





































Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          8                                  

 

Defining a project proposal to enhance the Medical 
Library Association’s annual meeting through 
Session-level assessment: The exploration of the 
2017-2018 Rising Star cohort 
 

Nicole R Theis-Mahon, MLIS, AHIP 
Liaison Librarian to the School of Dentistry and Health Sciences Libraries Collections 

Coordinator 
Health Sciences Library 
University of Minnesota 
Minneapolis, MN 
theis025@umn.edu 
 

Laura M Menard, MLS, AHIP 
Assistant Director for Medical Education and Access Services 

Ruth Lilly Medical Library 
Indiana University School of Medicine 
Indianapolis, IN 
lmenard@iu.edu 
 

Hanna Schmillen, MLIS, AHIP  
Subject Librarian for Health Sciences 

Ohio University Libraries 

Athens, OH 

schmille@ohio.edu     
 

Rachel K Stark, MS, AHIP 
Health Sciences Librarian  

University Library   

California State University, Sacramento 

Sacramento, CA 
stark@csus.edu  

Objectives: Associations and organizations rely on feedback from membership to assess 

conferences, programs, and meetings. The Medical Library Association (MLA) utilizes post-

conference assessment to get an overall evaluation of the meeting. While this informs future 

meeting planning, it does not provide targeted assessment data about the perceived quality and 

relevance of sessions, papers, or posters. Incorporating session-level, just-in-time feedback would 

further engage meeting attendees and ensure relevance of the meeting to the membership. 

Methods: The 2017-2018 MLA Rising Star cohort investigated the interest in and use of session-

level, just-in-time feedback at conferences of seven peer associations.  A five-question survey to  



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          9                                  

 

gauge MLA member interest in session-level feedback was distributed in February 2018. The 

survey was only available to current MLA members and advertised on the MLA blog, distributed to 

Section and SIG, state, and select MLA Chapter lists. Live polling was also conducted at the May 22, 

2018, MLA Rising Star project proposal presentation.  

Results: The cohort received responses from five peer associations and only three are using some 

form of session-level, just-in-time assessment at their conferences. The February 2018 MLA 

membership survey yielded 157 responses. 94% of respondents (n=147) had attended a MLA 

meeting and 72% of respondents agreed that they would find session-level assessment valuable. 

Respondents indicated that they would be interested in receiving feedback from attendees about 

the application of their session’s content, whether attendees learned something new, and if their 

session met expectations. Of attendees at this May 22, 2018, project proposal presentation, 97% 

agreed that they would value the opportunity to provide session-level, and 91% indicated that as a 

presenter would find attendee feedback useful.  

Conclusion: The investigation by the 2017-2018 MLA Rising Star Cohort indicated an interest in 

session-level, just-in-time feedback for MLA’s annual meetings. 

Introduction 

For the past seven years, the Medical Library Association’s (MLA) Rising Stars program 

has provided members with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the 

association, develop leadership skills, and contribute their insights and ideas. Usually this 

has manifested in the form of an individual yearlong project that investigated a need in the 

association. The project’s ultimate goal was to have each member of the cohort contribute 

to MLA in a tangible way.  

The format for the 2017-2018 MLA Rising Star project was a departure from previous 

years’ projects. This new approach was based on feedback from previous cohorts, who 

expressed a desire to work more closely and collaboratively with one another. The change 

sought to address and encourage collaboration, cohort development, and investment in 

MLA. Instead of being presented with a question to investigate the 2017-2018 cohort was 

tasked with identifying and creating a project proposal that was both forward thinking 

and would support MLA’s current and future needs. The intent of this approach was that if 

MLA, or any group within the association, decided to implement the project, it would be 

relevant and could be easily adapted to the association’s needs and values.  

The cohort initially drafted two project proposals: one that addressed assessing diversity 

and inclusion, and a second to investigate the MLA Competencies for Lifelong Learning 

and Professional Success. After receiving feedback from the MLA Rising Star faculty and 

other key stakeholders, one proposal was selected to expand upon. The final proposal, 

“Just-in-Time Assessment at a National Conference: Increasing Member Engagement and 

Assisting with Professional Development,” was an exploration of integrating an electronic 

assessment option for session-level content at the MLA Annual Meeting. For this proposal,  



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          10                                  

 

the cohort defined just-in-time assessment as an approach that would allow MLA Annual 

Meeting attendees to provide feedback on session-level presentations, such as posters or 

papers, throughout the duration of the conference, at their convenience, and while the 

content of the presentations was fresh. 

