Computational Infrastructure for Geodynamics logo


Advancing Numerical Modeling of Mantle Convection & Lithospheric Dynamics 2008 Post-Workshop Survey

Please answer the following questions as truthfully as possible, as your responses are invaluable in improving later iterations of this conference. For each of the following statements, please quantify your agreement on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 3 = Ambivalent
  • 4 = Somewhat Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree

Space will be provided at the end of the survey for you to add your own comments.

First Name:
Last Name:
E-mail:

Are you a graduate student?
Yes No

General Impressions

1.This conference serves a unique purpose not met by other available meetings.
1 2 3 4 5

2. I would attend this meeting again in two years (assuming the subject matter was appropriate).
1 2 3 4 5

3. I would recommend holding this conference again.
1 2 3 4 5

4. There was a good balance of work and social time.
1 2 3 4 5

5. The scientific goals of this meeting were clearly defined.
1 2 3 4 5

6. This conference was more valuable to me than others I have attended.
1 2 3 4 5

7. The length of the workshop (3 days) was appropriate.
1 2 3 4 5

8. The expectations I had for the workshop were met.
1 2 3 4 5

Keynote Lectures

1. The lecturers were knowledgeable and well-chosen.
1 2 3 4 5

2. The lectures were accessible.
1 2 3 4 5

3. The lectures had sufficient depth.
1 2 3 4 5

4. The lectures were well coordinated with each other.
1 2 3 4 5

5. The tutorials were presented at an appropriate level and provided useful information.
1 2 3 4 5

6. There should be more time for hands-on activity during the tutorial sessions.
1 2 3 4 5

7. I would recommend continuing to include tutorial sessions in this conference.
1 2 3 4 5

8. The discussion of talks was constructive.
1 2 3 4 5

9. The discussion time should be expanded.
1 2 3 4 5

Poster Sessions

1. The poster session setting provided a good environment for scientific discussion.
1 2 3 4 5

2. The poster session had adequate space.
1 2 3 4 5

Take-Home Benefits

1. I met other researchers with whom I expect to collaborate in the future.
1 2 3 4 5

2. I have a broader understanding of Numerical modeling in the Earth Sciences as a result of this meeting.
1 2 3 4 5

3. I have a deeper understanding of my own subject matter as a result of this meeting.
1 2 3 4 5

4. I am leaving with some new ideas for projects that I may pursue.
1 2 3 4 5

Conference Setting

1. The accommodations were comfortable and clean.
1 2 3 4 5

2. The food was edible and plentiful.
1 2 3 4 5

3. Travel logistics to this location were easy.
1 2 3 4 5

4. The lecture hall and A/V equipment were satisfactory.
1 2 3 4 5

Open Questions

Please avoid inserting hard returns in your response (e.g., paragraphing or pasting in pre-paragraphed sections), as it complicates importing results to Excel.

1. What was the single most valuable thing about this conference for you?

2. If you could change one thing about this conference, what would it be?

3. What topics should be considered for the next meeting?

4. Please feel free to add any other comments, criticisms, or suggestions below.

or