I would like to begin by recalling some of the nicest comments of the Madrid Convention weekend. Thank you, then, to one of TESOL-SPAIN’s most loyal members and Convention attenders who, on Saturday night, told me that we came ‘closer to perfection every year’. I cannot tell you how much this cheered me up, as did second-hand reports that it was the ‘best ever’ – and, from one speaker, ‘the best conference (he had) ever attended’! I only hope that these positive impressions lasted through the long, chilly, sleep-deprived day that followed.

Other feedback took the form of questionnaires:

(1) those in which participants commented on the Convention as a whole

(2) commenting on individual presentations (see below), and

(3) feedback from the presenters themselves.

I received 22 of the latter forms – representing about 20% of the total number of presenters - giving an overview of how they felt the event went, and of what improvements they felt could be made on the organisational side. Fortunately, they seem to have been generally satisfied, and particular thanks were expressed to the technical team for their efficiency throughout the whole event, as well as to the staff of the CES Luis Vives, the Convention organisers, and other volunteers. I would like to echo those thanks.

There were, however, a handful of comments on the disappointment of receiving a small audience for one’s presentation, on topic clashes on the timetable, and on the inconvenience of not receiving the Convention programme in advance. I will return to these points later, as they were mentioned by several participants as well.

There were, however, a handful of comments expressing the presenter’s disappointment on receiving a very small audience, on topic clashed on the timetable, and on the inconvenience of not receiving the Convention programme in advance. I will return to these points later, as they were mentioned by several delegates, as well.

I also looked at the Convention Feedback forms with reference to comments on speakers and programming. Naturally, not every comment received was positive: some were mixed, and some, of course, were negative. There were several complaints about the lack of advance availability of the timetable, and for our evident failure to direct people to the timetable posted on the TESOL-SPAIN website. It is obviously useful for people to have a chance to study the timetable and plan in advance what presentations they will attend, but I should point out that the numerous last-minute changes can leave such plans in ruins. There were changes every day in the week leading up to the Convention, and the list of changes that was added to the Programme pack was finalised on the Friday morning. So, all I can say, as ever, is that we do our very best but cannot be held responsible for programme changes, and remind you to check the website in future.

A few people felt there was too little for teachers of Young Learners, especially on Sunday. In the light of this, and aware that at least one change and a cancellation would have affected the distribution and balance of presentation topics, I had a close look at the timetable and found that there was in fact something specifically for teachers of young learners at every time slot except 11.30-12.30 on Sunday. But I agree that there is sometimes a lack of balance: presenters dealing with young learners usually prefer to give a practical workshop, which means they tend to coincide in the 90-minute time slots. We will continue, as every year, to try and make sure that there is something for every type of teacher at each time, and, if we receive more suitable proposals for YL presentations (or Business English, another lack that was commented on), we will be very happy to include them.

Some speakers felt they had received a disappointing audience turn out and there are probably various reasons including the amount of competition! Perhaps there was too much altogether on the programme. We always wish to give as many speakers as possible an opportunity, as well as to provide choice for our members. But some speakers will always be more popular than others, and even very large rooms will sometimes fill up, leaving disappointed people outside. Fortunately, we do not (yet!) have to deal with the practical problem of asking people to book in advance which talks they will attend, as I believe now occurs at some large Conventions.

Finally, let me say a few words about the Presentation Feedback received from Convention participants. This took rather more reading and analysing. There were over 800 pieces of feedback on individual presentations – usually representing about 20% of an audience, although there is usually more when feelings (positive or negative) run high!).

What is most striking about the feedback is its variety. It is, in many cases, very mixed (e.g. the same presentation receiving evaluations ranging form ‘poor’ to ‘outstanding’), and, with hindsight, some of the Convention team wondered whether ‘outstanding’ is an appropriate evaluation category. In future years I would like to see a simpler feedback form, and more space for comments.

But it WAS clear that, as with other years, expectations are high, and there is a general preference for dynamic presenters, handouts, and an increasing preference for power-point (or on-line) presentations over the good old OHP/‘retroproyector’. I hope we will continue to be able to meet this demand, and to afford the necessary equipment. It was also clear that some disappointments occurred because the Programme information was not understood: for example, there were complaints about the balance of theory or practice (too theoretical, not theoretical), intended audience level (too superficial, not appropriate for NNSs), which suggested people had gone to a presentation with inappropriate expectations. Abbreviations are also sometimes misunderstood – a talk on EAP, for example, is probably particularly intended for non-native speakers. For future years, I would suggest presenters could add a line to abstract making it clear who the intended audience is – but delegates will still need to read the abstract!

Altogether, it must be said that Convention-going becomes easier for experienced conference-goers. One needs to take time, to read the programme, including the cancellations list, to find one’s way around the site … and to decide who one’s favourite presenters are. Depending on their experience, and on the areas in which they work, large numbers of TESOL-SPAIN members appear to rate VERY highly the following presenters: Paul Seligson, Scott Thornbury, Hugh Dellar, Mark Levy, Keith Morrow, Mark Hancock, Joe McKenna Gleeson, Luke Prodromou, Andrew Coney, Nina Lauder, Theresa Zanatta, Paul McCochnie, Philip Riley, Geraldine Laboria, the Lingua-Arts Theatre Company, Dani, Gisela Conde, Ana Garcia-Stone, … but there were dozens of others, some speaking at TESOL-SPAIN for the first time, who received (smaller quantities) very favourable audience feedback, and who we hope to welcome back in future years. Finally, congratulations and apologies are due to the two TESOL-SPAIN grant winners: Enrique Castillo Almira and Blanca González Álvarez – their special status should have been mentioned in the Programme. Both received a favourable audience response, and I hope they will come back and share further ideas with us another year.

After two years of being responsible for the speakers, which has brought me into contact with a wonderful range of interesting people from Spain and around the world, I am intending to spend the next few Conventions attending rather more of the presentations than I was able to this year, and participating in the annual buzz and exchange of ideas. I shall look forward to it!