The intent of the proposal was to build upon existing member involvement with the 

association and offer a mechanism to increase feedback and participation with the Annual 

Meeting, its presenters, and content. A secondary goal of this project was to identify 

avenues for membership to engage with the MLA Competencies for Lifelong Learning and 

Professional Success. The cohort proposed that options for constructive, session-level 

feedback should be available through several platforms including the MLA website, the 

MLA Annual Meeting app, kiosks at the meeting, or through other means.  

Literature Review 

There is little published in the library and information science (LIS) field specific to 

session‐level, just‐in‐time feedback at LIS conferences and meetings. The closest example 

was the 2010 Evidence Based Scholarly Communication Conference in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, which piloted an approach to conduct real-time peer review by conference 

attendees on presentations [1]. Session‐level assessment is present at conferences and 

annual meetings outside of the LIS fields, including medical professional conferences [2]. 

There is a rich corpus of literature on assessment and standard approaches to assessing 

the qualities of meetings or conferences.  Many assessment approaches include a post‐

meeting evaluation distributed to attendees. While an overall evaluation of the conference 

is helpful to the association, it does not always capture the quality or value of individual 

sessions, nor does it provide a means where individuals improve on their practice. By 

implementing this proposal, MLA would be in the forefront of library associations when it 

comes to peer review and assessment at conferences. The proposal would also align MLA 

with other professional associations outside of LIS, as demonstrated in the published 

literature. 

Information professionals and librarians value lifelong learning and should embrace the 

skills and practice of receiving feedback [3]. This is relevant in our approaches to 

information literacy instruction, the competencies that librarians utilize, and the desire to 

improve as information professionals. The gap in the LIS literature about session-level 

assessment at conferences reveals that a proposed just-in-time assessment mechanism 

would be an innovative way to benefit the association, increase professional development, 

provide an opportunity to engage with MLA’s new Professional Competencies for Lifelong 

Learning and Professional Success, and improve engagement at the MLA Annual Meeting.   

 

 



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          11                                  

 

Methods 

To better understand assessment in the LIS and other comparative fields, the cohort 

identified a set of peer associations to determine what they were doing in respect to just-

in-time, session-level assessment at their conferences and annual meetings. The cohort, in 

consultation with their mentors, compiled a list of seven associations that were peers to 

MLA. The final list of peer associations included the Special Library Association (SLA), 

Chicago Association of Law Libraries, Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), 

European Association of Health Information and Libraries (EAHIL), American Medical 

Informatics Association (AMIA), American Library Association (ALA), and the Charleston 

Conference. The cohort developed six questions to share with contacts at each association. 

The questions below were sent via email:  

1. Does your organization conduct session-level assessment at annual 

conferences/meetings? 

2. If yes, how does your organization assess sessions? 

a. Paper form after the session/presentation 

b. Webform that is shared with attendees/participants 

c. Session-level assessment integrated in the overall conference assessment 

d. Other 

3. What questions do you ask to attendees? 

4. What is the average completion rate of session-level assessment? 

5. How do presenters and attendees perceive session-level assessment? 

6. How does your organization use this feedback in planning future meetings? What 

have you learned from this feedback? 
 

The cohort developed a short, five-question survey for the MLA membership to gauge 

interest in the notion of session-level, just-in-time assessment (Appendix). The first 

question asked if respondents had attended a MLA in person or online. Responses were 

collapsed into “yes” or “no.” The following questions offered a Likert scale (strongly agree, 

agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). In our analysis, the categories “strongly agree” 

and “agree” were collapsed into “agree” and “neutral”, “disagree” and “strongly disagree” 

were collapsed as “other.” An open-ended question at the end of the survey provided an 

option for respondents to share additional thoughts about the ability to provide session-

level feedback on paper and panel presentations, lightning rounds, posters, and special 

content sessions.  

The survey was available to the MLA membership in late February 2018 and was open for 

two weeks. It was administered through MLAnet and advertised on the MLA blog, Section 

and Special Interest Group (SIG) listservs, state listservs, and to some MLA Chapter 

listservs. Participant responses were anonymous.   



