CourseFeedback

Course Feedback

 * 2008 Oct 2 Plus/Delta**

Requesting feedback in a "Plus/Delta" format (e.g. http://www.ucok.edu/cit/Plus%20Delta.pdf ). For those unfamiliar, this is a simple evaluative process in which "Pluses" are things that are going well and "Deltas" are things that could be changed to improve the way things are going (from the Greek letter delta, used in math to mean "change").

In this vein, please think about our course and write down your thoughts about what is working well for you (plus) and what you think could be done to improve the process (delta). If someone has already written the same thing you wanted to, please indicate somehow that you agree - perhaps just tag "I agree" to the end of the sentence.

You needn't put your name with any comments, and you can use the anonymous ID I sent you (instead of your own) if you don't want the wiki to know what you wrote (the wiki does track who wrote what).

Breaking into smaller groups for certain tasks is helpful to me in this learning process.
 * Plus**
 * I agree. Groups of 3 make for manageable discussions. Although some people can still take on more of the workload, that increase is VERY minimal compared to larger group exercises. I feel as if everyone I've worked with is trying to contribute in a substantial fashion so that the workload is distributed equitably among all players.

Working with real, local conservation properties and having a TLC representative at each class session. I'm less inclined to shirk responsibilities in this class because I know an outside entity has turned to the class to help it address its conservation planning needs.

Great group of participants! I feel as if everyone is respectful of each other; makes small group participation all the more enjoyable.


 * I agree. The small group format makes for a more enjoyable learning experience. Everyone I've worked with has been great at turning things in, contributing and going above and beyond. I've had some group exercises in past classes that weren't as pleasant, but I think at this level and with this group of people, the small groups are the best way to tackle all we want to accomplish.

The class size and the dedication of participants really has made this beneficial so far. The class has kept the table open and is willing to listen to everyone, even people who have a harder time speaking up.

Miradi software great for making diagrams and using the Open Standards for Conservation process.

Instructor guides discussions and keeps the group on track to meet course objectives.

It is often difficult to arrange time between meetings to meet for individual group assignments. Perhaps we could allocate some class time on Fridays for this while we are all on campus at the same time?
 * Delta**


 * It is often difficult to get everyone together to work on things. We've been successful at doing most of this through e-mail, but I wonder if there's a way to incorporate a few minutes of group time either at the end of class or right after class.

This class is dependent on the Conservation Measures Partnership open standards and Miradi software. That's fine but we haven't actively included lessons learned from other reading materials. For instance, the Tear et al. (2005) also talks about measuring conservation success. How does Tear et al.'s recommendation for the "three Rs" - representation, redundancy and resiliency - influence our development of measurable objectives? I guess I'm mostly frustrated that I spent time reading the non-CMP articles yet we haven't engaged in a class discussion about the articles; haven't discussed how the combination of articles provide us with new ideas for measuring conservation success. Of course, it is also up to me to do this in my small group exercises, which is something I recognized yesterday when reflecting on to-do tasks for the next TLC property I'm working on.

One difficulty I am having is with the Wikispace. Having never used it before, it takes quite a while to figure out how to post things, etc. A quick lesson on the first day might help those that are unfamiliar with it.

Miradi software needs to be a course requirement for all class members. The few class members with the software end up doing all the diagrams.

Class deadlines are difficult. Due to school and work schedules, it is difficult to have new assignments mid-week. Assignments are often due several days prior to class meeting. And assignments may be emailed or posted on the class agenda may on Tuesday or Wednesday. (For example, course feedback and mid-term peer reviews requests were emailed.) It would be easier to have due items posted on the wikispace agenda earlier.

I feel that we are not using class time efficiently. The large group discussions go round and round, and yet we still haven't finalized the TFR work. I would suggest we designate one person to drive the Miradi during class and all work together to finalize our TFR work asap. It is unfair to have another small group continue to work on TFR every week in addition to the other properties. I agree that it would be helpful to set aside maybe 20-30 minutes (or more!) during class to have breakout sessions for the small groups. It is difficult to meet outside of class time and I think this would be a more efficient use of class time than discussing TFR more. I am a bit disappointed that the course seems to be focusing strictly on CMP strategies and analysis of specific properties. It is valuable to experience the process and try it first hand for a property, but I think we accomplished that with TFR. I would like to have discussion on some other related topics/opinions/papers. I guess I was expecting we would focus more on the "indicator" end of measuring conservation success. Coming up with indicators still seems like a rather arbitrary process to me... is there any literature on guidelines for developing meaningful measures?