Winter Institute Archive

1. I work at a

• 2 year college (8)
• 4 year college (6)
• research university (1)

2. My job is best described as

• director administrator (6)
• instructor (2)
• coordinator (7)
• technician (2)
• student (0)

3. My institution is

• public (13)
• private (2)
• proprietary (0)

4. I attended

• all sessions (8)
• most sessions (4)
• few sessions (3)

5. I took advantage of the computers available in our meeting room

• frequently (2)
• once (9)
• not at all (4)

• I enjoyed the informal atmosphere — the camaraderie — good people
• Well planned, but I really didn’t get to meet many people
• I am going back to my home college with valuable tools to implement. The trip to South Mountain was a nice change of pace and a treat to tour their LAC. The creation of a web page was not perceived immediately as a value but enjoyed it.
• Great
• Excellent, excellent
• I enjoy the tone of the WI. Keeping it small allows you to have the opportunity to know the participants and keeps you from feeling lost.
• I thought the atmosphere was very stimulating to collegiality & learning. Structure w/ freedom — great concept!
• Wonderful!
• Synergy lives! WI98 participants were open to lively discussion and fun. Overall the tone of the institute was comfortable, encouraging & open. There was no 2 year vs. 4 year feeling.
• Very receptive and supportive. Appreciated the open flexibility, sense of community and obvious expertise.
• Promoted relaxed collegiality, appreciated emphasis on shared knowledge/experience & expertise, very supportive
• OK except it (structure with freedom) does not help when groups lose members regularly. Luckily most if not all participants stayed w/ groups this year.
• The tone of WI is wonderful! I felt very comfortable — there was no intimidation and there were no stress causing events.

• Went very smoothly — length good — (?) amount of breaks
• Good
• OK
• Participation most useful when we can ask questions
• Great job!
• Sometimes the room was sort of stuffy so the sessions after lunch weren’t as comfortable
• Well organized sessions in materials and length — good feedback and discussion in mentor groups
• I liked the timing of the sessions, length, breaks. I also appreciated the flexibility and attention to what the group seemed to need.
• Organization fit well with the structure with freedom. More comfortable chairs for those of us who are getting older would make sessions feel less lengthy — No they weren’t lengthy, given the energy in the room.
• Well done — content focused with process time!
• Responders brought out high point and questions, which helped prompt audience participation. Our mentor was sometimes “preachy” as if his practices were all “best practices”
• All were good, except some seniors well organized/focused
• I liked the organization — the one comment: perhaps presentations should be shorter ie 30-45 minutes

• Good materials — a plethora of information + tools — especially enjoyed trip to South Mountain computer lab.
• Good
• I liked the theme — assessment as it was covered seemed generally to be limited to placement
• The group was intimate and I felt very much part of the team. David Gerkin was a wonderful mentor and I hope to keep the lines of communication open. Although David may have overwhelmed some w/ paper, I would appreciate more handouts from other presenters.
• Did not need separate evaluation lectures — 2 yr, 4 yr.
• The program was great. Can’t wait to be able to discuss this with our staff.
• Excellent format, etc. I felt the share & wealth & discourse of information informative & helpful. Mentors provided me with some excellent info that I can apply to my programs & my department’s programs.
• Assessment theme very timely. Material sharing excellent — although you might tell participants to bring things to share. I could have, but didn’t. Also please include regular paper to write on!
• It’s too bad more people didn’t come, but this group was wonderful for the depth & scope of information from not only presenters, but also participants.
• Excellent. I’m passing on info to our L.A.P. and will make them aware of excellent resources.
• Didn’t receive brochure as in past but was informed via listserve. Well organized & run yet kept simple — I did not feel overwhelmed by printed materials & glossy binders.
• Theme: good. Printed materials: need to be collated & prepared ahead of time. Orientation: needs work — need motivational speaker
• I enjoyed the theme — although I don’t have the time to include the ideas in my program. May I suggest that printed materials be 3 hole punched and that overhead presentations be included in the printed materials.

