The New Network of Thematic Museum and Istitutes

FEEDBACK ON THE HELSINKI CONFERENCE

The questions used were identical to those for the previous year’s conference in Budapest, to allow direct comparison, but omitting questions specifically related to the social programme laid on in Budapest.

PLENARIES

Do you think the talks in the plenaries were interesting and well organised?

There was considerable variation in the satisfaction with individual plenaries, and this was reflected in the comments, with a few respondents putting separate comments for different sessions.

The lectures of [] and [] were bad! Not every lecture was relevant.

Keynote speaker [] was not capable of motivating people to listen well. It was the same with speaker []. I have not travelled so far to listen to this type of performance. You have to look for lively, interesting speakers who really have something new to tell….I think a lot of participants want to see and hear more practical things than all kind of theories and history stories.

Some were very good, others not well-planned and the presentation made it difficult to appreciate the talk.

One or two of the speakers for the plenaries were not actually very good at speaking (in a second language) this detracted greatly form what they were saying.

The parallel sessions were interesting and a space to know others’ works and experiences. It would be useful to implement talk translations in the plenaries, in some cases, and promote more discussion about the presentations. In general the meeting fails in discussion about themes and ICT in general.

· There could be something in written form from keynote speakers too (like the abstracts from the paper sessions). The key speakers were skilful, only 1-2 were difficult to understand - ensure the presenters speak fluent English and have something with them, not only speaking from paper []. Many were excellent [], [].

The presentation of [] on Saturday was not quite good. The students should not talk of themselves such a long time. The powerpoint was not very good. I think that to ask a fee from a speaker is not the way to motivate somebody to prepare a lecture.

Most reports were too abstract. I would have liked more practical examples. Some Powerpoints were annoying.

Some of the speakers were difficult to understand. Very interesting stuff was presented in a very complex way. Much knowledge, many skilled speakers. Good performances. A couple of annoying presentations.

A potential problem with both plenary and parallel session papers is that most speakers who are prepared to attend conferences of this type and produce publishable papers are from the academic sector, which conflicts with the other function of the conference in facilitating meetings between teachers from different countries. There is therefore an inescapable conflict between the two purposes designed into the conference, and the two audiences it is aimed at. Some suggestions for dealing with this are given in the conclusions.

Do you think the Comenius 3 action and the project Neothemi were clearly presented?
Do you think the themes of the different national pavilions were well chosen and clear for the audience?

There were no explicit comments on these aspects, though for both approximately three-quarters of delegates were quite or very satisfied. Whereas presentation of the NEOTHEMI themes occupied around half of the previous conference in Budapest, at Helsinki it was confined to one (short) plenary paper and the workshops and Market-Place – the logic being to avoid duplication of content already covered. However it would be useful to check how many delegates in fact attended both conferences. If there is in fact relatively little overlap many members of the audience, including those from the host country who are unable to travel to a conference abroad, will not be aware of the coverage of previous conferences. It was of course impossible to check this before the Helsinki conference, as the extent of overlap was not known.

WORKSHOPS AND CONTACTs

Did you find the workshops you attended motivating and useful in suggesting new ideas for future projects?

This was the area where there was the most marked quantitative improvement over the Budapest conference, with a highly significant difference (chi-square = 28.9, p <.001) in favour of the Helsinki conference – for other questions there was an improvement, but not at a statistically significant level.

The workshops were a moment of inspiration as a model for our own school ideas.

One problem mentioned by workshop organisers was the difficulty of getting the discussion going in the time available – the difficulty of speaking in a foreign language added to the normal reluctance of audience members to speak out. Compared to a paper, where the focus is restricted and the line of questioning is therefore specific, the more open-ended nature of workshops makes it more difficult for audience members to decide what contribution they should make. It may be worth considering, in the next conference, allowing more time, perhaps over a refreshment break, for audience members to get involved in discussions in sub-groups, where the greater informality would make talking across languages easier. However any arrangement, such as these workshops, which relies heavily on the contribution of an audience who have not met each other and the leaders before, is inevitably going to be unpredictable in its efficacy.

Do you think the network was helpful to teachers in establishing new contacts?

There was a high level of satisfaction with the arrangements made through the conference mailing list and Market-Place for participants to make contacts with a view to setting up new projects – almost all participants considered this aspect of the conference quite or very helpful. The only possible improvement might have been a physical bulletin board where delegates could post information and arrange contacts.

The marketplace is a good idea for making contacts. The visit to the mayor in the City Hall was useful too.

Very interesting projects mentioned in private contacts with participants.

A few participants found that there were limited numbers working at the same level as themselves:-

I would have liked to meet more teachers at primary level. Otherwise my experience of the conference was extremely positive.

Most of the people are attending the conference for Comenius I but not for starting up new Comenius III projects. We were disappointed with that.

However it is difficult to see what conference organisers can do to control the type of delegates who attend a free-registration conference.

OTHER COMMENTS

There was a high level of satisfaction with the organisation of the conference.

Excellent organisation of the conference. Congratulations.

Many thanks for your hospitality.

Impressive reception. Good organising.

Some delegates would have liked a greater range of open social arrangements, but a problem in this respect was the high living cost in Finland, which could have created difficulties for delegates from some low-income countries: the organisers therefore decided not to impose expensive social arrangements on delegates:-

THANK YOU, all the arrangements worked very well. P.S. It would be nice to have an evening with dance etc. Many were asking where to go after the Town Hall reception (which was very nice).

It was an excellent conference with interesting themes and advanced technology. The organization was excellent and the Finnish people who worked for it helped me a lot in everything. I would like only one thing, something for the night amusement, more between us, like an intra- social event. Thank you for all.

The planning for next year’s conference in Italy, where the cost problem will not be so severe, already includes social arrangements.

A minor issue, and one relatively easy to solve, is that with a range of languages, respondents may not be able to decode things expressed in the national language of the host country:-

Only a practical commentary – it would have been good to explain to non-Finnish speaking participants the meaning of the songs the Finnish children sang (because the programme was well-planned with cultural heritage – and I hope I was the only one who did not recognise the portrait of the lady during the performance of the memorial music).

Conclusions

The administration and logistics of the conference were outstandingly successful, within the constraints of the high cost base of Finland. As a contact event for delegates who wish to arrange new partnerships, it was successful, with a few minor adjustments.

The main issue for future consideration is the balance between academic and school-oriented content. The choice of plenary speakers requires care, and, given the limited overlap between attendees in successive years, it may be better to ask speakers who have been successful and appreciated in previous years to speak again at the final conference, rather than inviting new and untried speakers.

School-based delegates gain more from the workshops and Market-Place, whereas academic delegates and the conference publication gain more from the parallel paper sessions. It may be worth allowing more time for these two parallel strands, perhaps by a reduction in the time allowed for plenary sessions, and more break time for informal discussions, to allow delegates with differing requirements to gain what is most important for them, as individuals, from the conference.