One hundred and fifty-seven people attended this two-day conference that featured instructors recognized for excellence in online instruction. The participants--82 females and 75 males--represented 18 states: Kansas-109, Texas-10, Oregon-6, California-5, Oklahoma-5, Nebraska-3, Missouri-3, Louisiana-3, New York-2, South Carolina-1, Florida-1, Ohio-1, Indiana-1, Arizona-1, Maine-1, North Carolina-1, Kentucky-1, and West Virginia-1. 2 were from Puerto Rico.

Seventy-two were from the University of Kansas, 48 from other universities, 14 from Community Colleges, 9 from Technical Schools, 13 from high schools, 1 from the army.

The wide range of academic interests represented at the conference is evident from the list of KU conferees. Departments represented include: the Online Academy, Special Education, the center for Research on Learning, KU Medical center, Journalism, Academic Outreach, center for Economic Education, Music and Dance, Health Policy & Management, Academic Outreach Program, School of Education, SCR*TEC, Kansas Law Enforcement Training center, School of Nursing, Natural History Museum, Edwards Campus Administration, Continuing Education, Anthropology, Business, Geography, center for Teaching Excellence, Kansas University Affiliated Programs, Physics, Provost's Office, Latin American Studies, Architecture, Office of Systems Analysis, and Applied English center.

Evaluation

Sixty-three of the conference attendees completed evaluation forms. General impressions, both from the formal evaluations and informal responses during the final session, indicate that the conference was well received.

Respondents were generally enthusiastic about the conference experience, commenting that the speakers were exemplary, providing a nice balance, lots of good, helpful information that could easily be employed when developing other courses. Other positive comments included praise for the printed Power Point slides as handouts, the opportunity to network, and the emphasis on pedagogy throughout the conference.

Kudos abounded for the excellence of the facility. Budig Hall is an excellent environment for a conference, providing a comfortable and convenient atmosphere suitable for technologically sophisticated presentations. The outdoor environment also appealed to the attendees, although one person expressed concern for susceptibility to allergens.

The overall rating of the conference possibly typifies the general reception of those who attended.

Table 1: Question 3. Overall Rating of the Conference

Outstanding	Very Good	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
13.5	26.5	7	2	1	13

Responses to the individual sessions give a clear indication of one obvious area for improvement in future conference planning. While most participants felt that the formal demonstration by each invited presenter was outstanding or good; the lab sessions were less well received. Considering only outstanding and good responses, for example, "Session A" attained a score of 45 for the presentation and 28 for the lab; "Session B" scored 46 and 29; "Session C" received 39 and 28; and "Session D" rated 56 and 26.

Table 2: Question 4. Presentation Rating

	Outstanding	Very Good	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
Session A	15	30	0	5	1	2
Session A(lab)	6	22	14	5	1	15
Session B	25	21	11	3	1	2
Session B (lab)	11	18	14	4	4	12
Session C	18	21	14.5	6.5	3	0
Session C (lab)	9	19	9	2	0	24
Session D	46.5	9.5	3	1	0	3
Session D (lab)	12	14	10	3	0	24
Lunch Speaker #1	13	27	13	3	1	6
Lunch Speaker # 2	6	22	17	5	1	12

The written comments also reflect less satisfaction with the labs. While some respondents enjoyed the hands-on experience of the labs and the opportunity to interact with the developers, others commented that the labs were not a good use of time, preferring instead the more general sessions. As one person commented, "I was under the impression that labs would involve doing something other than simply looking at what someone else had done. It was interesting to look at these courses, but I don't feel that I learned any more than on the original course overview."

By far the most popular course was "Murder on the Internet." Respondents viewed this course as a great example of using technology for the "right" reasons. Others liked the "Murder" because the presenters discussed direct experiences and results rather than the technicalities in developing the site.

Suggestions for Improvement

Suggestions for improvement mostly focused on the lack of practical application built into the conference experience. Many people commented that they would prefer more direct training in web development. Some expressed a desire for more detailed demonstrations. Others recommended that more current material be highlighted, since many of the courses were some years old. Certainly many people expressed frustration at the lack of opportunity to ask questions. One respondent commented that women were underrepresented as presenters.

Respondents suggested that future conferences might spend more time on a technically oriented session in the labs to help people with the more difficult aspects of technology. Newer "tools" might also be included. Perhaps the next conference could be marketed to a broader audience: vendors could be included, as could corporations, or someone from the Paul Allen Foundation could attend to discuss their criteria for best practices.

There might be a K-12 track at the next conference. If this were the case, programs such as Florida State and Concord might be included. Another suggestion was to include at least one presenter who has used a courseware package to prepare an on-line course (i.e. learning space, Web CT, or Web courses in a box.)

More time could be allotted for sharing in small and large groups. To enhance greater networking, a bulletin board or listserv for participants may encourage ongoing discussion, problem solving, and innovation in Web Based Instruction. Prior to the next conference, participants could submit their own websites and then time might be allocated to share and discuss various designs. Perhaps a panel of instructors would address the issues of course development from a faculty perspective. Each member might be asked to come to the panel armed with his or her most helpful hardware/software, the three biggest challenges with online instruction, and how to address them.

Recommended Action The success of the conference suggests that we likely have set a precedent for an event that would focus on the pedagogy of online instruction aimed at a post-secondary education audience. The current conference has potentially laid the groundwork for an annual event. From the evaluations received it is apparent that the personal nature of the conference contributed significantly to its success. The evaluation data also provides direction as to how to expand on the conference structure and experiences of those who attend. Further, the focus on the pedagogy of online instruction made the conference valuable to practitioners and theorists alike. Future conferences should strive to maintain these two vital ingredients. Other action recommendations include:

• Consider an annual conference forum on the pedagogy of online instruction
• Focus on Budig Hall as an institutionalized setting designed for the future
• Limit the attendees to maintain the personalization
• Add a keynote speaker
• Continue an emphasis on nationally recognized presentations of online instruction. Consider a selection process specific to the conference if the Paul Allen Foundation awards are not continued
• Add roundtable discussion and other opportunities for interaction
• Consider a call for papers or a nomination process for session presentations
• Reorganize lab sessions as an option
• Consider some emphasis on project development
• Possibly add vendor exhibits
• Continue poster session
• Seek a national sponsor to subsidize conference costs
• Explore the possibility of holding sessions on development skills and the use of selected tools.