<-- Return to Notes TOC

FEEDBACK SURVEYFOR KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
PT3 Site Visit: May 2002


The purpose of this report is to provide feedback about the CE process itself. Please limit your comments to the overall site visit process.

Value Aspects
Please describe the aspects you found most valuable about the CE site visit process.
K-State showed effective models for broadening the focus of their project to other departments that are important in the preparation of teachers, local feeder colleges, etc.
The documentation requirements that K-State implemented for participants is a valuable model that will influence future projects, at least at KU.
We appreciated the effective external evaluation strategies that were shown. A commitment to formative evaluation was clearly evident. The evaluation clearly positively influenced not only the project administration, but also the participants as their final projects showed strong evaluation components.
K-State showed effective models for broadening the focus of their project to other departments that are important in the preparation of teachers, local feeder colleges, etc.
The documentation requirements that K-State implemented for it's participants is a valuable model that will influence future projects, at least at KU.
We appreciated the effective external evaluation strategies that were shown. A commitment to formative evaluation was clearly evident. The evaluation clearly positively influenced not only the project administration, but also the participants as their final projects showed strong evaluation components.

Non-Value Aspects
Please describe the aspects of the CE site visit process that you did not find useful.
There were very few aspects of this visit that were of no value. We would have liked video of the digital convergence conference!
There were some parts of presentations that were of more interest to some participants than others but there were no parts of this visit were non-useful to everyone.

Suggestions
Please describe suggestions for how we could improve the CE site visit process.
This process should be continued perhaps in the Big 12. This would allow more participation. This could be done on a rotating host basis and involve schools in the geographical area. We need to continue to share best practices and models that are effectively working.
The PT3ce.net website is still confusing to deal with, and several participants in the site visit had complaints about it.