8	6

Comments:

One of the best I've attended. A most worthwhile experience!

Enjoyed it despite the rough spots.

I've learned a lot and will use this a great deal over time.

Everyone at UCAR and Unidata were very receptive, helpful and knowledgeable.

I applaud this effort in bringing research, teaching and technology into one workshop. We need much more of this. It forced me to re-evaluate my teaching.

Great opportunity for the participants to learn new tools and update content to apply in the classroom and expose students to high tech and sound science.

The things I learned about instructional development are of great value to me.

It was a wonderful experience for me. Your hard work, thorough preparation, professionalism, and friendliness are greatly appreciated.

The workshop was quite useful in forcing me to learn HTML and Web-page making.

I have no regrets about coming; sincerely found it to be valuable.

Time limitations hindered the full realization of the "least effective components."

Don't be tempted to assess the success of lab tutorials based on projects as they stand today. More time will be needed to fully realize the benefits.

Appreciative to Unidata, COMET, NSF and thanks to the organizers and tutors. Thank you very much!

10. Please use this space for additional comments.

Unidata/COMET/UOP were very wonderful hosts. I feel very fortunate to be part of this workshop. Thanks for all the people who organize this workshop. Thanks to all the Unidata, COMET people for their genuine interest in us and their exceptional support. The people involved with the workshop were great! Very friendly and helpful - they made the week worth the time.

I enjoyed the workshop but felt it needed a bit more focus.

Probably need to clarify what workshop will focus on before participants arrive. At times, I felt, staff assumed we knew more about the Web, HTML, frames and manipulating files than we really did. But they did a great job.

The Unidata program, and specifically PC-McIdas, are a "show piece" on our campus.

The workshop was managed extremely well. The balance between the components (lectures, labs, etc.) was just right.

The logistics - room, board, transportation, and scheduling - were excellent.

You have renewed by faith in NCAR/NSF commitment to upgrading education.

Teachers learn from each other, but we also were guided nicely by the UCAR staff and presenters. Thanks so much for giving me this opportunity.

Aside from all the lectures and lab instruction, the new people resources I have now (from Unidata and the participants) will be very valuable.

I got much more from this workshop than I had expected, and I am delighted by that. I was surprised to learn just how enabling the Web has become for the teaching of meteorology .

Have morning lectures/talks/demonstrations and devote the entire afternoon to hands-on with the computers.

I hope there are more special lectures in the fields of meteorology, climate and hydrology by using the new methods and new data.

Maybe the next workshop should be a follow-up to this one where progress since this workshop can be assessed. I would like to see small college representation on panels.

Participants should come to a workshop like this one better prepared so everyone starts from roughly the same basic level of expertise and understanding.

The content is more important than technology. Knowledge is not technology only. Teaching is not surfing WWW.

The aspect of pedagogy was where I felt I was most ill-prepared and was not presented in a way that help me.

It seemed strange that at a technologies workshop we were mainly lectured to.

You build it (the homepage), and he/she (the student) will come!