Conference Report JURE

Transcription

1 Conference Report JURE July 2012, Regensburg, Germany Markus Hirschmann, Iro Xenidou-Dervou, Gregor Maxwell, Eva Wennås-Brante, Erlijn van Genuchten, Jake McMullen, Anett Wolgast, Miguel Mata Pereira, & Thomas Daniëls 2012

2 2 CONTENTS 1. Committee members and their roles JURE Organising Committee JURE Local Committee Pictures of the Committee Members Contact information for the committee members Setting up the team Organising Committee Recruiting members of the organising committee Roles within the organising committee Communication within the organising committee Local Committee Recruiting members of the local committee Roles within the local committee Communication within the local committee Timeline Preparation for the conference Conference theme Promotion, website, and calls for proposals The submission and review process Submissions The first submission round Receiving submissions The first round review process Quirks of the submission system The second submission round The second review round Programme coordination Workshop and city tours Programme book and practical guide Sponsoring and budget Publishers exhibition Conference venue and catering Catering Accommodation Social programme Opening reception (July 23 rd )... 24

3 City tour (July 20 th ) Conference dinner and party (July 26 th ) Conference materials and registration Conference materials Registration Facts about the conference JURE 2012 programme Session formats Roundtable sessions Poster sessions Paper sessions Professional development courses Keynotes Panel discussion/closing session SIG session Awards Paper presentation Poster presentation Roundtable presentation General comments on the award procedure Best paper award Best poster award Best roundtable award Participants and contributions Workshop evaluation Follow-up after the conference Website Publishing presentations of keynotes and PDCs Publishing video recordings of PDCs Publishing pictures Financial statement Evaluation by participants Reflections on each role Funding and PDC leaders Funding Organizing the workshops Communication with the PDC leaders... 47

4 Website Organizing website address and webspace Setting up the website Keeping the content up to date Programme coordination and programme book Contact person Report book Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Review process Testimonials Appendices Appendix 1 Post-conference evaluation responses Appendix 2 Conference calls... 52

5 5 1. COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THEIR ROLES 1.1. JURE ORGANISING COMMITTEE 2012 Markus Hirschmann, University of Regensburg, Germany Conference chair, funding/sponsoring, & publishers exhibition Iro Xenidou-Dervou VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands Conference co-chair, funding/sponsoring/ workshop organization, & publishers exhibition Gregor Maxwell Jönköping University, Sweden Website, review process, & language editing Eva Wennås-Brante Kirstianstad University, Sweden Contact person & social media manager Erlijn van Genuchten Knowledge Media Research Centre, Tubingen, Germany Website & contact person Jake McMullen University of Turku, Finland Programme coordination/programme book, social media manager, & language editing Anett Wolgast Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany Review process & programme coordination/programme book Miguel Mata Pereira Higher Institute for Applied Psychology, Lisbon, Portugal Review process & programme coordination/programme book Tine Coremans / Jan Verschueren / Thomas Daniëls EARLI project manager Treasurer & contact person EARLI

6 JURE LOCAL COMMITTEE 2012 Committee members are all from the Institute for Educational Science of the University of Regensburg, Germany Katrin Ketterl Chair of local committee & catering Bernd Meidenbauer Technical equipment & conference venue Elena Stamouli Social programme & conference venue Stefanie Zepf Social programme & catering Lisa Birnberger Social programme & conference venue Martin Hillebrand Social programme Veronika Leicher Contact person & accommodation Sebastian Anselmann Contact person & coordination student assistants Tristan Haselhuhn Contact person & accommodation

7 PICTURES OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Figure 1: Committee members at JURE 2012 conference (Anett Wolgast missing on this picture) Figure 2: Local committee at beginning of conference organisation Figure 3: Picture of the organising and local committee

8 CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Name Skype Markus Hirschmann hirschi81 Iro Xenidou-Dervou iraki_83 Jake McMullen Jake.mcmullen45 Eva Wennås-Brante evawennas2 Anett Wolgast anett.wolgast Miguel Mata Pereira Erlijn van Genuchten erlijn_gen Gregor Maxwell gregor.maxwell Thomas Daniëls thomas.daniels4 2. SETTING UP THE TEAM 2.1. ORGANISING COMMITTEE RECRUITING MEMBERS OF THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE Committee members were recruited by making contact at the JURE 2010 conference in Frankfurt and with further recruitment s. Members were required to apply in the autumn of 2010 and were appointed in the first quarter of ROLES WITHIN THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE Based upon the conference report of JURE 2010 we defined tasks that would need to be covered in conference organisation by the committee members. Those tasks were: Conference chair Submission process Review process coordination Programme coordination Webmaster Promotion & Funding Language editing Invited guests Contact person for participants Treasurer Contact person to EARLI In our first meeting we discussed about different roles within the organising committee and each committee member could mention task preferences. At the end of our first meeting we had a list about the allocation of responsibilities in our committee. For some tasks two persons shared the responsibility, especially for tasks we

