Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

NAQT Sectionals Evaluation (long)

3 views
Skip to first unread message

David Frazee

unread,
Nov 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/18/96
to quiz...@papyrus-inc.com

NAQT Sectionals Evaluation

If you were involved in any way with the NAQT Sectional
Championships, please take a few moments to respond to this
evaluation. Quality is very important to us and we need
your feedback to improve.

We honestly will look at ALL comments and will evaluate the
numerical data so that we can address weak areas.

COMPLETING THE SURVEY
You can print out this survey and mail it to us, or reply to
it on your email account. Please send completed surveys by
November 30, 1996 to: NAQT, P.O. Box 130613, Ann Arbor, MI
48113 or by electronic mail to na...@naqt.com.

***WE KNOW THAT THE FULL SURVEY IS QUITE LONG. PLEASE FILL
OUT SECTIONS A, B, C, AND D, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. Even if
you do not have time to make specific comments, please take
the time to fill out the numerical/comparative portions of
this survey. We apologize for the length, but please
understand that this is our first-ever set of national
events and this is the first time in our organization's
existence to get feedback on many areas.


A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Sectional attended:

2. Number of years (including this one) in which you have
played in intercollegiate academic quiz tournaments:

3. Role in the Sectional: Player Coach Moderator
Spectator Other(specify)

4. Where did your team finish in the Sectional field:
top 25% 2nd 25% 3rd 25% bottom 25% n/a

5. Have you competed in either an Academic Competitions
Foundation or a College Bowl Company, Incorporated
Regional Tournament? Yes No

6. Have you competed in either an Academic Competitions
Foundation or a College Bowl Company, Incorporated
National Championship Tournament? Yes No

7. Do you plan to participate in the NAQT National
Championship? Yes No

8. Do you plan to participate in an NAQT Sectional
Championship in the future? Yes No Graduating

If no, and not graduating, please list why not.


9. Is your school considering using NAQT Intramural
questions for any on-campus event? Yes No

10. If you would like for us to get in touch with you should
we have specific questions or comments about your
responses, please list your name and email address
here, otherwise your comments will be treated as
anonymous throughout our evaluation process:

In the survey, we will frequently use a 0-10 QUALITY SCALE.

QUALITY SCALE:
10 = ontological perfection
9 = best tournament ever attended
8 = one of the best few tournaments ever attended
7 = far above average for all tournaments attended
6 = above average for all tournaments attended
5 = average for all tournaments attended
4 = below average for all tournaments attended
3 = far below average for all tournaments attended
2 = one of the worst few tournaments ever attended
1 = worst tournament ever attended
0 = ontological disaster


B. ASSESSMENT OF THE HOST
Please take the time to add comments as well for each answer,
especially if you rate any category below a 7. We ask this
because would like to know *specifically* what we can do to
improve in each area, as our goals are quite high. This
feedback will also be shared with the Host.

1. Quality of moderators
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

2. Quality of other staff
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

3. Quality of pre-tournament information from host
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

4. Quality of pre-tournament meeting
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

5. Fairness and efficiency in resolution of problems
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

6. Fairness of tournament format (not game format)
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

7. Quality of tournament facilities
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

8. Availability of results during tournament
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

9. Value received for tournament fees charged by host
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

10. Treatment of players by staff
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

11. Please list any moderators you thought would be suitable
for use in the NAQT National Championship.


12. Please list any moderators you thought would NOT be
suitable for use in the NAQT National Championship.


13. Should this host be permitted to host another NAQT
Sectional Championship in the future? Yes No

If no, please list specific reasons why not.


14. Please make any other comments you would like to make
about the quality of your Sectional host, or list any
other suggestions you have for improvement.

In addition to the 0-10 point QUALITY SCALE, this next
section also uses a scale of Agree to Disagree.

AGREE-DISAGREE SCALE:
TA = Total, complete, 100% Agreement
SA = Strongly agree
A = Agree
WA = Weakly Agree
N = Neutral
WD = Weakly Disagree
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
TD = Totally, complete, 100% Disagreement


C. ASSESSMENT OF THE NAQT RULES
In these questions, we want you to assess the rules. We
want our rules to be the optimal rules for collegiate play,
so we are constantly seeking ways to keep the rules dynamic
and innovative. Since the Sectionals were the first
national use of NAQT's rules, we especially need your
feedback in this area.

Please feel free to give specific comments on specific
rules, including suggested wording of rules you would like
to see added, amended, or experimented with. By giving us
textual suggestions, you are giving NAQT permission to adopt
those rule changes. If you disagree with any statement,
please tell us why you disagree.


1. Overall quality of the rules.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

2. Clarity of the rules to address specific situations
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

3. Suitability of the rules for championship play
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

(these questions are on the AGREE-DISAGREE SCALE)
4. I like the Power Tossup rule, and want it retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

5. I like the Timeout rules and want them retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

6. I like the end of half rules and want them retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

7. I like the overtime rules and want them retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

8. I like the ethics/conduct rules and want them retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

9. I like the Eligibility rules and want them retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

10. I like the Conferring rule and want it retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

11. I like the recognition rule and want it retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

12. I like the tossup and bonus format and want it retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

13. I want NAQT games to be timed
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

14. I like the acceptable answer rules and want them retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

15. I like the protest rules and want them retained
TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD

16. Please list any rules you believe should be eliminated:

17. Please list any rules or innovations you would like to
see added:

18. Please list any inconsistencies or problems with the
rules that you believe we should address (and please
suggest how you would address the problem).