• Good idea — perhaps we could switch mentor groups at least once for (?) overall exposure
• Very good
• Am meetings got us off to a good start. My mentor was very focused & my group had good insights
• There was little time for meetings, but I got my questions answered
• Excellent. Gwyn is the best! Really informative and well organized. Best part of the institute — gave me time to think aloud and develop ideas.
• Enjoyed my group. Would have liked to have more time.
• I felt I learned much from the mentor groups. Conversations were stimulating & generated thought provoking ideas.
• Good idea to have mentor groups. I think some mentors had more specific questions to discuss, which gives the meetings a bit more focus that just “Do you have any questions or comments?”
• Review, recap and discussion of the day’s topic as well as the previous days review. Gwen was a very good facilitator. Even when the group wandered she would pull us back with humor. Time of day worked well.
• Most comfortable — Frank and others were open and filled with information.
• Mentor sessions lacked focus — our mentor tended to lecture rather than help us examine what we already knew about a subject during prep time & reflect on what we had learned afterwards. Might be good to mix up the tables deliberately to increase cross-fertilization of ideas.
• All were adequate and discussion was both relevant & personal (which is good)
• Excellent!

• I thought the test examples took too much time.
• Nice beginning — I thought the “tests” were overdone. I would have liked to have “seen” the quizzes — either on the screen or in hand of they were important enough to be included.
• Wonderful — great beginning
• Very informative & interesting. Good information & quality sources.
• I needed some visuals to help me through those quizzes! I can’t listen to long questions like that! Other ideas and points were good.
• A strong caveat for assessment. She quietly stated her aversion to assessment & the reasons for her aversion. She was to the point.
• Well organized, good information and useful examples
• Good humor — broad look at topic. Could have focused more on different kinds of assessments we do with students.
• Need better planning & focus- need a motivational speaker to get things going
• Perhaps one quiz would have been enough

• Very helpful
• OK
• Helpful
• Georgine stated her case and provided samples of CAS materials. She was enthusiastic and convinced me that guidelines for LAC’s would be very helpful to Learning Assistance Professionals
• Excellent information and very well organized
• Well organized & presented in an understandable manner
• Very interesting
• More handouts, some visuals would be helpful, important information presented.
• I enjoyed this more than I thought I would. Georgine made info clear to understand & brought up areas of interest to participants. I would have liked visuals.
• Good

• Good
• A difficult task to keep everyone on track. Rick & Bill (David, too) led us through well. Overhead was hard to see & lab was a little crowded. I wondered if we couldn’t have broken into 2 groups in the am & alternated tasks.
• Well presented, overlong, enjoyed tour of the LAC and sharing.
• Fun! I love field trips!
• Very interesting and helpful to see other learning centers- good help & instruction in the lab — good “hands on” experience.
• Wow! I learned a great deal in a short time. Thank-you for including this. Rick and Bill are clearly extremely knowledgeable and very helpful.
• Rick and Bill did an excellent job of presenting the material & walking the participants through creating Web pages and looking at software. More help would be nice when going through Web page development.
• I am such a novice that by the end of the morning, I was exhausted & might have chosen an alternate activity. Perhaps split computer activities to an afternoon & next morning (although I know that complicates logistics.)
• Good, need to be divided into two smaller groups. More depth!
• Excellent and extremely beneficial.

• Ok, personal bias in presentation, put on spot a few times.
• Excellent, very pertinent
• Excellent. The session was packed with both practical information and timely discussion. I liked the format and the open dialogue.
• The room was hot. I kept falling asleep even though the subject interested me. I was expecting assessment of institutions, not assessment of students by institutions.
• Good info. The initial assessment stuff for me isn’t the reason I came, so I was less “invested.” We’ve done it for ten years at my college, and I’ve heard these things lots. It was, however, well done.
• Interesting discussion. Again I felt this session was helpful as they discussed their programs from two points of view.
• Enjoyed the panel format.
• Excellent, much needed information and well presented, I can’t think of any improvements other than to explain various instruments.
• Rodger’s We’ve done it for ten years at my college, and I’ve heard these things lots. It was, however, well done.
• Interesting discussion. Again I felt this session was helpful as they discussed their programs from two points of view.
• Enjoyed the panel format.
• Excellent, much needed information and well presented, I can’t think of any improvements other than to explain various instruments.
• Rodger’s perspective was a nice addition — I would have liked to have heard more from him.
• Excellent

• David’s presentation was very informative.
• The best by far. Good use of power point & the mike. Handouts of exceptional value — thoughtful, clear presentation.
• Most of the information does not pertain to my institution but the tools can be adapted to my needs. I am very grateful.
• Excellent presentation.
• Great
• Excellent, great presentation.
• Great — Lots of excellent info — generous sharing, well organized.
• David did a good job of using graphics to highlight his presentation. The graphics made a powerful impact as did his handouts. I learned a lot.
• Well organized — Power point well done — support materials valuable.
• Well organized & helpful.
• Good.