9 9 expected a lot of work for. Because only Markus was from the host university, Iro volunteered to act as a cochair and from that on she supported Markus in chair duties. Sharing responsibilities was proven to be good process. There was always the possibility that someone would take over if the other was ill or had a lot of work for his or her PhD. But in the end, task responsibility did not mean that the person had to do all the work alone. If necessary it was always possible to ask other committee members or the chairs for help. After several meetings we decided to implement a publishers exhibition (similar to the exhibitions at the EARLI conferences) to the JURE 2012 conference. Thus, we added the task Publishers exhibition to our list. Iro and Markus took over this role and started promoting our publishers exhibition. Our contact person with the EARLI office changed several times. In the beginning Tine Coremans joined the committee and participated in our meetings. After a few months Tine changed her work position and Jan Verschueren joined our group. Some months before the conference Jan also left the EARLI and Thomas Daniëls became our new contact person. Although, our contact person to EARLI changed a few times we never had problems in our communication with the EARLI office. Tine, Jan, and Thomas were very motivating and helped us whenever we needed information or support from the EARLI office COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE Following the example of previous JURE international organizing committees two means were used for our communication purposes at each meeting: Skype (for talking) Surfgroepen (for sharing video, comments and documents). Given that most people have experience with skype, it was easy to use. In case you do not have skype downloaded in your computer, you can download it for free here. We all exchanged our skype contact information and one person would initiate the call (usually the same). To start a call just add people in a conversation as seen in the screen shot below and then place a call to the this group. Even if someone logs in later, you can still add contacts to an ongoing call. Of course there were some days when technical problems (common within the skype world ) would occur. In these cases we had to troubleshoot or in the end simply reboot the whole process until it was solved. The trick is to be patient.

10 10 Surfgroepen is a very useful website ( Tine from the EARLI office created an account for us there, where all the necessary JURE documents were available. Additionally it gives you the option to place announcements and more importantly to place webconference calls. We only shared video through this webconferencing system because the sound was of very poor quality. In essence, we talked via skype and saw each other on surfgroep.

11 11 Unfortunately, the surfgroepen site states that it will not be available anymore after the 31 st of December The JURE 2013 committee has been using an alternative method for communicating. Iro has exported all the JURE 2012 shared documents (including minutes, logos etc), which will be available for the new organizing committee. To schedule our next meeting Iro would send out to the whole committee a doodle.com link. In this scheduling system one must choose certain days and time slots on which the committee could meet and then everyone made the choice based on their agenda and when they were available. Thus, in the last meeting we would discuss about the period during which we should have another meeting (e.g. the last two weeks of November) and these would be added in the doodle-scheduling link. Then each member added the days and times he/she was available. This way Iro could see which day and time most people were available and announce to everyone the next scheduled meeting. It is important to fill in these doodle schedules as soon as possible before people s agendas start being filled with other appointments/obligations. During each meeting a volunteer was assigned the task to write up the minutes of this meeting. Subsequently, he/she would the minutes to the rest of the committee. These minutes also included a list with the individual tasks of each member. The day before each meeting, Markus sent out to everyone the agenda for the coming meeting. This agenda also included the tasks everyone was assign to in order to review what had been completed (or not). Of course, several submeetings would take place. For example, Iro and Markus would arrange several skype meetings in between the official organizing committee meetings in order to take care of the running tasks and issues. Good communication and collaboration between the members is of outmost importance.

12 LOCAL COMMITTEE RECRUITING MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL COMMITTEE In May 2011 Markus started recruiting the members of the local committee. He ed all PhD-students of the Faculty of Psychology, Educational Science and Sport Science and invited them to become member of the local organising committee for JURE At the end of May Markus organized a first meeting of the local committee-to-be and seven interested PhDstudents participated. In this meeting Markus gave general information about what JURE conference is about, reported about his work as conference chair, and explained which tasks would approach to the local committee. Furthermore, he reported about the current state of the organising process and tried to motivate and convert the participants to become part of the JURE 2012 local organising committee. Thereby, he stressed the grand learning opportunities, the outstanding possibilities to get in contact with well-known researchers in the field of learning and instruction, and to socialize with other junior researchers. Markus emphasized that there is not too much work load for single persons, because most of the work can be done as team work. At the end of the meeting all of them became valuable members of the local committee and we settled task responsibilities. In February 2012 Lisa changed her employment and dropped out the committee. Fortunately, Veronika and Sebastian joined at the same time the local committee ROLES WITHIN THE LOCAL COMMITTEE Analogous to the organising committee also the local committee tried to allocate tasks between the local committee members. Thereby, they started with a list of the following roles: Accommodation Catering Conference material Conference venue Social programme Local sponsoring After a discussion about the allocation of tasks the members of the local committee decided not to distribute responsibilities to single persons. Instead two or three people shared responsibility for one task. Thus in times of absence or heavy work load the other co-respondents could take over. Work load could be distributed very flexible within those respondents with that. Katrin was assigned to be chair of the local committee and she took over the planning and organisation of all further meetings of the local committee. For the assignment of the committee members to their tasks see also paragraph COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE LOCAL COMMITTEE and telephone list, moodle platform After the first meeting the chair of the local committee collected and distributed all addresses and telephone/mobile phone numbers of the committee members. They generated a mailing list (Localcomittee.JURE@ur.de) and a moodle platform to share documents and discuss ideas online. Via the moodle platform people were asked for opinions on several suggestions (e.g. for the social activities and catering). Discussion forums were used to clarify questions and make decisions between the meetings.

