| Physics at Work 2008 Exhibition Feedback |
|
|
|
|
| 1. |
How long did it take you to get here? |
Average time (mins) |
Std. Dev. |
| |
|
50.9 |
31.9 |
|
|
|
| 2. |
Do you see the exhibition
primarily as: |
% |
|
| i) |
Information about careers
in physics |
17.4 |
|
| ii) |
Background information for
physics lessons |
4.3 |
|
| iii) |
Both |
78.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3. |
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 (%) |
| |
|
100.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
| 4. |
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? |
4.2 |
|
| ii) |
To see fewer exhibits, with
each exhibitor having more time? |
0.0 |
|
| iii) |
To see six exhibits (this
number is ideal) |
95.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 5. |
Did you stay for both
morning and afternoon sessions? |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
| |
|
25.0 |
75.0 |
|
|
|
|
| 6. |
Is this the best time of
year for the exhibition? Alternative
dates could be: |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
| |
|
92.0 |
8.0 |
| i) |
3rd week of December |
4.0 |
|
| ii) |
2nd or 3rd week of July |
4.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 7. |
Would you like the
exhibition to be called: |
% |
|
| i) |
Physics at work |
87.0 |
|
| ii) |
Science at work |
13.0 |
|
| iii) |
Something else |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 8. |
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 |
| |
|
9.1 |
90.9 |
|
|
|
|
| 9. |
Please rate the following
logistical items on a scale of 1-6. |
Average (1=poor, 6=
excellent). |
Std. Dev. |
| |
Organisation of event |
5.9 |
0.3 |
| |
Timetable |
5.7 |
0.5 |
| |
Venue |
5.5 |
0.6 |
| |
Refreshments |
4.6 |
0.9 |
| |
Other facillities |
5.1 |
0.9 |
|
|
|
|
| 10. |
Please rate all of the
exhibits that you saw on a scale of 1 - 6. |
Average (1=poor, 6=
excellent). |
Std. Dev. |
| |
Exhibitors |
|
|
| |
1. Semiconductor Physics |
4.5 |
1.0 |
| |
2. Wolfson Brain Imaging |
4.1 |
0.9 |
| |
3. Lab Safety Officer |
4.6 |
0.8 |
| |
4. The Technology Partnership |
5.0 |
1.3 |
| |
5. Cavendish Astrophysics |
4.3 |
1.7 |
| |
6. Dept. Chemical Engineering |
3.3 |
1.0 |
| |
7. Theory of Condensed Matter Group |
4.5 |
0.9 |
| |
8. Nanoscience @ Cambridge |
5.3 |
0.9 |
| |
9. Biological & Soft Systems |
3.9 |
1.2 |
| |
10. SMF: Fracture Group |
5.4 |
0.5 |
| |
11. Rolls-Royce Plc
Sciences |
5.5 |
0.7 |
| |
12. Kodak (European Research) |
4.7 |
1.4 |
| |
13. High Energy Physics |
4.2 |
0.7 |
| |
14. British Antarctic Survey |
5.2 |
0.7 |
| |
15. The Mathworks Ltd |
3.3 |
0.7 |
| |
16. Dept. of Material Science |
3.9 |
1.5 |
| |
17. Team Crocodile |
4.3 |
0.9 |
| |
18. Superconductivity and
Quantum Matter |
5.2 |
0.4 |
| |
19. RAF Forensic Science Fleet |
5.4 |
0.5 |
| |
20. Department of Earth
Sciences |
3.3 |
0.4 |
| |
21. Optoelectronics |
4.3 |
1.2 |
| |
22. Domino Printing Sciences |
4.6 |
0.8 |
| |
23. LATEST (Uni. Manchester) |
4.8 |
1.1 |
| |
24. BAA Stansted |
5.1 |
0.3 |
| |
25. Computer Science Laboratory
|
3.5 |
0.7 |
| |
26. British Antarctic
Survey |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other
comments: |
The best year
yet! The pupils really enjoyed it. The most
successful exhibits had lots of student involvement. Any hands on stuff goes down very well. Very useful for
promoting physics as a wide range of career options. PAW keeps
getting better. A brilliant morning,
students were inspired. This is a fabulous
exhibition, and you should be congratulated. |
|
|
|
|
