Help Needed: Crafting a Better CFAR Follow-Up Survey

post by kotrfa · 2023-08-24T17:26:09.405Z · LW · GW · No comments

This is a question post.

Contents

  tl;dr: Contribute to shaping the future of rationality programs by helping design the CFAR follow-up survey.
None
  Answers
    1 brook
None
No comments

tl;dr: Contribute to shaping the future of rationality programs by helping design the CFAR follow-up survey.

I'm working on a project to evaluate the effectiveness of CFAR Prague 2022 workshops, but if the initial feedback is constructive, I might extend the survey to all alumni. Time permitting, I plan to share the results publicly. I am aware of the pitfalls of survey methods, but I still think it's worth it and personally know about people (and their projects) that would benefit from having these data.

What I kindly ask here is to help me to design the survey so:

  1. Someone actually fills it in (so OK length, incentives, ...)
  2. It's informative on:

You can review my current draft accessible here.

I genuinely appreciate any feedback, whether it's a detailed critique or general impressions.

Answers

answer by brook · 2023-08-25T18:34:41.335Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Quick thoughts:

I'd say it looks a shade long, but I could well be wrong about the length of survey people will answer. Some suggestions for cutting it down a little:

  • Questions 2-4 in section 1 seem somewhat redundant with one another to me (i.e. you could probably have just one or at most two of them). 
  • The list in question 1 (section 2) seems long to ask people to rate all of. Could you drop a few? (I'm thinking "self-help" is too broad, epistemics & uncertainty could maybe be merged, etc.). 

You might also want to ask people to rate different parts of the course (moderation, content, structure, etc.) so you have an idea of what needs improving.

Overall, looks good! Thanks for running the project, strongly believe that evaluation is a really important part of any course/organisation/whatever. 

↑ comment by kotrfa · 2023-08-28T11:02:10.038Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for the feedback and the encouragement, I will incorporate these.

Btw. for questions 2-4 there is an intentional redundancy.

No comments

Comments sorted by top scores.