<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: pedagogy for perverts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/pedagogy-for-perverts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/pedagogy-for-perverts/</link>
	<description>thoughts on sex and life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:51:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: J</title>
		<link>http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/pedagogy-for-perverts/#comment-4552</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/?p=810#comment-4552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Given the difficulty of establishing who has the authority/credentials to vet presenters, it seems that your statement about establishing and encouraging participant feedback on presenters is key.  If attendees can be encouraged to give/leave meaningful feedback, then there is at least some tracking being done of how successfully presenters have reached their target audiences.

Of course, basic feedback mechanisms that are commonly used (often called smile sheets for good reason) often give an answer to &quot;did you like the class&quot; rather than &quot;was the class effective&quot; but well written feedback comments and the creation of a culture that values feedback (which in some ways already exists in the community) can mitigate that problem.

As a result, I find that the combination of strategies you suggest makes a lot of sense.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given the difficulty of establishing who has the authority/credentials to vet presenters, it seems that your statement about establishing and encouraging participant feedback on presenters is key.  If attendees can be encouraged to give/leave meaningful feedback, then there is at least some tracking being done of how successfully presenters have reached their target audiences.</p>
<p>Of course, basic feedback mechanisms that are commonly used (often called smile sheets for good reason) often give an answer to &#8220;did you like the class&#8221; rather than &#8220;was the class effective&#8221; but well written feedback comments and the creation of a culture that values feedback (which in some ways already exists in the community) can mitigate that problem.</p>
<p>As a result, I find that the combination of strategies you suggest makes a lot of sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