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          12                                  

 

Responses to the MLA membership survey were analyzed and tabulated for each question. 

None of the questions were required and respondents could choose which questions to 

respond to about their perceived value in providing and receiving feedback. Descriptive 

statistics were used to calculate frequencies. Comments to the open-ended question were 

analyzed and a thematic analysis was conducted to identify major themes. This was done 

by author one [NTM] identifying major themes and the second author [LM] reviewing 

these themes.   

Results 

Assessment Approaches by Peer Associations 

To assess the viability of just-in-time, session-level feedback the Rising Star cohort 

investigated feedback approaches of peer associations to determine 1) if associations 

were utilizing this assessment strategy at their annual meetings and conferences and 2) if 

it was successful. Seven associations were contacted about their use of session-level 

feedback.  

The cohort received responses from five associations and only two, ACRL and SLA, 

reported using mobile technology for just-in-time feedback at their annual meetings 

(Table 1). A third association, EAHIL, offered an optional paper form for feedback on oral 

presentations and keynote speakers. AMIA and the Charleston Conference did not 

respond. 

Association Just-in-time 
Assessment 

Session-level 
Assessment 

Mobile App Interested 

ACRL X X X X 

SLA X X X X 

EAHIL X X (paper format) X 

Chicago 
Association of 
Law Libraries 

   X 

Table 1. Assessment of Peer Associations and Use of Session-Level Assessment 

 

ACRL encourages conference session attendees to rate sessions on a 1-5 scale and add 

comments to a text box within their mobile conference app. Overall, about 30% of ACRL 

attendees utilize the session-level feedback mechanism. The feedback is primarily used by 

the ACRL conference planning committee and sometimes presentation specific comments 

are shared with participants.  



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          13                                  

 

SLA planned to implement session-level feedback at their June 2018 conference. The 

association is interested in gathering data for in-depth assessment of individual sessions, 

presenters, and posters within their mobile conference app.  

EAHIL and the Chicago Association of Law Libraries expressed interest in just-in-time, 

session-level feedback for their conferences and meetings. However, neither association 

currently has plans or a timeline to implement this form of assessment.  

MLA Membership Surveys 

The February 2018, MLA membership survey yielded 157 responses and a response rate 

of 5%. The cohort did not have access to the MLA membership list and needed to rely on 

distribution lists that they had access to. Survey results revealed that 94% (n=147) of 

respondents have attended an MLA Annual meeting in person, online, or both. This 

number is higher than the 2017 MLA Executive Director’s report, which stated that 38% of 

MLA members attend the 2017 Annual Meeting [4]. Although there is a low response rate 

to the MLA membership survey, these may be viewed as representative of MLA members 

who participate in an Annual Meeting.  

When survey respondents were asked if they would find it valuable to “provide 

immediate, presentation-level feedback (on for example, paper and panel presentation, 

lightning rounds, posters, and special content sessions)” 72% (n=114) of respondents 

agreed or strongly agreed (Table 2).  

 

Value n % 

Strongly Disagree 3 2% 

Disagree 4 3% 

Neutral 32 20% 

Agree 74 47% 

Strongly Agree 40 25% 

Don’t Know/Not Applicable 4 3% 

Table 2. Value in Providing Feedback 
 

When asked if, as a presenter, there would be value in “hav[ing] the option of receiving 

presentation-level feedback (on, for example, paper and panel presentations, lightning 

rounds, posters, and special content sessions)” 82% (n= 128) of respondents either agreed 

or strongly agreed (Table 3).  



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          14                                  

 

Value n % 

Strongly Disagree 1 1% 

Disagree 0 0% 

Neutral 16 1% 

Agree 69 44% 

Strongly Agree 59 38% 

Don’t Know / Not 
Applicable 

12 8% 

Table 3. Value in Receiving Feedback 

 

Survey respondents were asked to select from a list of feedback options that they would 

desire as a session-level presenter. Respondents could check more than one answer. 

Possible options for session-level feedback included: whether attendees learned 

something from my session, how participants think this may apply what they learned, and 

the level of attendee engagement with the session. Participants had the option of selecting 

multiple answers for this question. Respondents were primarily interested in knowing 

“whether participants learned something from my session” or “how participants think 

they might apply what they learned at my session” (Table 4). 