13 13 Regular meetings Starting in May 2011 the local committee met every month from then on to discuss important issues and to make decisions. In the meeting they reported each other about current progress and defined milestones for future meetings. During the last two months meetings became more frequent and in the last week committee members met each day to make the last preparations. 3. TIMELINE Period I July 23, 2011 September 16, 2011 October 19, 2011 October 20, 2011 December 22, 2011 Release of our JURE 2012 website ( Invitation for submissions Start of submission system Second call for submissions Deadline for proposal submission Period II January 31, 2012 January 31, 2012 February 6, 2012 March 28, 2012 Notification of acceptance and starting re-submission for papers, posters and roundtables Start of re-submission of papers, posters and roundtable handouts Start of conference registration Deadline for resubmission of papers, posters and roundtables Start of second review-round Period III May 31, 2012 May 31, 2012 June 15, 2012 July 9, 2012 July 13, 2012 July 22, 2012 Last day for early registration Feedback on final version of papers, posters and roundtables Last day for refund in case of cancelation Last day of registration Last day for workshop and city tour pre-registration JURE 2012 conference pre-registration

14 14 July 23-27, 2012 JURE 2012 conference 4. PREPARATION FOR THE CONFERENCE 4.1. CONFERENCE THEME During our first meeting we brainstormed about possible themes for JURE 2012 and several suggestions arose. At that moment it was very difficult to decide upon one of these suggestions. Thus, each committee member had to suggest two conference themes for the second meeting and the conference chairs would collect these suggestions and make a list. Out of this list one conference theme emerged. We improved the detailed wording within the next weeks and in our third meeting the conference theme was clear: A Learning Odyssey: Exploring new Horizons in Learning and Instruction. It aims on the idea that every scientist knows that research requires you to think outside the box and in doing so explore new territory. Early-stage researchers (i.e. juniors) are called upon to face these challenges and trained to adopt diverse perspectives and to explore new horizons while expanding our knowledge-base. We also tried to keep the theme quite open. Adopting diverse perspectives goes hand in hand with the idea of an exchange of perspectives. Thus, junior researchers of different disciplines and specific domains in the field or learning and instruction are attracted by the conference PROMOTION, WEBSITE, AND CALLS FOR PROPOSALS Promotion for JURE 2012 included A short presentation slide at the closing session of the JURE 2011 Pre-Conference in Exeter Flyers Advertisement posters Twitter Facebook group LinkedIn Website s to JURE members In our organising meetings we agreed that the most important focal point concerning conference information would be our conference website. That s why we tried to start our website very early in the conference preparation. The JURE 2012 conference website ( was released on the 23rd of July. For further promotion we tried to get a short time slot in the opening or closing session of JURE 2011 Pre- Conference. Unfortunately, because of their strict time schedule our conference chairs were not able to promote JURE 2012 within these sessions. But the organising committee of JURE 2011 Pre-Conference added on promotions slide for JURE 2012 in their closing speech. Furthermore, most of the organising committee members attended the JURE 2011 Pre-Conference and all of them did a lot of promotion work during JURE and EARLI Subsequently, we wanted to provide interested participants with more information on time. Thus, our invitation letter (first call for conference, see Appendix) was sent out just one week after the JURE and EARLI 2011 conference. The second call was sent out one month later in mid-october 2011 (see Appendix). At this time we informed our participants about the submission process and also about some important conference facts (i.e. the conference fee, date of notification, etc.). At the same time the submissions system was opened. We sent another reminder shortly before the deadline for submissions (14 December 2011).

