The results suggest some areas for further exploration. One area being to make sure future samples reflect more than American opinion. Another being the level of tertiary educational institution.

I’m afraid my survey design skills have long since decayed. I don’t think I have the “touch” for it any longer. In a technical sense then, I don’t think I’d be helpful except as a possible set of eyes for critique; hopefully without carping. But I’d be delighted to do that.

Robin, yes the results have implicatons for empirical research. Very subtle humor and observation on your part.

Educational professionals on the Task Force discussion list were contacted and asked to complete the survey. An announcement was also made on this site. Hopefully, translations of a second survey will bring in more responses from educators in other countries.

If you would like to volunteer your survey designing expertise for the next round of our survey, we would appreciate it.

For example, in “4. Which of the following technologies should be covered within this curriculum?”,
the chart shows more votes for xml and Javascript than for HTML and CSS, but the votes show that HTML&CSS each got 45 votes and JS&XML only around 30 each. But all figures in that chart are mixed up.

In “8. Which tools will you be using in your course?”, reading from top to bottom, you only need to reverse the labels on the left-hand side of the chart to get the correct result. (E.g. swap “other” with “text-based web editors”, “developement tools” with “wysiwyg” (spelling mistake there btw), and so on).

I didn’t bother to check “3. Which of the following concepts should be covered within this curriculum?”, because it is too lengthy a list, but it’s likely to be accurate.

As for the content of the survey, I’m not surprised to find server-side technologies among the write-ins. What has surprised me is that wysiwyg editors ranked comparatively low, just like standardistas generally do without them. Makes me wonder what the criteria for choosing the respondents were. Also obvious is that over 50% of the respondents teach in the United States.

How was the sample chosen?

Where did the names of the individuals approached come from?

How were insititutions identified?

Does the distribution of responses reflect the distribution of educational resources globally?

How is validity checked?

Where’s the documention of the design?

In other words are these results in the least bit scientifically reliable? If not there is nothing to discuss. Publish your curriculum by all means. That document might well contribute to the discussion. Just don’t pretend it is in response to a valid, meaningful survey.