 

Type of Feedback Desired n % 

None 5 1% 

Other (please describe) 21 4% 

Met Participant 
Expectations 

123 25% 

Participate Engagement in 
Session 

74 15% 

Application of Session 
Content 

130 27% 

Learned Something 132 27% 

Table 4. Types of Presenter Feedback Desired* 



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          15                                  

 

Participants were given the option to share their thoughts about the ability to provide 

feedback on paper and panel presentations, lightning rounds, posters, and special content 

sessions at MLA’s Annual Meeting in an open-ended question. One primary category 

emerged from these comments:  feedback for personal or professional use and 

improvement. Other comments were about the MLA Annual Meeting and not specific to 

this project proposal.  

Respondents welcomed the notion of feedback to improve their professional practice and 

felt that these comments would improve their MLA meeting submissions. They felt that 

feedback would allow for transparency between the presenter, MLA, and Annual Meeting 

attendees. One participant summed this up nicely: “We can't improve without the ability 

to receive honest, timely feedback.”   

The 2017-2018 cohort also conducted a live audience poll at the May 22, 2018, project 

proposal presentation. Attendees responded to two questions using their laptops or 

mobile devices and participant responses were anonymous. Of attendees at the 

presentation session, 97% (n= 31) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that “As an attendee of 

the MLA annual meeting, I would find it valuable to be able to provide immediate, 

presentation-level feedback (on, for example, paper and panel presentations, lightning 

rounds, posters, and special content sessions)”(Figure 1). When asked, “As a presenter at 

the MLA annual meeting, I would find it valuable to have the option of receiving 

presentation-level feedback (on, for example, paper and panel presentations, lightning 

rounds, posters, and special content sessions)”, 91% (n=33) “agreed” or “strongly agree” 

that they would want the option (Figure 1). 

 

Figure 1. Value of Session-Level Feedback (Results of an Audience Poll) 

 

 



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          16                                  

 

Discussion 

Constructive feedback and assessment is commonplace in education and professional 

development due to the desire to improve and evolve. Feedback should not be avoided, 

but rather encouraged for personal and professional development. It offers external views, 

recognizes or interprets ways to improve past performances for the future, shows genuine 

interest and appreciation of work, and gives encouragement, affirmation, and support to 

build confidence and competence [5]. Individuals providing the feedback and those 

receiving it enter into a partnership with the overall goal to improve and further develop a 

program or outcome [5], meaning peer-to-peer feedback is mutually beneficial. 

Constructive feedback and peer assessment has been used in medical education, including 

hospitals, to assess practitioner performance and skills, communication skills, and the 

physician patient relationships [6]. It is argued that peer assessment “can be valuable as a 

formative assessment method” [7] and that self-assessment allows individuals to “focus on 

aspects of their work that seem to be problematic, forming a more objective lens for self-

assessment (and promoting performance awareness)” [8]. 

Library and information science professionals value self-assessment and constructive 

feedback as it provides an opportunity for them to develop, improve, and assess their 

impact. They "look to professional partners, broad contexts, and campus priorities with 

which to engage" [9]. Furthermore, “In a profession focused on lifelong learning, the skill 

of accepting [and giving] feedback should be an area of continual improvement” [3]. LIS 

professionals already embrace the desire to refine professional skills and develop new 

programs, initiatives, or services based on the needs, expectations, and feedback from 

their users and institutions. MLA members indicated a desire to both provide and receive 

feedback to improve as professionals and to assist peers in improving their research, 

presentations, and skillset. MLA Annual Meeting presenters recognize the potential of 

session-level feedback to assess whether attendees learned something and are interested 

in applying programs or services. Presenters also recognize the opportunity to assess the 

overall impact of their presentations. Receiving peer feedback from other LIS 

professionals should only further develop this culture of continual improvement and 

context for demonstrating impact. 

For this project, the cohort investigated the use of session-level assessment at 

conferences. The use of mobile technology is key to this type of assessment. Mobile apps 

are increasingly used to enhance conferences and educational settings [10] and have the 

potential for real-time engagement [2]. The use of this technological platform makes sense 

since nearly nine in ten Americans own a smartphone and rely on these devices to access 

or interact with content [11]. MCI USA, a telecommunications company that supports vent  

 



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          17                                  

 

needs, offers functionality to engage with meeting attendees through surveys and 

questions within a mobile app. 

