Instructions for Evaluation of ATISP Jan 2002


There are two purposes to this evaluation. The first block of 10 items will provide feedback to the National Science Foundation (NSF) to evaluate the Advanced Training Institute in Social Psychology held at CSUF January 16-21, 2002, with respect to its value to science, education, and your professional development. The second purpose is to provide information to the Board of Advisors (of our ATISP) to help them make improvements for future sessions of the ATI. If you wish, you may include or omit your name in item No. 31.

Evaluation of the ATISP for National Science Foundation

The following group of questions concern the overall quality of the ATISP you attended and its value to your research, teaching, and understanding of Internet Research. These are for the evaluation for NSF.

1. Please rate the Quality of the Content Presented. (Were the contents of the ATI well chosen?)
very poor very good

2. Please rate the Quality of the Instruction of the Content Presented. (Were the instructors able to communicate the content well?)
very poor very good

3. Rate the Value of the ATISP to your Research program. (Will you be able to make use of the information in your scientific research?)
very poor very good

4. Rate the Value of the ATI to your Teaching. (Will you be able to teach your students and colleagues information learned at the ATI?)
very poor very good

5. How were the Accommodations and Arrangements? (includes Hotel, coffee breaks, receptions, computer facilities, etc.)
very poor very good

6. Please rate the Organization and Planning of the ATI. (Was the ATI well-planned and organized or disorganized and chaotic?)
very poor very good

7. How was the Social Atmosphere created at the ATI? (Was the social climate cold, impersonal and isolated or was it warm, accepting and supportive?)
very poor very good

8. Please rate the Practical Value of the ATI. (What will be the ultimate impact of ATI on Science and Education? Was taxpayers' money well-spent on this project as opposed to others it might have funded?)
very poor very good

9. Please make an overall judgment of the quality of the ATI to you. (This item includes educational, scientific, social, professional, and personal value to you.)
very poor very good

10. Comments to NSF on the Overall Value of the ATISP:


Suggestions to the Board of Advisors for Improving Future Sessions

Please evaluate the following ideas or suggested changes for the ATISP. Which of the following would be good changes, in your opinion, and which would not?

11. More free time (and less content)?
poor change good change

12. More Massed instruction (e.g., all Authorware on one day, all Java on one day, etc)?
poor change good change

13. More Two-way Discussion with students (and fewer lectures of prepared material)?
poor change good change

14. Let people choose their own company for meals (delete the seating plans)?
poor change good change

Please rate the following components of the ATI. Supposing that material would be deleted (to allow for extra discussion, free time to work on the computers, or other activities), which material should or should not be deleted?

15. SurveyWiz, factorWiz and HTML forms (Birnbaum).
no loss to remove valuable content

16. Overview of Web, Server, and Client (Schmidt).
no loss to remove valuable content

17. Java Applets (McClelland).
no loss to remove valuable content

18. Introduction to Authorware Experiments and PsychExps (McGraw).
no loss to remove valuable content

19. WeXtor, Experimental Design and Web Lab (Reips)
no loss to remove valuable content

20. Stimulus Construction and Presentation via WWW (Krantz)
no loss to remove valuable content

21. Introduction to Perl for CGI scripts (Schmidt).
no loss to remove valuable content

22. Basic HTML (Birnbaum).
no loss to remove valuable content

23. Introduction to JavaScript (Birnbaum).
no loss to remove valuable content

24. WWW Survey Assistant (Schmidt).
no loss to remove valuable content

25. Experimental Control, Accuracy, and Measurement of Web Stimuli and Responses (Krantz).
no loss to remove valuable content

26. Panel Discussion of Web Methodology, Recruitment, and Ethics.
no loss to remove valuable content

27. Should we have parallel sessions for content of varied difficulty level? (This would mean that participants would have the flexibility to select different content, but students might not know in advance which content is most suited to their needs)
bad idea good idea

28. Please write your suggestions for improvement of content or instructional style (Please include suggestions for content here as well; e.g., installing a Web server, etc.):

29. Other comments and suggestions:

30. How do you like the color of the background to this Web page?

bad color
good
good, but I like PAPAYAWHIP better than BLANCHED ALMOND

31. (OPTIONAL) You may enter your name here, if you choose.

32. Should we try to form an American Internet Research Society, and hold meetings every year or two years?
no yes

Please check your answers. When you are done, push the button below.

Thank You!