15 15 The EARLI contact person would distribute the invitations and calls to all EARLI and JURE members. Additionally the committee members forwarded the calls to their colleagues, mailing lists at university, etc and posted the calls on the JURE 2012 website THE SUBMISSION AND REVIEW PROCESS SUBMISSIONS Submissions were made through the EARLI conference management system called Backstage. Our first task was to familiarize ourselves with this online system for the JURE 2012 conference. The manual, report from JURE 2010, and an introduction from Jan were very useful in guiding the set-up and running of the system. For JURE 2012 a separate system was used for conference registration (JURE 2010 used the same system for submissions and registrations). Registration was entirely handled by the EARLI office. Submissions were made in two rounds as conference participants were required to initially submit their proposal as an abstract and short text, then (after acceptance) submit their full paper or poster/roundtable handout for peer review. The process was outlined clearly on the JURE 2012 website with the following text: The review process has two phases; the submission and review process are outlined below. Phase I The first phase covers the submission period. On September 13 th 2011 the first call for submissions will be made; this gives you three months to prepare your proposal. On October 19 th 2011 the submission system opens, a second call for submission will made, and you will be able to submit a proposal. The deadline for submitting your proposal is December 14 th 2011 (extended to 22 nd December); after this date you will not be able to make a submission as the review process is fully under way. Phase II The second phase covers the proposal review period. The first stage of review involves deciding on accepting or rejecting a proposal, or recommending it for an alternative format. Proposals will initially be reviewed independently by junior-stage reviewers and also be the organising committees. The outcome of the first stage of review is the notification of whether your proposal has been accepted, offered an alternative presentation format, or rejected; this will come by on January 31 st The second stage of the review process takes place after a proposal's acceptance and will provide you with more formative feedback on your accepted submission. After your proposal has been accepted you will need to submit a full paper, a poster with its updated abstract, or roundtable handout with its updated abstract by March 28 th As a participant of the 15th JURE Conference you are expected to take part in the feedback procedure and to comment on one paper, poster or round table handout of another conference participant. This will take place after the second phase of submission (March 28 th 2012) and you are requested to send back your feedback by May 31 st For registration please see the registration and important dates sections for details THE FIRST SUBMISSION ROUND The submission system opened on 19 th October 2011 and closed 14 th December The opening coincided with the second call for submissions, and a reminder was also sent shortly before the deadline for submissions. In this first round we received 227 unique submissions from 28 countries. 218 were accepted, 9 were rejected, and several were offered an alternative presentation format.

16 RECEIVING SUBMISSIONS Potential JURE 2012 participants submitted their proposals through a link on the JURE 2012 website This generated two automatic s: one to the submitter, the other to us. Automatic to submitter Submission to the JURE 2012 Conference Date: Dear Gregor Maxwell, Thank you for your submission to the JURE 2012 Conference - A learning Odyssey: Exploring new Horizons in Learning and Instruction. Your submission will be reviewed by our committee and you will be informed of the result on or before 31 st January Registration for the conference will be possible from 31 st January The conference fee depends on time as well as condition of registration and will be approximately 185 euro, including lunches, coffee breaks and some social activities. Please note that EARLI JURE members will be entitled to a reduced conference fee. If you want to become a JURE member and receive the reduced conference fee please go to for more information. Make sure to apply as a JURE member some weeks before your registration because a proof of your doctoral status is required. Looking forward to meeting you in Regensburg, Germany! With best regards, The JURE 2012 organising committee Details of your submission: Name: Gregor Maxwell Gregor.maxwell@hlk.hj.se SubmissionType: Round table presentation Title: Again, this is yet another TEST

17 17 Automatic to JURE 2012 New submission for JURE 2012 Conference Date: A new submission for JURE 2012 Conference - A learning Odyssey: Exploring new Horizons in Learning and Instruction has been made. The details of the submission are: Name: Gregor Maxwell, (EARLI: Gregor, {password}) Gregor.maxwell@hlk.hj.se SubmissionType: Round table presentation Title: Again, this is yet another TEST THE FIRST ROUND REVIEW PROCESS For the first round of review we had 48 reviewers for c230 submissions which worked out about right as some took many submissions and some only one or two QUIRKS OF THE SUBMISSION SYSTEM In the week running up to the submissions opening the JURE 2012 committee members extensively tested to the submission process to check all the correct information was being automatically generated and also to check that the content was correct. The system was set up correctly during testing and any specific issues removed or corrected before opening on 19 th October Specific issues which arose: If a user is logged in as a reviewer and goes to make a submission (as many committee members did) then they can inadvertently change their user and submitting name. Although this is a problem, it is unlikely to happen in reality as our reviewers are either not going to be submitting, or will not do so at the same time. A warning was added to the reviewer instructions to make sure they are not logged in as a reviewer when making a submission. When accepting or rejecting a paper it did not matter which one was chosen when choosing the appropriate to generate e.g. you could reject a paper but send an acceptance ! So the status of a paper is not connected to whether or not the correct is sent. The persons on the JURE 2012 committee responsible for overseeing the submissions system had to be very careful of this. Factual information was accidently carried over from the JURE 2010 conference as the same submission system was used (albeit with a new conference event) and a lot of the data was directly copied. The committee of JURE 2012 advise future JURE organizers to be careful of this!