In the next sections, we would like you not only to rate the
questions on our QUALITY SCALE, but also to COMPARE our
questions (1) with the College Bowl Company, Incorporated,
(2) with ACF, (3) and with invitationals. If you have no
basis for comparison, please leave blank.

D. ASSESSMENT OF THE QUESTION QUALITY

1. Overall quality of the questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

2. Overall quality of the TOSSUPS
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

3. Overall quality of the BONUSES
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

4. Factual accuracy of the questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

5. Educational value of the questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

6. Enjoyment of playing the questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

7. Distribution and sub-distribution of the questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

8. Overall suitability of questions for championship play
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

9. Suitability of question difficulty for championship play
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

Please generally indicate whether you thought the
questions were too difficult or too easy.

10. Consistency of questions throughout tournament
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

11. Interruptability of questions (questions not misleading)
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

12. Length of questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

Please generally indicate whether you thought the
questions were too long or too short.


E. OVERALL QUALITY OF SPECIFIC AREAS

HISTORY
1. Overall quality of history questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

2. Were there an appropriate number of history questions?
far too many/ too many/ perfect/ too few/ far too few

3. The difficulty of the history questions
far too hard/ too hard/ perfect/ too easy/ far too easy

4. I think the history questions were sufficiently diverse
AGREE-DISAGREE: TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD


SCIENCE
5. Overall quality of science questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

6. Were there an appropriate number of science questions?
far too many/ too many/ perfect/ too few/ far too few

7. The difficulty of the science questions
far too hard/ too hard/ perfect/ too easy/ far too easy

8. I think the science questions were sufficiently diverse
AGREE-DISAGREE: TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD


LITERATURE
9. Overall quality of literature questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

10. Were there an appropriate number of lit questions?
far too many/ too many/ perfect/ too few/ far too few

11. The difficulty of the literature questions
far too hard/ too hard/ perfect/ too easy/ far too easy

12. I think the lit questions were sufficiently diverse
AGREE-DISAGREE: TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD


CURRENT EVENTS
13. Overall quality of current events questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

14. Were there an appropriate number of c.e. questions?
far too many/ too many/ perfect/ too few/ far too few

15. The difficulty of the current events questions
far too hard/ too hard/ perfect/ too easy/ far too easy

16. I think the c.e. questions were sufficiently diverse
AGREE-DISAGREE: TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD


GEOGRAPHY
17. Overall quality of geography questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

18. Were there an appropriate number of geography questions?
far too many/ too many/ perfect/ too few/ far too few

19. The difficulty of the geography questions
far too hard/ too hard/ perfect/ too easy/ far too easy

20. I think the geography questions were sufficiently diverse
AGREE-DISAGREE: TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD


SOCIAL SCIENCE
21. Overall quality of social science questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

22. Were there an appropriate number of soc. sci. questions?
far too many/ too many/ perfect/ too few/ far too few

23. The difficulty of the social science questions
far too hard/ too hard/ perfect/ too easy/ far too easy

24. I think the soc. sci. questions were sufficiently diverse
AGREE-DISAGREE: TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD


FINE ARTS
25. Overall quality of fine arts questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

26. Were there an appropriate number of fine arts questions?
far too many/ too many/ perfect/ too few/ far too few

27. The difficulty of the fine arts questions
far too hard/ too hard/ perfect/ too easy/ far too easy

28. I think the fine arts questions were sufficiently diverse
AGREE-DISAGREE: TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD


RELIGION/MYTHOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY
29. Overall quality of R-M-P questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

30. Were there an appropriate number of R-M-P questions?
far too many/ too many/ perfect/ too few/ far too few

31. The difficulty of the R-M-P questions
far too hard/ too hard/ perfect/ too easy/ far too easy

32. I think the R-M-P questions were sufficiently diverse
AGREE-DISAGREE: TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD


"TRASH" (sports and pop culture)
33. Overall quality of "trash" questions
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
w/ CBI: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ ACF: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse
w/ Inv: Far Better Better Same Worse Much Worse

34. Were there an appropriate number of "trash" questions?
far too many/ too many/ perfect/ too few/ far too few

35. The difficulty of the "trash" questions
far too hard/ too hard/ perfect/ too easy/ far too easy

36. I think the "trash" questions were sufficiently diverse
AGREE-DISAGREE: TA SA A WA N WD D SD TD


GENERAL
37. Please list areas you think are under-represented.

38. Please list areas you think are over-represented.


E. OTHER
1. Please tell us anything else you would like us to know
about any aspect of NAQT, the Sectionals, or the
collegiate circuit.

0 new messages