How to Write a Seminar Report Part 1

I have joined some international seminars, but I have never shared you all the kind of report that I wrote for my boss. Well, a report is indeed important, not only as a follow-up evaluation for my boss whether it was a good value for the time and money that was spent, but also as test for my ability to remember and jot down things very quickly. Here are some tips that I can share you:
1) write down your impressions of the seminar and the presenter as soon after the event as possible and while everything is still fresh in your mind. Don’t postpone too long, your immediate evaluation is a necessity.
2)Identify the elements of the seminar that resonated the most positively with you, and those are mostly the key ideas in the presentation, which should be based entirely on what you personally got out of it
3)Identify the full title of the seminar you attended, the date, time and location of the program, and the name of the speakers of the seminar.
4) Assess whether the presenter had the credentials and the experience to make their material and its context credible.
5) Don’t forget to type your repot 🙂

Here is one example that I can share you. Check this out!

REPORT ON SEMINAR ATTENDED

Title : Research Methods: A Guide For First Time Researcher
Date : 15 December 2014
Venue : Graduate School Auditorium UHAMKA Jl. Warung Buncit Raya 17 Jakarta

First of all, I would like to thank Head of GFETC for giving me the opportunity to attend the Research Methods Workshop at UHAMKA. The workshop was very interesting and gave the opportunity to learn many issues in regards to research procedures. As a trainer who needs to do some research in the future, I find it was a very enriching experience for me. I will describe briefly below some elements in the workshop.
➢ The seminar and workshop are designed to : 1) provide insight and understanding regarding the key concepts 2) review and discuss the phenomenon of varieties of research methods and of each is selected for the appropriate purposes of particular research undertakings 3) discuss practical steps in planning and conducting research activities within the context of tertiary education in Indonesia
➢ The slot of time was five sessions. Since the seminar started late (1 hour) the fifth session of working with research proposals was changed by discussion with participants. Participants were offered to contact both speakers for further consultation via online.
➢ The seminar and workshop was well attended by university lecturers, school teachers and administrators, and university students in the master’s and doctoral programs; around 50 participants were present.
➢ The seminar and workshop started at 10 a.m. by singing our national anthem Indonesia Raya and an opening speech by Director of UHAMKA Graduate School Prof. Dr. Abd. Rahman A. Ghani, M. Pd. The seminar was led by Prof. Rambir Singh Malik, Ph. D. a lecturer from Curtin University and Edith Cowan University, Perth – Australia and also Prof. Fuad Abdul Hamied, Ph. D. a lecturer of English Education from Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Bandung.
➢ The first session was presentation by Prof. Fuad on paradigms in research undertaking. In short, he presented that there are two diverging epistemological lines in the paradigm: British empiricism and German rationalism. From British emerged logico-positivistic quantitative paradigm that leads quantitative research. From German perspective, human subjectivity is unavoidable in the process of research; therefore reality is at least partly constructed by us through our observation. This leads to qualitative paradigm of research.
• The second session was a presentation on Quantitative Research Methodology by Prof. Fuad. I put notes on when we use quantitative research, i.e. if the problem calls for the identification of factors that influence an outcome, to what extent can people put up with something, when focus is to demonstrate numerical change for quality assurance, to demonstrate relationships or give explanation, when we test a hypothesis, and when we are looking for cause-effect variables. That is why Quantitative Research is generally made using the generation of models, theories and hypotheses, the development of instruments and methods for measurement, experimental control and manipulation of variables, collection of empirical data, and modeling and analysis of data. Some main considerations are the literature review using this method is done exhaustively in the beginning since it must justify the importance of the research problems and provide a rationale for the purpose of the study/research questions/hypothese.
➢ The third session was lead by Prof. Ranbir on Qualitative Research Methodology. He put Denzin and Lincoln definition (2000) that qualitative research is a situated activity that locate the observer. Qualitative investigates subjective human experience, describe or observe complex processes and aim to understand social context. Qualitative choices related to data collection ranging from grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, document analysis, case study, etc. The most common method is the qualitative research interview, but forms of the data collected can also include group discussions, observation and reflection field notes, various texts, pictures, and other materials. The main consideration of qualitative is about trustworthiness (credibility and/or dependability). There are many different ways of establishing trustworthiness, such as member check, interviewer corroboration, peer debriefing, prolonged engagement, negative case analysis, auditability, confirmability, bracketing, and balance.
➢ The fourth session was Mixed Method Research presented by Prof. Ranbir. MMS is a new approach which put qualitative and quantitative data together. The central aim is that a combination of both approaches provides better understanding of research problem than either approach alone.
➢ The fifth question was discussion. Since the time was limited, we only had less than one hour to do it. Participants were actively involved in the discussion, mostly on issues on convergent designs, embedded designs, and multiphase designs. I asked a question on methodological challenge in using MMS: about analytic and interpretative issues during data analysis and interpretation when using specific designs. If I made a study that merges the data during a concurrent design, and the findings conflicted or were contradictory, what the steps that I should do. In short, Prof Ranbir and Prof Fuad responses were that strategy of resolving differences needs to be considered, such as gathering more data or revisiting the databases. For designs involving a sequential design with one phase following the other, the key issues surround the “point of interface” that I need to decide what results from the first phase will be the focus of attention for the follow-up data collection. They said that making an interpretation based on integrated results may be challenging because of the unequal emphasis placed on each dataset by the researcher, the accuracy or validity of each dataset, and whether philosophies related to quantitative or qualitative research can or should be combined.
➢ The seminar ended at 15.30 WIB, closed by Prof. Dr. Abd. Rahman A. Ghani, M. Pd.

Jakarta, 16 December 2014

Widyaiswara,

Efi Dyah Indrawati
NIP 197206291999032001