🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2E1C2629@ismail.switch.com>, Jim Stonge
<stonge@ISMAIL.SWITCH.COM> wrote:

> From:  Jim Stonge  < stonge@ismail.switch.com >
> 
> To:  All the faithful readers of AECT-L
> 
> 
> 1)  Do colleges and universities really require that faculty have that many
> presentations at a single conference, 

My experience has been that diversity in presentations and publications is
important. At the sametime, a number of high quality presentations are also
as
important if not more important. In addition, some faculty members judge
others by the rejection rate of the papers. If AECT accepted say 80 - 90%
of the submitted papers, these "raters" would then reduce the value they
assign to AECT presentation.

>and conjunctively do they require that a professor's name be on the work 
of each student, or is this an ego thing on the part of the individual 
>faculty member?
> 

I don't know if it is required by a university. Most of us mentioning this
point are doing so as an ethical issue. If we have worked with the student
on the research, we should be mentioned as coauthor as we would be with
any other colleague with whom we have worked. No, I do not believe it 
is ego, it's one of recognition for work just as in the case of first 
authorship.

Removing a second author's name from paper to abide by the 2 presentation
limit is simply unethical and unprofessional. In addition, it may give the
wrong impression to someone that it is ok to leave off a coauthor's name
in a future presentation/publication.

> 2)  Don't you believe that there is room in the organization for those who
> do not share the research interest?  Specifically, should there not be some
> opportunity for reporting on information that is not an experimental
> study that would also have utility? Could these not be posters, or
> demonstrations, or some other venue?
> 

Yes, but shouldn't these presentations have standards? For example, the 
development section of ETR&D often publishes nonresearch oriented papers.
These papers, however, have to meet certain standards and be of a 
scholarly nature. I think there is such room for the type of presentation 
you mentioned. However, it should meet certain standards for presentation 
at a professional conference and be scholarly in nature.

My main concern that such sessions would be places for individuals to
present less than standard presentations to obtain a spot on the 
program. I belive that such abuse could harm the organization and
detract from the credibility of reviewed presentations.
 
> 3)  Do you believe that because someone writes a good abstract that they
> should be allowed to present if we know that they do not give a good
> presentation?  Does it matter if the person is coming up for tenure?  Is
> tenure a right or something to be earned?
> 

I would hope that tenure is something one earns and that AECT can help
maintain this point of view by offering a rigourous and fair review
process for papers.

At any conference, you are going to find good and bad presentations. For
research papers, I support the concept of 4 15 minute papers and a
discussant (being bad for 15 minutes is better than being bad for 30
minutes). There are also "bad" presentations that are due to circumstances
beyond the presenter's control--poorly designed room, lack of equipment
(we lost 25 minutes waiting for an overhead projector and then a screen
last year). Hopefully, we can a poor presenter improve with feedback
just as suggestions are provided for proposals.


>I also believe in the reality check of using the evaluation forms from 
>previous conventions when making the final decisions.  


These should also be provided to the presenters!

>I would also like to see all presentations in a  "Proceedings" that 
>has been submitted in advance.

I would settle for the discussants receiving them in ample time to 
prepare. Steve Ross and I were frustrated by presenters when
we coordinated the Research Papers who refused or simply did not send
their papers to the discussants. AECT should adopt a policy that refuses
to accept papers in progress (they never seem to finish them before 
the meeting) and to "black list" presenters who fail to send their
papers to discussants by the set time.



I see an emerging issue that is of great concern. Is the annual meeting
a scholarly meeting, or does it fall under some other category? From what
I heard in Anaheim and have read here, it would seem that there is an
effort to downplay the scholarly nature of the meeting and make it more
of "show and tell" without the academic rigor one might expect of 
the annual meeting. Personally, I feel such change would seriously hurt
the credibility of the organization and make it less viable for higher
education faculty members.

 
-- 
Gary R. Morrison
Instructional Design & Technology
University of Memphis