Information and Evaluation Form for the Spring 2001 Confchem Session

Thanks for taking the time to provide us with your input. We would appreciate knowing the extent to which you participated in the CONFCHEM session just finishing, what you liked and didn't like, and any suggestions you may have. Even if you participated only slightly, or not at all, please fill out and submit this form. We would like to obtain a profile of the average registrant - you are part of this average.
Note: When typing in the text fields, please do enter returns. The text will automatically wrap around.

General Information

NAME:
INSTITUTION:
TITLE:
email:
COURSES YOU TEACH(use left mouse button to select courses):
Introductory Chemistry
General Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Adv. Inorganic Chemistry
Biochemistry
General Science
Life Sciences
Physics
Other

General Information-Downloading the videos

6. Were any problems created by Internet delivery of all video/audio materials?

7. What was the approximate range of download times to your computer for the offered demonstrations?

Demonstration 1, ANIMATIONS AND SIMULATIONS AS LECTURE DEMONSTRATIONS, by Gary L. Bertrand.

Evaluation - Scale 1 to 5 - 1 is Poor, 3 is Average and 5 is excellent
 8. Overall evaluation of text for the bomb calorimeter simulation (1 to 5)
9. Overall evaluation of the graphics for the bomb calorimeter simulation (1 to 5)
10. There were links to many other tutorials, simulations and minilessons. Please comment here on your perception of the effectiveness with which one or more of these offerings were executed.

Demonstration 2, Dust Explosions: Surface Area and Reaction Rate, by Brent D. May, Scott VanBramer, and Mark Bradley

Evaluation - Scale 1 to 5 - 1 is Poor, 3 is Average and 5 is excellent
 11. Overall evaluation of the dust explosion demonstration (1 to 5)
12. Overall evaluation of the dust explosion graphics (1 to 5)
13. There were three video formats: Quicktime and two AVI files. Please comment here on your perception of the effectiveness with which one or more of them was executed.

Demonstration 3: Two of My Favorite Lecture Experiments: Cu + HNO3 and Liquifying Oxygen, by Paul Groves.

Evaluation - Scale 1 to 5 - 1 is Poor, 3 is Average and 5 is excellent
 14. Overall evaluation of the Cu + HNO3 experiment (1 to 5)
15. Overall evaluation of the demonstration graphics (1 to 5)
16. The Cu + HNO3 experiment included a streaming video clip of the experiment. Please comment here on your perception of the effectiveness with which this demonstration was executed.

Demonstration 4: EXOCHARMIC CHEMISTRY ON THE WEB, by Lee Marek

Evaluation - Scale 1 to 5 - 1 is Poor, 3 is Average and 5 is excellent
 17. Overall evaluation of the "Burning Gummi Bears" presentation (1 to 5)
18. Overall evaluation of the "Burning Gummi Bears" video (1 to 5)
19. This offering included ten video demonstrations. Please comment here on your perception of the effectiveness with which one or more of the demonstrations were executed.

Demonstration 5: Using Flash Animation and Streaming Video for Laboratory/Lecture Demonstrations in Large Enrollment Courses, by Mark R. Anderson

Evaluation - Scale 1 to 5 - 1 is Poor, 3 is Average and 5 is excellent
 20. Overall evaluation of the introductory text for this presentation (1 to 5)
21. This presentation offered alternate graphics/video files for Internet Explorer and Netscape users. Comment here on any technical problems you encountered in using one or more of these files.

22. This presentation included six videos of chemical demonstrations. Please comment here on your perception of the effectiveness with which one or more of the demonstrations were executed.

Overall Conference Evaluation

Evaluation - Scale 1 to 5 - 1 is Poor, 3 is Average and 5 is excellent
 23. Overall evaluation of papers:

24. Overall evaluation of discussion:

25. Overall evaluation of Conference:

26. What did you like most about the Conference?

27. What did you like least about the computer Conference?

28. What changes could be made to improve the Conferences? (Schedule, Papers, Short Question Sessions, Discussion Sessions, etc.)

29. Compare this Conference with the usual on-site Conference

30. Would you be interested in organizing and chairing a session for a future on-line conference?
YesNo
If you are interested please indicate a topic for the session.