Assigning moderators for concurrent sessions

One of the parts I enjoyed most in serving as Education Program Committee Chair was in working with the oral session moderators. This is an area in which the committee became actively involved. In addition, this provided opportunity for interaction and networking in preparation for the conference.

As people submitted proposals to the conference system they were asked if they were willing to moderate a session. Some people had no recollection of this step in the process and were surprised when I contacted them to see if they were still willing to serve as moderators. But many were willing and excited to serve in this role. I think this volunteer process was good, but unfortunately missed those who did not indicate interest in giving a presentation and who may have benefitted by playing this role. In making assignments, I primarily looked at association membership since, as you recall, oral assignments were made by association. Because people had submitted presentations I also had a sense of what their interests were and tried to use these in making assignments as well.

When I met with the committee prior to completion of the assignments we agreed that it might be beneficial to provide a moderators guide to all moderators. This was intended to increase confidence of those who may have been playing this role for the first time and to provide consistency since each of the participating associations has their own culture around presentations. One of the committee members took responsibility for developing the guide. The committee reviewed and approved it for use.

The initial communication with the moderator was simply a reminder of their previous indication of interest in serving in the role and to check their availability for a particular session. If they agreed to serve, they were sent the session time, topics and abstracts and a copy of the moderators guide. The presenters were copied on this so they were aware of the expectations, and many moderators and presenters began communication by email immediately, introducing themselves and preparing for the session. Closer to the time of the conference, the biographical information provided by the presenters in the submission system, was sent to the moderators, again with a copy to the presenters. In the email, the source of the information was provided and presenters were encouraged to share additional information that they thought would be of interest to the audience. At this time presenters and moderators were also aware of time constraints so they were also able to prioritize information to provide maximum presentation time.

These communications were very well received by both presenters and moderators. Many individuals expressed appreciation for this information once we arrived at the conference. There also seemed to be more of a sense of community and collaboration – people were aware of the roles and the importance of those roles. They also knew each other, at least virtually, so looked forward to seeing each other in person. This created a very positive atmosphere for the educational programs. In addition, it gave moderators and presenters ownership in this aspect of the conference. There are always going to be a few things that don’t go quite as planned, but these individuals were empowered with the committee members to do what needed to be done to make the program run as smoothly as possible.

Final communication with moderators followed the conference. The message included a thank you, but also asked for participant numbers, observed movement between sessions and asked for their recommendations regarding number of presenters or other concerns that might be addressed in the final document. Nearly 50% responded. Many seemed extremely pleased to have been asked and this provided a nice closure to their activity. It may have increased responses to some extent to have let them know this email would be coming.

Recommendations for the future:

1. I liked the way moderators were assigned. If the conference moved toward topical tracks, moderators might be assigned by the committees that make the selections and could moderate multiple sessions.
2. Communication with moderators and presenters is important and worth the time it takes. Make it happen!

If you have questions or would like further information about this process or the final report, please contact me at kvines@psu.edu.

Galaxy IV - Educational Programs

Keys to success highlighted in this section – teamwork, established expectations for communication!

I just completed my role as Education Committee Chair for the Galaxy Extension Conference. Some people have asked about the role and how I managed to pull it off. To give you a sense of the magnitude of the role, this committee was responsible for overseeing a total of 304 oral and 437 poster presentations. Of the oral presentations, 250 were refereed with review occurring by sponsoring professional associations, 11 were exhibitor sessions, 29 were sponsored by committees or associations, 4 were pre-conference workshops and 10 were 2-hour Super Seminars. Acceptance rates were 40.85% for oral presentations and 68.39% for posters.

I came into the role three months prior to the convention. This was less than ideal. The person I replaced had computer problems and other issues that challenged their record-keeping. Most of the concurrent sessions had been placed in the program. There was a list of other sessions that appeared on neither the accepted or rejected lists. Eventually I ended up contacting each of these and for the most part they were intending to present so had to be accommodated in the program. So, I had to do some shuffling to add them into the program. The association- and committee-sponsored presentations were not included either. Getting information on these and getting them placed in appropriate positions was also challenging. For some reason the steering committee determined at the last minute to keep pre-conference workshops separate from the other educational programs which created challenges in receiving and communicating information to program participants. Poster submissions had not been placed in order, but I was given the list of posters for inclusion in each of three days of exhibition. One of the first actions I took was to post these lists on the conference website. This initiated a flood of emails and calls from people who had received acceptance, but were not included on the list. This flood continued until the poster presentations were complete at the conference. So, not only did I arrive late into the role, the situation was a tangled mess.

I am a strong believer in continual evaluation and improvement, so am always looking in situations for the lessons for future application. In this case, the committee appeared to exist in name only. When I tried to pull them together I learned they had not met in quite some time and many members never even bothered to respond when I tried to contact them. So my first lesson (teamwork) is to involve the committee early and thoroughly. Every member does not have to be involved in every facet of the activity, but if there were one or two members that had been involved in the acceptance process and in positioning the presentations, they could have aided in the provided continuity. In fact, they would have been stronger candidates to take on the role of committee chair than I was, in terms of providing continuity and thorough understanding of the process from submission to presentation. In the end, the committee member that was recommended to take on the role was not even planning to attend the conference, so could not have fulfilled the role.

A second lesson (established expectations for communication) would be to have a well-documented, clearly defined submission system that could also provide greater continuity. The system used appeared to provide automatic submission reports at many levels. Some people received notices that their submission was received and assumed this meant they were accepted for presentation. Others whose submissions were rejected for oral presentations were accepted for poster presentations resulting in conflicting notices that also created confusion. Finally, the process for taking information from the database to an abstract format was not as easy as it could have been.

Finally, it would have been helpful if a well-developed timeline had been established with all involved in the process (more established expecations for communications). There were challenges associated with communication around other parts of the conference, so individuals said they did not think it odd when they did not receive communication regarding their submissions, beyond their initial acceptance. Even having associations ask their membership check the website and lists was ineffective. If dates for anticipated communications had been established along with clear instructions for contact, this would have helped would-be presenters know when they needed to follow-up.

Next – more on presentation assignment processes.