18 18 The system does not auto-generate s to tell reviewers they have been assigned a paper/poster/roundtable to review. In the instructions for reviewers, the reviewers are told they must check themselves regularly and additionally reminder s were sent to the reviewers. Reviewers decisions did not affect the overall status (accept/wait/reject) of a submission. This was useful because if a reviewer did not review, additional reviewers could be assigned to a submission and a decision could still be made even with one or more outstanding reviews THE SECOND SUBMISSION ROUND The submission system opened on 31 st January 2012 and closed 31 st May The opening coincided with the notification of acceptance of proposals, and a reminder was also sent shortly before the deadline for submissions. On or around the 31 st May automated s were sent to all participants who had submitted for the second round of reviews. The looked something like this: Your submission for {ConferenceTitle} Date: {Today} Dear {FirstName} {Name}, We are pleased to inform you that your submission to JURE 2012 has received the reviews of a peer participant and (in case of a paper submission) an experienced researcher. Please find your reviews at the end of this message. We are also delighted to inform you that, for the most part, the reviewing exercise has been successful. We are confident that the majority of our participants will greatly benefit from their feedback. However, we would like you to keep some things in mind: First, despite the guidelines and recommendations provided, some of the reviewers may have thought that they had to advise the Organising Committee on whether to accept or reject contributions. We would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that all contributions at this stage have been accepted for the conference. Second, some reviewers may have adopted a highly critical perspective in their feedback. If you feel this is applicable to you, we would very much like to encourage you to see the points addressed from a positive perspective and to frame them as opportunities for improvement. Finally, we would like to remind you that you are not expected to submit another revised version of your paper, poster or handout in order to reply to the feedback before the conference. As we mentioned earlier, the opinions of the reviewers will not affect the acceptance of your contribution for the conference. However, their opinions will be taken into consideration when short-listing possible candidates for the awards for the best paper, poster, and round-table. We are really looking forward to meeting you soon in Regensburg!

19 19 Best wishes, The JURE 2012 Organising Committee Here are the review results for your submission: {Reviews} Details of your submission: Name: {FirstName} {Name} { } SubmissionType: {SubmissionType} Title: {SubmissionTitle} THE SECOND REVIEW ROUND For the second round of reviewers we had 56 reviewers for c80 paper submissions; again, this number worked out well as most reviewers took only one paper and a few took two. We did, however, have a significant number of reviewers (both senior and junior) not meet the review deadline, so to address non-returns of reviews we decided to modify the review feedback so that everyone received something on the feedback deadline on the 31 st May. For participants whose submissions were not fully reviewed we sent this Your submission for {ConferenceTitle} Date: {Today} Dear {FirstName} {Name}, We are pleased to inform you that the second review round for the JURE 2012 conference has been completed. Your submission has hopefully received the reviews of a peer participant and (in case of a paper submission) an experienced researcher. However, our ability to get reviews completed relies on reviewers returning their reviews and while for the most part the reviewing exercise has been successful, some submission have not been fully reviewed. If your submission has not been fully reviewed then we want to reassure you that we are doing everything we can to get the review in (sending reminders, new deadlines, etc.) and any submission with incomplete reviews have been marked so that if a review comes in late we will send it on to you. We are confident that the majority of our participants will greatly benefit from their feedback. However, we would like you to keep some things in mind: First, despite the guidelines and recommendations provided, some of the reviewers may have thought that they had to advise the Organising Committee on whether to accept or reject contributions. We would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that all contributions at this stage have been accepted for the conference. Second, some reviewers may have adopted a highly critical perspective in their feedback. If you feel this is applicable to you, we would very much like to encourage you to see the points addressed from a positive perspective and to frame them as opportunities for improvement.

20 20 Finally, we would like to remind you that you are not expected to submit another revised version of your paper, poster or handout in order to reply to the feedback before the conference. As we mentioned earlier, the opinions of the reviewers will not affect the acceptance of your contribution for the conference. However, their opinions will be taken into consideration when short-listing possible candidates for the awards for the best paper, poster, and round-table. We are really looking forward to meeting you soon in Regensburg! Best wishes, The JURE 2012 Organising Committee Here are the review results for your submission: {Reviews} Details of your submission: Name: {FirstName} {Name} { } SubmissionType: {SubmissionType} Title: {SubmissionTitle} 4.5. PROGRAMME COORDINATION For a reflection on programme coordination see Programme coordination sub-section in the Reflection on Roles within the Committee section. Additionally, to those comments, here are some key numbers. Among others, the programme included 4 keynotes, 17 professional development courses, 1 coffee/tea with JURE VIPs, 1 SIG session, 1 panel discussion, 10 roundtable sessions, 10 poster session and 40 two-paper sessions. Figure 4 shows a brief overview of the conference schedule (for a filled outline, see Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Registration & Welcome coffee/tea Registration Registration Registration Registration Paper sessions PA 2.1 PA 2.5 Paper sessions PA 4.1. PA 4.5 Paper sessions PA 5.1. PA 5.5 Paper sessions PA 7.1 PA Opening Session Coffee/Tea Coffee/Tea Coffee/Tea Coffee/Tea Keynote Jos Beishuizen Keynote Katharina Scheiter Keynote Erno Lehtinen Keynote Bert de Smedt Paper sessions PA 8.1 PA Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Panel discussion& Closing session Professional development courses Professional development courses Professional development courses Professional development courses

