CGEMS Survey

The user survey took place after having gathered operational experiences with the first CGEMS submissions. 44 educators from all educational levels and CG fields participated; most of them learned about CGEMS through SIGGRAPH and Eurographics.

48% were mailing list subscribers, 36% were registered or reviewer volunteers, 30% were interested in the published materials, and 20% were interested, but they did not feel a part of CGEMS.

CGEMS materials include a statement on the educational goals and educational settings, as well as the experiences. Before the survey, authors were given complete freedom in the preparation of their discourse. This, however, seems to be one of the key barriers preventing authors from submitting materials (48%). The statements are perceived as too much work (25%) besides the development of the actual material. So, after the survey we agreed that creating material and filling submission forms should be enough. We developed Web forms with fields for a brief introduction, educational goals, the methodology applied to meet these goals, assessment methods used, and screenshots. The previously required scholarly paper is dropped and derived from the Web form input.

CGEMS Survey pie chart The remaining respondents requested author guidelines, templates, and submission examples (23%). They have already been set up by the editors in chief and are currently reviewed. Author guidelines list all acceptability and publishing criteria that were extracted from experiences with the first CGEMS submissions. They also include soft- and hardware recommendations to lower the reviewers’ work load. The submission example provides a quality sample for interactive materials; its making is demonstrated in this year’s SIGGRAPH Education program.

Feedback shows that community members definitely want to comment (89%) and rate (91%) CGEMS materials. We plan to let registered users, not necessarily authors or reviewers, comment on material with a short note and a fivestar rating. Anonymous comments should be possible, however all notes should be moderated by the editors in chief before they become published.

Apart from collecting materials, the community must be given added value and support, otherwise they will not participate. The key value CGEMS offers to authors is peer recognition. We plan to strengthen this value by adding CGEMS profiles for registered users. User profiles will include the member’s photograph, affiliation, biographical notes, contact, and homepage. Published CGEMS material will become automatically listed on the author’s profile, as well as personal CGEMS favourites. Note that this approach might create a “Who’s Who in CG Education”, a consequence that the CGEMS editorial board must recognize and establish carefully.