• Well presented & helpful
• Good (Needed handout)
• Great, but way beyond our institutions needs & capabilities
• Although Guillermo’s presentation was similar to David’s, his use of graphics to support his presentation was too detailed. It was interesting to see how his institution dealt with the same issues as David’s.
• Fantastic! A good follow up to David’s. I am really impressed w/ their system (I felt like I was in prog evaluation methods in grad school!)
• Like David’s presentation, this was outstanding
• Great
• Good Sample
• Well organized & helpful. Speaker was prepared & qualified.
• Received ideas to try, asked questions.
• A different model than am. Guillermo seemed a little bit at a disadvantage not having been at the rest of the conference. I wish he had been around all week. Collaboration or at least a dialogue between David & Guillermo before presenting could have maybe made their presentations more coordinated/nonrepetitive. It wasn’t really Guillermo’s faulty he came second.
• Good, but a little dry.

• Great way to wrap up.
• Through out the Institute sessions, I found Frank’s comments very informative & helpful as was this session.
• I like the ideas of “so what.” Each mentor should have a way to draw people into that conversation about what to do next.
• Always good to focus & set long & short term goals.
• Good.

• Not enough offered — was this a lazy group?
• Didn’t really work out well for me.
• I did not participate in these.
• Went to one — excellent — with David.
• Did not attend
• I would like to see more direct organization by the WI staff

• Good.
• Our group was able to self direct. Nice oppty to continue processing info & get to know participants better. Wed pm I took the ASU tour with John Bloomquist. It was a good oppty to see another 4 year school & their operations.
• Display tables were helpful. I’ll bring some of mine next time. I would appreciate a lighter choice for breakfast — yogurt, fruit, cereal.
• Had fun, excellent mentor group
• Great for people who are here alone. Good chance to get to know everyone.
• N/A Although I did not participate in the SIGs and SF, this is an excellent idea.
• Very good. One suggestion: please offer fresh fruit and bagels or something to have a lower fat option.
• The mentor lunch was a good way to get to know my group. The daily breakfasts I would not miss! They were an excellent way to touch base, especially for those of us not staying at the hotel. I collected a lot of information & reading material from the Display Table.
• Good.
• Good. Sharing & display tables need to be arranged before the day of conference.
• Great — don’t change a thing!

• Perfect!
• Needs to be ready to use on the first day of institute.
• Excellent — many thanks to Rick & Bill, and also Gene.
• As someone who went home at night, I didn’t use the computer area much.
• I did expect more computers. Turns out I didn’t use them like I could have, however.
• Good — very helpful & informative
• Very helpful
• Adequate — did not use except to sample software!
• I didn’t take advantage of the computer area. My loss.
• OK
• We really could have used more computers in the “lab.” The lab time was more than adequate, but I couldn’t get or monopolize a computer.

• Great
• Satisfactory
• Too warm, too cold (different days)
• Good
• Super
• Stuffy at times
• Temperature was a little uncomfortable at times
• Sometimes too cold, otherwise good
• In general, the meeting room was okay as meeting rooms go and the staff did their best to accommodate us.
• Good
• Excellent — very supportive of the WI tone.
• Good (Need to learn about it before I visit (?) arrangement)
• Wonderful!

• Comfortable and pleasant
• Great! Like size (Small, not too crowded)
• Fine — although I would like a radio speaker in the bathroom.
• Very good
• Outstanding — terrific hotel accommodations. Thank-you.
• Nice
• Did not stay at hotel
• Excellent
• Ok
• Nice
• Great

• For me — Lab trip/web page & meeting & learning about LACs.
• Presentations
• Time for processing, revisiting. A good oppty for LC professionals to come together
• Content — I could use almost everything presented. I’m pleased everyone could enjoy the sessions in one group.
• Able to attend small part, glad it was offered
• Idea of mentoring groups
• Meeting & exchanging ideas with people from many different schools
• The concern, instruction, & help of mentors was outstanding and very much appreciated.
• The opportunity to really get more deeply into the topics (than we can in a typical conference and short faculty development sessions)
• The collegiality of the participants, the animated discussions
• Mentor group focus — open dialogue
• In depth sessions in which everyone participated
• Meeting new people. Learning about other programs.
• Interactions with colleagues in the same type of position.

