1. 1. I attended a NARST pre-conference workshop, and the session was
 Response PercentResponse Total
  1) poor
0.5%1
  2) weak
1%2
  3) satisfactory
2.5%5
  4) good
5%10
  5) excellent
9%18
  6) did not attend
81.9%163
Total Respondents  199
(skipped this question)  11
2. If you attended a pre-conference workshop, please say what you liked or did not like about the program and the way it was presented.
 Total Respondents  
26
(skipped this question)  184
3. I attended the first plenary address by David Pearson on the topic, “Science and literacy: What we know, what we need to learn”. I thought the session was
 Response PercentResponse Total
  1) poor
0%0
  2) weak
7%14
  3) satisfactory
11.5%23
  4) good
22%44
  5) excellent
16%32
  6) did not attend
43.5%87
Total Respondents  200
(skipped this question)  10
4. What did you like or not like about the plenary address by David Pearson?
 Total Respondents  
80
(skipped this question)  130
5. I attended the second plenary address by Ken Tobin, “Towards a brighter future for science education: Cogenerating success through participatory inquiry”. I thought the session was
 Response PercentResponse Total
  1) poor
0.5%1
  2) weak
5%10
  3) satisfactory
7.5%15
  4) good
14.9%30
  5) excellent
15.4%31
  6) did not attend
56.7%114
Total Respondents  201
(skipped this question)  9
6. What did you like or not like about the plenary address by Ken Tobin?
 Total Respondents  
54
(skipped this question)  156
7. The information I received from NARST to help me prepare for proposal submission from the Program Committee and the NARST proposal submission Web site was
 Response PercentResponse Total
  1) poor
1%2
  2) weak
2.5%5
  3) satisfactory
20.1%40
  4) good
44.2%88
  5) excellent
27.6%55
  Other (please specify)
4.5%9
Total Respondents  199
(skipped this question)  11
8. Comment further here in words about the proposal submission information and process of submitting.
 Total Respondents  
54
(skipped this question)  156
9. The draft NARST program in html format that was initially on-line and the final program available in pdf format for downloading were
 Response PercentResponse Total
  1) poor
4%8
  2) weak
8.5%17
  3) satisfactory
24.5%49
  4) good
39%78
  5) excellent
20.5%41
  Other (please specify)
3.5%7
Total Respondents  200
(skipped this question)  10
10. Comment further on the availability of the two on-line versions of the program before the conference started
 Total Respondents  
92
(skipped this question)  118
11. Overall, the conference program was
 Response PercentResponse Total
  1) poor
2.5%5
  2) weak
9.1%18
  3) satisfactory
23.2%46
  4) good
42.4%84
  5) excellent
22.7%45
Total Respondents  198
(skipped this question)  12
12. Comment further on what you thought of the conference program, how the program was helpful, and/or how the program could be improved.
 Total Respondents  
109
(skipped this question)  101
13. The Awards Banquet, luncheon and Presidential lecture by Jonathan Osborne were
 Response PercentResponse Total
  1) poor
1%2
  2) weak
3.1%6
  3) satisfactory
5.6%11
  4) good
19.9%39
  5) excellent
16.8%33
  6) did not attend
53.6%105
Total Respondents  196
(skipped this question)  14
14. Comment further on what you thought of the banquet and presidential lecture.
 Total Respondents  
54
(skipped this question)  156
15. The part I liked best about the 80th international conference and would like to see retained next year was
 Total Respondents  
115
(skipped this question)  95
16. The part I liked least about the 80th international conference and would like to see changed for next year was
 Total Respondents  
121
(skipped this question)  89
17. If you stayed in the NARST hotel, the Sheraton New Orleans, your impressions of the hotel were
 Total Respondents  
138
(skipped this question)  72
18. Any additional comments:
 Total Respondents  
50
(skipped this question)  160