21 21 PDC 1.1 PDC 1.4 PDC 2.1 PDC 2.5 PDC 3.1- PDC 3.4 PDC 4.1 PDC Movement Movement Movement Movement Paper sessions PA 1.1 PA 1.5 Paper sessions PA 3.1 PA 3.5 Poster sessions PO 2.1 PO 2.3 Paper sessions PA 6.1 PA Coffee/Tea Coffee/Tea Coffee/Tea with JURE VIPs Coffee/Tea Roundtable sessions RO 1.1 RO 1.10 Poster sessions PO 1.1 PO 1.4 Poster sessions PO 3.1 PO 3.3 Conference dinner Welcome reception City tours open end Conference Party open end Figure 4: JURE 2012 programme overview WORKSHOP AND CITY TOURS Before the conference, we sent a questionnaire to all participants to ask for their preferences for workshops and city tours. We asked for their first, second and third preference. Participants were assigned as often as possible to their first choice. When a workshop was full, participants were assigned to their second choice. We ensured that participants were not assigned to their second choice twice. Overall, most participants were able to attend to the workshop/city tour of their first choice PROGRAMME BOOK AND PRACTICAL GUIDE The programme book was created based on the formatting of the 2009 programme book. In this way, each submission s title, authors, and abstract were copied from the submission system and pasted into the new programme book. The programme book was then uploaded to the conference website and participants were informed. After this, individual participants contacted the committee with corrections or omissions. The programme book was created once the programme was put in place, with each session being created (Early April). The final version of the programme book was completed in mid-june and sent to the local printer in Regensburg SPONSORING AND BUDGET This process was quite challenging in the beginning, because we did not know how many participants would register for the conference. Due to the fact that Regensburg does not have an airport we expected fewer participants than previous JURE conferences. Thus, we estimated approximately 150 participants. JURE 2012 was also the first JURE conference that lasted five days and we had to include one more day for accommodation and catering in our budget plan. Submissions after the first round exceeded all our expectations. We had 231 proposals and from that day on we calculated the attendance of approximately 200 participants (including also PDC leaders, keynotes and members of the organising and local committee). At the beginning of our conference preparations, Iro and Markus discussed about potential sponsors. Members of the organising committee were asked to suggest further sponsors (also from their countries or universities)

22 22 who might be interested in sponsorship for JURE Afterwards, Iro and Markus contacted all potential sponsors. The sponsorship from EARLI (EUR 4.000,00) was clear from the beginning and we got another sponsorship from JURE 2010 of EUR 2.000,00. Markus contacted representatives of the University of Regensburg as well as of the Institute of Educational Science at the University of Regensburg and asked for funding possibilities. The University of Regensburg funded a free use of the rooms at the university campus, free wireless internet access during the conference for all participants and a free use of technical equipment during the conference. We also acquired discounts for catering (which was partially served by the student service of university) and for printing of practical guides (which was done by the university printing service). For free use of the rooms and to get the discounts it was necessary to declare the conference as a cooperation of EARLI and the University of Regensburg. On the other hand, it was agreed with the university that we allow students of the university to access all sessions if there is free space. Therefore, we told students that if they were interested in attending the conference, they were allowed to join in sessions and presentations (if there were free seats). At the same time, they were informed that they, unfortunately, could not get any catering or conference bags. However, this was barely the case and only a few students showed up at the conference. Besides the university we also inquired for funding from a lot of psychological and educational associations and institutes in Germany (e.g. AEPF, DGPs, PäPs, DIPF, and FDZ). Furthermore, we contacted associations in and around the University of Regensburg (e.g. Universitätsstiftung Hans Vielberth and Institute of Educational Science), local companies (e.g., Krones, BMW and Maschinenfabrik Reinhausen), and educational/psychological publishers (e.g. Elsevier, Springer and Waxmann). Most of the time we got negative or no respond. But sometimes we succeeded in our s and phone calls and got funding from Springer, Waxmann (conference bags) and Allianz (pens, notepads, and post-its). We also applied for a funding by Universitätsstifung Hans Vielberth at University of Regensburg and got a funding of EUR 3.788,00 for travel expenses of our invited guests. Moreover, we decided to apply for funding at the German Research Foundation (DFG). Prof. Gruber, Markus s supervisor, was the official applicant, because only finished PhDs are eligible to apply for DFG funding. In the end we had a great balance and therefor we did not have to use the funding we got from DFG. Finally, we received a lot financial and other support from different institutions and associations. The following table shows a full overview of all our funding sources: Institution University of Regensburg Student service at University of Regensburg Funding/Sponsoring Free use of rooms, technical equipment and wireless internet access during the conference Discount on catering EARLI EUR 4.000,00 JURE 2010 EUR 2.000,00 Universitätsstiftung Hans Vielberth (Foundation Hans Vielberth of University of Regensburg) PäPs (Division Educational Psychology of the German Association for Psychology [DGPs]) EUR 3.788,00 EUR 1.500,00