MLA, like other professional associations, creates and manages both a conference website 

and mobile app for Annual Meeting attendees to learn about session offerings, manage 

schedules, and interact with conference content [12]. Currently, MLA only assesses its 

Annual Meeting through a survey link that is shared with attendees after the meeting and 

focuses on the event overall. Building an assessment into the Annual Meeting app and 

website has the potential to gather feedback on a specific portion, or subset, of the Annual 

Meeting and increase overall feedback. The integration of an assessment function has the 

potential to maintain attendee engagement and participation with conference content and 

provide an opportunity for the association to gather feedback as attendees participate in 

events or content.  

The 2017-2018 Rising Stars project proposal presents a novel approach for gathering 

feedback at library and information conferences and meetings. The investigation of peer 

associations showed that while ACRL, SLA, and EAHIL conduct just-time-assessment there 

is range of questions asked, methods, and approaches employed in session-level 

assessment. The integration of a just-in-time feedback mechanism into the MLA mobile 

app aligns with the trends of peer institutions and is a functionality of interest to the 

membership. Further data is needed to identify the optimal integration of session-level, 

just-in-time feedback at the MLA Annual Meeting.  

Limitations  

Although the cohort tried to be as comprehensive as possible in exploring evidence 

supporting this proposal, some limitations exist. Lack of relevant information in the 

literature, a low survey response rate from the MLA membership, and potential challenges 

in implementation of the proposal are all issues that were considered throughout the 

process. 

There is little-to-no direct evidence in the LIS literature pertaining to online or app-based 

session-level assessment at conferences. The cohort therefore broadened the parameters 

of the literature search to include conferences outside of the LIS field, as well as the value 

in peer-to-peer feedback. This was valuable in shaping the proposal; however, it may lack 

specificity and direct applicability to the proposed assessment approach at MLA Annual 

meetings. The cohort is cognizant of this limitation and views the possible implementation 

of this proposal as an opportunity for MLA to contribute to the scholarly conversation by 

publishing on assessment efforts.  

The MLA member survey that was developed and administered by the cohort yielded 

valuable information on member perceptions of the proposed project. However, the  



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          18                                  

 

survey was not be shared directly with the MLA membership and achieved a response rate 

of 5% (n=157). Since the survey was advertised on the MLA blog and shared on lists that 

the cohort had access to the results represent a self-selected sample [13]. As the project 

moves forward, the cohort recommends maintaining open communication with 

membership for feedback and suggestions.  

As this year’s cohort was tasked with developing and presenting a proposal, they 

discussed but did not directly address limitations of the proposed feedback mechanism. 

Given the fact that many sessions include multiple presenters, the proposed feedback 

system may need to be modified for ease of use and clear interpretation of individual 

feedback results. Each presenter may or may not be comfortable receiving feedback, and 

therefore the cohort recommends that the mechanism be opt-in for presenters. This 

project proposal offers an additional approach to gather feedback from session-level 

content and engage members at the MLA Annual Meeting.  

Conclusion 

The 2017-2018 Rising Star cohort believes that this project would benefit MLA as an 

association, its members as stakeholders, and participants in the Annual Meeting as 

professionals. The cohort is currently exploring options for piloting just-in-time, session-

level assessment. The project proposal mirrors assessment approaches used by other 

professional associations at events and meetings. The survey of the MLA membership and 

feedback received at the MLA Rising Star presentation indicates there is interest in 

pursuing the proposal. The potential to leverage feedback from the membership using 

existing MLA platforms is significant, and could have far-reaching impacts for engagement 

with and interest in MLA Annual Meeting offerings. In the literature and in conversations 

with peer associations, the cohort found that similar approaches to assessment might 

improve professional development, competence, and engagement within an association or 

professional associations. 

Works Cited 

1. Eldredge JD, Phillips HE, Kroth PJ. Real-time peer review: an innovative feature to an 

evidence-based practice conference. Med Ref Serv Q. 2013 32(4):412-23. 

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/02763869.2013.837690. 

2. MCI USA. Engaging and activating event attendees: a comprehensive guide to executing 

successful meetings and events in the digital age [Internet]. [cited 28 Jul 2018]. Availabe 

from http://association.mci-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Engaging-

Activating-Event-Attendee.pdf 

3. Dorney E. Zen and the art of constructive criticism [Internet]. In The Library With the 

Lead Pipe. 2012. [cited 28 Jul 2018]. Available from:  



Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          19                                  

 

http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/zen-and-the-art-of-constructive-

criticism/. 

