|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1. |
How long did it take you to get here? |
Average time (mins) |
Std. Dev. |
|
|
|
| |
|
65.8 |
28.0 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2. |
How do you
select the students who attend this exhibition and why do you select this
way? |
Any 5th form who weren't unavailable due to music or sporting commitments. Top half of year group in science groups, year 10 applied
science group. Upper two teaching sets out of 5. All lower 6th physics
studying "corporate identity". All GCSE students in Y11. Y10
offered places to top 3 sets. Brought
those that apply. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3. |
Do you see
the exhibition primarily as: |
% |
|
|
|
|
| i) |
Information about careers
in physics |
10.7 |
|
|
|
|
| ii) |
Background information for
physics lessons |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
| iii) |
Both |
89.3 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4. |
The start
and finish times of each session are chosen so that we can fit two session
into each day. We realise that we
probably start too early for some, and finish too late for others, as well as
having the lunch break in the wrong place. With the aim of running two sessions a day in mind, are the times of
the sessions convenient? |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
Comments |
| |
|
96.2 |
3.8 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5. |
You have
only been able to see six exhibits. With the length of each session limited to 3 hours, would you prefer: |
% |
|
|
|
|
| i) |
To see more exhibits, with
each exhibitor having less time? |
18.5 |
|
|
|
|
| ii) |
To see fewer exhibits, with
each exhibitor having more time? |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
| iii) |
To see six exhibits (this
number is ideal) |
81.5 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6. |
Did you
stay for both morning and afternoon sessions? |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
Comments |
| |
|
17.9 |
82.1 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7. |
Is this the
best time of year for the exhibition? Alternative dates could be: |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
Comments |
| |
|
82.1 |
17.9 |
|
| i) |
3rd week of December |
10.7 |
|
|
| ii) |
2nd or 3rd week of July |
7.1 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8. |
Would you
like the exhibition to be called: |
% |
|
|
|
|
| i) |
Physics at work |
92.0 |
|
|
|
|
| ii) |
Science at work |
8.0 |
|
|
|
|
| iii) |
Something else |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9. |
Would you
prefer to see one exhibition covering all sciences at which students would
see approximately two exhibits each of physics, chemistry and biology? |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
Comments |
| |
|
30.4 |
69.6 |
But need to raise physics profile more. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10. |
Please rate
the following logistical items on a scale of 1-6. |
Average (1=poor, 6=
excellent). |
Std. Dev. |
Comments |
| |
Organisation of event |
5.5 |
0.6 |
Would have helped for the packs to have timings
in them |
| |
Timetable |
5.4 |
0.8 |
|
| |
Venue |
5.0 |
1.1 |
Better
signs needed. Difficult to hear when groups are in same room. Very well
signposted. |
| |
Refreshments |
4.6 |
1.3 |
For free |
| |
Other facillities |
4.3 |
1.3 |
Few girls toilets |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11. |
Please rate
all of the exhibits that you saw on a scale of 1 - 6. |
Average (1=poor, 6=
excellent). |
Std. Dev. |
Summary of Comments |
| |
Exhibitors |
|
|
|
| |
1. Superconductivity and
Quantum Matter |
5.5 |
0.7 |
Very engaging, Ohm's law just the right level,
demo's grabbed attention. |
| |
2. Epson (UK) Ltd. |
3.6 |
1.4 |
Varied. |
| |
3. Technology Partnership |
4.0 |
1.3 |
Lively speaker. Good gadgets. |
| |
4. Department of Chemical
Engineering |
4.8 |
0.9 |
Great manner. Good info on applications of chem
eng, demo good. |
| |
5. Theory of Condensed
Matter |
4.2 |
1.5 |
Presentation very good. Well
illustrated on a possibly challenging topic |
| |
6. Rolls-Royce |
5.2 |
0.7 |
Some good points on engineering. |
| |
7. Department of Material
Science |
5.0 |
1.2 |
Pitched at exactly right level, excellent demos
to illustrate. |
| |
8. Wolfson Brain Imaging |
4.2 |
1.0 |
Very interesting |
| |
9. Hawkins & Associates |
5.3 |
1.0 |
|
| |
10. Optoelectronics |
5.5 |
0.5 |
Very engaging and a good presentation |
| |
11. Domino Printing
Sciences |
5.0 |
0.8 |
Pitch of powerpoint v. well
interpreted. |
| |
12. Institute of Astronomy |
3.7 |
1.2 |
Engaging. |
| |
13. BAA Stansted |
3.3 |
0.7 |
Good to see presenters who weren't PhD's. |
| |
14. Team Crocodile |
3.8 |
1.2 |
|
| |
15. Semiconductor Physics |
4.6 |
1.1 |
Liquid nitrogen was enjoyed by the pupils. |
| |
16. Cambridge Ultrasonics |
5.3 |
0.7 |
Very good, attention grabbing |
| |
17. Kodak |
4.6 |
0.7 |
Excellent - the level was just right. |
| |
18. Astrophysics |
4.2 |
1.4 |
Good presentation |
| |
19. Laboratory Safety
Officer |
5.1 |
0.5 |
Very accessible level. |
| |
20. Department of Earth
Sciences |
4.3 |
1.4 |
|
| |
21. High Energy Physics |
3.8 |
1.5 |
|
| |
22. LATEST |
5.0 |
1.0 |
Very good. |
| |
23. Nanoscience |
5.5 |
0.7 |
Great clarity and pitched perfectly. Good presentations. |
| |
24. Biological & Soft
Systems |
4.7 |
1.1 |
Great experiments and pitched well. |
| |
25. Fracture Group:
Surfaces, Microstructure and Fracture |
5.7 |
0.6 |
Superb demos |
| |
26. British Antarctic
Survey |
5.4 |
0.8 |
V. well pitched. Fascinating. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12. |
Would you
be happy if the organisation of "Physics at work" went paper free from next year?
i.e. Bookings would be made on-line from the webpage, confirmations would be
sent by email, all documentation by email and via the webpage? |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
Comments |
| |
|
87.5 |
12.5 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other
comments: |
This
is a fabulous exhibition, and you should be congratulated. Positioning of exhibitors in noisy areas is
difficult. I have attended for 3 years
as a careers-coordinator with Y11, I always find it stimulating and
interesting. A very useful and
interesting morning. Signage and
numbers were great. Very good exhibition
- the students enjoyed it and came out slightly more enthused about
physics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