• ?
• Getting things organized and arranged before start of institute
• Better promoting and organizing of SIGs — Could be scheduled during lunch or over dinner. Perhaps generate a selection of topics & tentative times prior to WI & have people sign up. If no one is interested — not held.
• Program evaluations sessions and resource people/information
• The chairs
• I can’t think of anything except the breakfast thing
• Perhaps this is not an improvement, but I would like to see a follow up on some discussions (presentations) such as David’s program evaluation.
• I enjoyed attending and don’t feel very critical. It was very well done.
• The sessions appeared a bit too long. Maybe 1/2 hour shorter for each session could allow for another session each day.
• Use of technology by presenters — keep in mind some of us may have modest hearing problems & are visual learners. (We also had a hearing impaired participant — if it was hard for me to hear — I’m sure she missed more that I did. I objected to the “dead flea” joke by Gene Kerstiens — It was in very poor taste.
• Computer Lab.
• Perhaps more hands on — specific — (?) applications

• Management/ (?)
• Mentor program for tutees
• Dealing with L.A.C. in the future on a rapidly expanding campus & increasing enrollment. This is a situation our campus will be dealing with in the next few years.
• Persistence rates, tutor delivery
• More hands-on in tutor management systems or data collection systems. Tutor training delivery systems, curriculum, materials sharing, outreach techniques (for our campuses — communicating w/faculty, getting contacts w/students, examples of workshops)
• All areas of Learning Assistance, in depth coverage of previous Institutes, tutors as Learning Assistance Professionals
• Continue to demystify technology, management of Las — look at staffing patterns & ratios to students.
• Tutor training, Learning skill workshops, Staffing & budgets.
• Advertising the LAC, a national organization for directors of learning assistance professionals (or perhaps for all members of learning assistance communities.)

• Beyond tutoring: other responsibilities of LAC (-may be too broad)
• Something related to tutor training, learning skills workshops, staffing & budgets
• Standards, Tutor & staff training & development (maybe you’ve already done this)
• Professional growth as a whole (our profession)

• Frank Christ, David Gerkin, Rick Sheets
• Thanks for having Martha available throughout the conference. She is a wonderful asset/resource for us. I would have like a small group meeting with her — she is so knowledgeable. Please work at including private & 4 year people — we need prof devmt oppties like this!
• Gwyn Enright — Professional Writing and Publishing in the Learning Assistance Field
• Linda Karen (Linda Guss)
• Gretchen Starks-Martin — ST. Cloud State, MN — Learning Assistance structure & organization
• Peggy MacRae — Mpls Community & Technical College — Exit competencies, Learning Assistance Leadership
• Lead or Master Level tutors who have contributed to Learning Assistance Centers. I heard a lot about these people. Could they be the up & coming leaders in the field or at least avid supporters?
• We certainly need new blood — Mentors who started WI are always welcome as a resource & support.

• Different only if there was a location that did not have so many options for the mid-week break!
• The structure was good. The midweek break worked really well.
• It was just right — by Thursday pm, my brain was full
• Good
• The same
• I like it as is.
• As is.
• This works for me.
• Don’t change.
• Three full days — 8-5, the date conflicts w/ winter break and registration, including assessments.
• Ok
• Fine as is

• My chair’s Email (I think she got it from Listserve)
• Previous attendance
• LRNASST
• Mailing
• Ad in Chronicle
• Have attended in the past
• Ad in Journal of Dev. Ed.
• Colleague
• David Gerkin
• Ad in Chronicle
• LRNASST
• Mailing
• LRNASST

• I would attend this Institute again. I would recommend others attend it too.
• Thank you Sylvia and Frank particularly — Thank you all — A very impressive group (Ed Dolan)
• A lot of information to process. When I get out my notes from the Institute & last year’s Institute, I’ll be processing for the next ten years! Keep it up! I found this Institute more useful than last primarily because of my focus on a program I’ve been coordinating and trying desperately to get buy-in & feed back from the tutors. Even though this program is not as global as Learning Assistance or institutions, I don’t feel as alone as before. I’m sure I’ll be able to adapt assessment and instruments to my needs. Thanks for making the experience available.
• Thank you for an exceptional experience!
• Thanks again! It was a great WI!