4. Baliozian K. MLA Executive Director’s report. Presented at: MLA ‘17, the 117th Medical 

Library Association Annual Meeting; Seattle, WA; May 30, 2017. 

5. Petress K. Constructive criticism a tool for improvement. Coll Stud J. 2000 34(3):475-

478. 

6. Falchikov N. Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innov Educ Train Int. 

2006 32(2):175-87. 

7. Dochy F, Segers M, Sluijsmans D. The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher 

education: a review. Stud High Ed 1999 24(3):331-50. 

8. Reinholz D. The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assess 

Eval High Education. 2015 41(2):301-15. 

9. Hinchliffe LJ. Professional Development for Assessment: Lessons from Reflective 

Practice. J Acad Libr. 2015 41(6):850-2. 

10. Wittich CM, Wang AT, Fiala JA, Mauck KF, Mandrekar JN, Ratelle JT, Beckman TJ. 

Measuring Participants' Attitudes Toward Mobile Device Conference Applications in  

Continuing Medical Education: Validation of an Instrument. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 

2016 Winter;36(1):69-73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000031. 

11. Smith A. Record shares of Americans now own smartphones, have home broadband 

[Internet].  Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Jan 2017. [cited 28 Jul 2018]. Available 

from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/12/evolution-of-technology/ 

12. Medical Library Association. Download the MLA ’18 App. 2018. [cited 28 Jul 2018]. 

Available from: http://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=1414 

13. Zhang Y. Using the Internet for survey research: a case study. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2000 

51(1):57-68. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:1<57::AID-

ASI9>3.0.CO;2-W 

 

Appendix 

Questions Shared with MLA Members 

Would you like to be able to evaluate the sessions that you attend at MLA annual 
meetings? Would you like to get feedback on your paper, poster, or lightning round talk? 

Research shows that feedback is an essential part of the process of becoming a more 
effective and engaging presenter. However, there currently isn’t a way for presenters at 
MLA annual meetings to receive feedback on their papers, posters, lightning talks, panel 
presentations, or special content sessions.   

The MLA Rising Stars cohort has created a survey to find out your thoughts on adding a 
session-level component to MLA annual meeting feedback. 

We plan to use the results of this survey to inform a proposal to the MLA Board on how to 
improve the MLA annual meeting experience for attendees and presenters. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/12/evolution-of-technology/
http://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=1414
http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.011
https://doi-org.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:1%3c57::AID-ASI9%3e3.0.CO;2-W
https://doi-org.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:1%3c57::AID-ASI9%3e3.0.CO;2-W


Original Article 
Theis-Mahon, Menard, Schmillen, and Stark 

   

Hypothesis, vol. 30, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2018                                                                          20                                  

 

This five-question survey will take only a couple of minutes to complete. All responses are 
anonymous. The information we collect from the survey will be shared in a future post and 
may be used by MLA if our proposal is adopted. 

1. I have attended an MLA annual meeting in person or online 

● Yes: In-person 

● Yes: Online 

● Yes: Both in-person and Online 

● No: Neither 

2. As an attendee at the MLA annual meeting, I would find it valuable to be able to provide 
immediate, presentation-level feedback (on, for example, paper and panel presentations, 
lightning rounds, posters, and special content session) 

Strongly Disagree      Disagree     Neutral     Agree     Strongly agree 

3. As a presenter at the MLA annual meeting, I would find it valuable to have the option of 
receiving presentation-level feedback (on, for example, paper and panel presentations, 
lightning rounds, posters, and special content sessions): 

Strongly Disagree      Disagree     Neutral     Agree     Strongly agree 

4. As a presenter at the MLA annual meeting, I would find value in receiving the following 
types of feedback: (select all that apply) 

● Whether participants learned from my session 

● How participants think they might apply what they learned at my session 

● What the level of participant engagement with my session was 

● To what extent my session met participant expectations 

● Other:__________________  

● None of the above 

5. Is there anything else you want to share with us about the ability to provide feedback on 
paper and panel presentations, lightning rounds, posters, and special content sessions? 

--- 


