Concerns About "Teaching" at Professional Conferences
Baron Perlman and Lee I. McCann
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Most efforts to improve teaching involve undergraduate or graduate
instruction. Other pedagogy, largely ignored in the literature, occurs when
psychologists teach and learn at professional conferences. How might this
teaching be improved?
Brookfield (1995) argued that faculty do not really understand the
outcome and impact of their teaching, nor how to improve it, until they
ask students how they perceive their pedagogy. We asked faculty their
pet peeves about the nature and quality of the teaching they experienced
while attending professional psychology meetings. Their opinions should
prove useful for presenters interested in enhancing the quality of their
conference "teaching."
Method
Participants
We surveyed attendees at a state (Enhancing the Teaching of
Psychology and Human Development Conference, University of Wisconsin,
Green Bay, WI, n = 29, response rate = 100%), regional (Mid-America
Conference for Teachers of Psychology, n= 49, response rate = 63%),
and national (NITOP, n = 48, response rate = 12%) teaching conference
and colleagues at two doctoral and two master's departments (n = 18).
2
One hundred forty-one responded; 134 contributed usable data.
Participants were asked to complete the survey only once.
Procedure
All attendees responded individually during one session at the state
teaching conference. At the regional meeting we distributed a brief
questionnaire to all participants to be completed and returned
before the conference ended. At the national meeting an
announcement indicated a questionnaire was available at the
registration desk and could be returned there. We also distributed
questionnaires to faculty in our department and asked colleagues
to do the same in three other departments.
We told potential participants:
We are interested in the quality of teaching that takes
place at conferences. What are your pet peeves (major
dislikes and annoyances) about conference workshops,
symposia and other presentations you have attended
over the past few years (e.g., APA, APS, NITOP). Take a
few minutes and write down your two or three major pet
peeves about such presentations. What bothers you or
annoys you the most?
3
Results

Respondents provided a mean of 2.0 pet peeves (SD = 0.70, Median
and Mode = 2).

Table 1 organizes 265 responses. The six most frequently listed
concerns were:

Poor rapport with audience (n = 33, 12%),

Illegible visual aids (n = 30, 11%),

Presentation too long or starting late (n = 21, 8%),

Disorganized presentation (n = 21, 8%),

Lack of congruence between titles/abstracts and content
presented (n = 19, 7%), and


Little or no time for questions/interchange (n = 19, 7%).
The largest number of problems lie in preparation and content.
Discussion

Balance is important. Attendees complained about both too much
and too little material, some audience members monopolizing or too
little opportunity to participate, etc.

Preparation and practice are important. Few presentations exceed
1-hour, with little opportunity to correct deficiencies, a process we call
one trial teaching. We recommend conference "teachers" consider that
attendees have often traveled long distances to hear them, often
choosing not to attend attractive concurrent sessions.
4

Less is more. Attendees can read in depth, contact presenters, and
continue learning after the conference. They need a clear, concise
presentation of the important issues, and expect to obtain this through
quality teaching at the forums they attend.
5
References
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6
Table 1
Audience Pet Peeves About Conference Presentations
__________________________________________________________
Na
%b__
or content integration, no take home message)
21
8
Title/Abstract do not accurately describe content
19
7
17
6
16
6
Handouts (e.g., too few, incomplete, irrelevant)
14
5
Unprepared presenter/discussant
10
4
8
3
105
40
33
12
___________________________________________
Preparation and Content
Disorganized (e.g., no outline or summary, no themes
Lack of content (e.g., too much intro/small talk,
audience generates content, use of icebreakers)
Content choice (e.g., too high/low or technical, expert
does not share expertise, lack of depth, conclusions
not supported by data, no theory, too theoretical, no
examples )
Too much material
Total
Style and Rapport
Poor rapport with audience (e.g., reading verbatim)
(table continues)
7
__________________________________________________________
Na
___________________________________________
%b__
Speaking style (e.g., monotone voice, boring, no
enthusiasm, no humor, talks too fast or slowly)
18
7
Lack of respect (e.g., pompous, arrogant, talk down
to audience, not approachable, do not send promised
materials after conference)
8
3
59
22
Run too long, start late
21
8
No/little time for questions or interchange
19
7
11
4
Total
Managing Time/Audience/Questions/Interchange
Not managing audience well (e.g., audience
"experts" pontificate, muddy issues, audience
comments take too much time)
Not repeating inaudible questions
Total
3
1
54
20
30
11
Too much on overheads/slides/PowerPoint
8
3
PowerPoint: too fancy, distracting
5
2
Other (e.g., no visual aids, struggle to use technology) 4
2
Visual Aids
Illegible (e.g., print too small)
(table continues)
8
__________________________________________________________
___________________________________________
Total
Total
Na
%b__
47
18
265c
______________________________________________________________________________________
a
Attendees (n = 134) usually gave more than one peeve per category.
Responses represent number of peeves, not attendees.
b
Percent = number of responses/total number given.
c
Total percentage may not equal sum of item percentages due to
rounding.