seaturtle.org :
MTN :
ARCHIVES :
Sign In
Marine Turtle Newsletter 120:19-20, © 2008
Speed Sessions in Loreto: An Analysis of a Novel Session Format
Andrew E. Myers1, Michael Coyne2, Carlos Diez3, Karen L. Eckert4, DuBose Griffin5, Adrian Maldonado6, Wallace J. Nichols7, Jeffrey A. Seminoff8, Amanda Southwood9, Sebastian Troëng10 & Bryan Wallace10
1Large Pelagics Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA (E-mail: andy.myers@unh.edu)
2Seaturtle.org, 1 Southampton Place, Durham, NC 27705, USA
3Dep. De Recursos Naturales de Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00926
4WIDECAST, Nicholas School Marine Lab – Duke University, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA
5SC Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, SC 29422, USA
6Instituto Technologico de Bahia de Banderas, Nayarit, Mexico
7Ocean Conservancy, POB 324, Davenport, CA 95017, USA
8SWFSC-NOAA, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
9Dept. of Biology and Marine Biology, UNCW, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA
10Conservation International, Arlington, VA 2202, USA
As part of the 28th Annual Symposium of Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, a novel oral presentation format (speed sessions) was used, in which presenters had a limited amount of time (four minutes) to give an overview of their work. Generally, these speed sessions were based on a similar format used at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB). At ISTS 28, speed presentations (eight for the conservation session, 11 for the biology session) were followed by a 30-minute discussion period where each presenter placed him/herself in a predetermined part of the auditorium and audience members were free to approach presenters to further discuss their findings. Approximately 250 people attended the conservation speed session on Wednesday 23rd January and approximately 350 people attended the biology speed session the following day.
Attendees and presenters were asked to complete an online speed session evaluation form. A total of 185 evaluation forms were returned, and without exception respondents recommended that speed sessions should continue at future meetings. An overwhelming majority of evaluation respondents (92%) viewed the sessions as being either good or excellent. The one respondent who judged the sessions as being poor attributed this to the ‘acoustics in the auditorium’.
Almost half of the respondents (44%) declared that they would definitely consider submitting to a speed session presentation for future symposia. Of the remaining respondents, 29% stated that they would probably consider speed sessions, 23% said maybe, and only 4% said that they would definitely not consider presenting at a speed session.
While few people offered additional comments, some of the more frequent included that the speed sessions ‘cut the fluff’, with presenters quickly getting ‘to the meat of their presentations’. The most common concerns regarding the speed session format were that presentations with complex methodologies would not be suitable for speed sessions and that students may be judged unfairly against traditional presentations for the student award. Certainly, integrating speed sessions into the student award judging process is a challenge that would need addressing for future symposia.
The area in most need of improvement is the discussion section, where audience members often found it difficult to find presenters A longer discussion period would have been preferred by 28% of respondents; 68% thought that the discussion length was ‘just about right’. A few respondents suggested a panel style discussion following the presentations; whilst others respondents found the current format less intimidating and felt that they could more easily approach the presenters without the discussion being dominated by one or two individuals. A further suggestion recommended having a narrower scope for the sessions, introduced by an invited speaker giving an overview of the topic to be presented and discussed.
By and large, respondents found the session length to be ‘just right’ (90%) with an appropriate number of presenters (86%). When asked whether the time allotted to each presenter was appropriate 29% stated that the time was too short, with recommendations ranging from five to eight minutes. The remaining 71% thought four minutes was ‘just right’. Topic diversity was thought to be ‘just right’ by 84% of respondents, with the remaining opinions split equally between ‘too narrow’ and ‘too broad.’
At future symposia 48% of respondents would like an equal number of speed and traditional sessions, and 30% would maintain the current balance of mostly traditional sessions with a few speed presentations. The remaining 22% suggested that future symposia comprise mostly speed presentation sessions with a few traditional sessions.
The program committee for ISTS29 will incorporate comments and suggestions garnished by this evaluation survey, and implement a new and improved version of the Speed Sessions at next year’s symposium.