23 23 Springer EUR 1.210,08 Knowledge Media Research Center Allianz Waxmann Costs for website Pens, notepads, post-its Conference bags 4.7. PUBLISHERS EXHIBITION JURE 2012 had a publishers exhibition for the first time. At the EARLI 2011 conference in Exeter, Iro and Markus tried to come in contact with the publishers that took part in the EARLI publishers exhibition. Representatives of the publishers told us that they got the impression that junior researchers are not aware of the different possibilities publishers can offer PhDs. At the EARLI 2011 conference, we collected contact details for Elsevier, Waxmann, Wiley & Blackwell, Routledge and Springer. All of them indicated interest to be part of a publishers exhibition at the JURE 2012 conference. After the EARLI 2011 conference we contacted all publishers of whom we had contact details and offered them different presentation packages (e.g. stands of different size). We made an order form for three different kinds of booth sizes (advanced publishers package: EUR 440,00; standard publisher booth: EUR 285,00; collective book exhibition: EUR 15,00 per title). Packages were combined with different promotion possibilities for publishers. From the EARLI office we got the publisher contact list of EARLI 2009 conference and we contacted all publishers on this list. Unfortunately, most of them ignored our offers. Only Springer and Elsevier were really interested in joining our publishers exhibition and agreed to participate in it. Springer ordered the advanced publisher package. Because Elsevier already has a contract with EARLI, they were not charged for their stand at JURE CONFERENCE VENUE AND CATERING During the conference we could use several rooms of the University of Regensburg for free. We got one building called Vielberth Gebäude at university campus. There we used in total: One large auditorium for plenary sessions (opening, keynotes, closing, and panel discussion) 7 lecture rooms with pre-installed beamers for paper presentations (5 were used in parallel) and PDCs (4 to 5 rooms were used in parallel) Additional rooms for poster and roundtable sessions 2 computer rooms One foyer for registration, catering, publishers exhibition, and reception A conference office for the committee and a help desk for participants (adjacent to the foyer) For lunch the canteen of university Besides the canteen, all rooms were located in the Vielberth Gebäude. Thus, it was easy for participants to change rooms between sessions and find their ways to professional development courses, sessions and catering. The way within the campus to our conference building and the way to canteen were signposted. Each room had a timetable with all JURE sessions for this room displayed at the entrance. Poster panels, extra chairs and tables as well as beamers and microphones for the auditorium were provided by the University of Regensburg for free. Laptops for keynotes, professional development courses and paper

24 24 presentations as well as the laptops and printers for the help desk were provided by the Institute for Educational Science for free, too. We also organized video cameras to videotape some of the professional development courses, presenters and extension cables. We made sure to have backup laptops and backup beamers available. We had a master key for the whole building and we arranged that the rooms were not locked or unlocked by the university s facility management as usual. All laptops and beamers could stay in the rooms and we locked the rooms after the sessions. We arranged wireless internet access for all participants at the university. Participants could use the computers in the two computer rooms. The help desk was permanently open throughout the conference hours. There was also one information board at the help desk with information about programme changes and other announcements. Registration lists for PDCs and guided city tours were displayed at this board and participants could sign in for courses or tours if there were still free places available CATERING A morning and an afternoon coffee break were included in the conference fee. The university s student service ( Studentenwerk Niederbayern/Oberpfalz) served coffee, tea, and fruits. During coffee breaks we also had small snacks (cakes, pastry, plain rolls, and croissants). For each break these snacks were freshly made and delivered just in time. Water and apple juice we got from a local beverage service as well as refrigerated car. This proved to be useful because we had real summer during the week of conference and thus we were able to serve always refrigerated drinks. Although, we reduced to amount of snacks during the conference days, at the end of the day there was always some food left over. We decided to donate the food to a local homeless shelter. Lunch catering was also served by the university s student service. We distributed four lunch vouchers (EUR 4,00, included in the conference fee) with the conference materials. In exchange for the vouchers, participants could choose from a variety of vegetarian and non-vegetarian meals at the canteen. Each voucher was worth a main course and two side dishes (pasta, rice, potatoes, vegetables, salads or desserts). Vouchers had different colours for each day and one voucher was valid for one conference day ACCOMMODATION At the beginning of our conference preparation we contacted hotels in Regensburg of different price range and asked for the possibility to get some discount for JURE 2012 participants. We also contacted the tourisms office of Regensburg and they offered their help for hotel booking. We got conference discounts in seven hotels. These hotels we recommended on our website to participants. We take care of the hotel and travel booking for all invited guests. On the one side, this was very challenging because we had to write lots of s to ensure travel dates and times. Also a few invited guests to rebook the travel just before the conference. On the other side, taking care of the booking helped us to calculate the travel expenses quite well. We tried to book flights early in conference preparation and thus could get cheap early booking prices. For transport from airports (Munich or Nuernberg) we ordered airport shuttles for all guests SOCIAL PROGRAMME OPENING RECEPTION (JULY 23 RD ) We spend the first evening together. Participants got the change to get to know each other and to discuss ideas. Drinks and appetizers were for free.

25 CITY TOUR (JULY 20 TH ) On Tuesday evening we offered guided city tours to all participants to explore Regensburg. Participants could choose between five topics for guided city tours ( Experience a historic city, UNESCO world heritage, Documenting Neupfarrplatz, Stroll through the middle ages, and Castra Regine (Roman Regensburg) ). In a pre-registration before the conference participants could subscribe for one of these tours, because the number of participants for each tour was limited. On Tuesday morning we display the registration list for city tours at the information board at the help desk. Participants could sign in for city tours if there were still free places available. In the end we had six guided tours, one for each topic and the tour Experience a historic city was booked twice, because of the high number of participants CONFERENCE DINNER AND PARTY (JULY 26 TH ) The conference dinner took place at a restaurant called Fürstliches Brauhaus in the inner city of Regensburg and was scheduled on the fourth evening of the conference. There a variety of vegetarian and non-vegetarian Bavarian food was offered as buffet as a three-course meal. Dinner and soft drinks (mainly water) were included in the conference fee. Together we spent a beautiful evening at this place and everyone enjoyed the dinner. After dinner we moved on to small club close to the restaurant. At the club we had free entrance, and discounts on several drinks with the JURE badge CONFERENCE MATERIALS AND REGISTRATION CONFERENCE MATERIALS Programme books were printed by a printing company ( where we got a very cheap deal compared to other printing shops. The front cover was designed by a friendly design company for free. Practical guides were printed by the university printing service. Because of the low number of pages, the university printing service could offer us a very cheap deal compared to every other printing or copy shop. As front cover we used a similar design as for the programme book. Bags were sponsored by a German publishing house ( Badges with the logo of JURE and University of Regensburg were ordered online at To freely use the public transport in Regensburg each participant got a conference bus ticket which was valid for the whole week. Bus tickets (EUR 5,00 each) were included in the conference fee. Each participant also received a city map and bus timetable which we got for free from the Regensburg tourism centre and from the public transport company. Additionally, we had bigger city maps and bus timetables available at the help desk. Pens, notepads (DIN A4), and post-its were sponsored by Allianz Insurance All these materials were inserted in a folder (with similar cover to programme book and practical guide) which was ordered online at Picture postcards (motive: old stone bridge and cathedral of Regensburg) were ordered online at REGISTRATION

26 26 Participants could register online through the EARLI conference system, which opened on February 6, Because JURE 2012 lasted five days we had to raise the conference fees slightly compared to previous JURE conferences. The conference fee was: EUR 150,00 for EARLI/JURE-members, early bird registration EUR 175,00 for non EARLI/JURE-members, early bird registration EUR 200,00 for EARLI/JURE-members, late registration EUR 225,00 Euro for non EARLI/JURE-members, late registration Deadline for early bird registration was May 28, Last day of registration was July 9, Conference fee included registration, conference bag, all coffee and lunch breaks, bus ticket, social programme, conference dinner, and party. Participants could pay online by credit card or by bank transfer. Registration was only accepted when payment was completed. Nevertheless, at the conference there were still a few PhD-students who wanted to participate in JURE 2012 without earlier registration. These students paid their conference fees (late registration) cash at the registration desk. Cancellation Policy (found on EARLI s website and was linked to from the JURE 2012 website) In case of cancellation before June 1st % of the conference fee is being charged. A cancellation has to be done by sending an to: JURE2012@earli.org. After June 1st 2012 there will be no refunds for cancelled registrations. Conference registration cannot be transferred to someone else. If your payment was received by bank transfer, a refund will be made into the bank account that has been used. If you paid online by credit card, the same credit card will be refunded. If you are entitled to a student registration fee but you have completed a registration as a Full member, you are not entitled to a refund. Approval of JURE membership is required before the registration process is started. 5. FACTS ABOUT THE CONFERENCE See also JURE 2012 PROGRAMME Monday July 23 - Overview 08:30-10:30 Registration Foyer