7. Survey In order to evaluate the organization of the IBO 2013, the project management had planned to ask all participants for their feedback through a questionnaire. This was also proposed by Gayane Ghukasyan, Armenia, at the Advisory Board (AB) meeting 2012 ( November 2- 4) in order to collect useful information for future organizers. The proposal was accepted by the AB and Gayane Ghukasyan was entrusted with developing a questionnaire for the IBO 2013. This questionnaire was thankfully accepted, revised and adapted to the IBO 2013. Some questions have been added (marked further down with an*). Two separate questionnaires were produced: one for students and one for jury members. All answers ranged from 1 to 5, 1 representing the negative and 5 the positive end of the scale. In addition to all charts, the average and median of each question is shown. Also, and with exception to the questions concerning the difficulty of the exams, the sum of all answers marked with a 4 or a 5 (i.e. with a good to over the expectation mark) is given to display the percentage of people with a positive answer. For this sum, all “non-answers” were neglected. The number of written comments on the questionnaires received was unfortunately not high enough or not very specific to be included in this report. A list of all comments can be given on request.
7 . 1 Students’ Questionnaire Results On Friday evening, July 19 2013, all students were asked to fill in the questionnaire. A total of 171 out of 240 (71.25%) have been returned.
7. 1. 1 Overview – Students With an average of 4.49 of a total of 5.00 (= Exceeded my expectations), the students feedback on their overall experience of the IBO 2013 was excellent. The best marks were given to the team guides who accompanied the participants during the entire week. With outstanding 4.81 and 4.71 respectively, their care and competence were marked highest amongst the questions asked. Furthermore, yearbook, transportation and ex cursions reached also high scores of satisfaction (with average marks of 4.54, 4.55 and 4.38, respectively). The perception was less positive in regard of accommodation, with an average of 3.27, and food, with an average of 3.84, although the results are still on the positive side of the scale. According to the few written comments given, this was mainly due to the small size of the rooms, allowing little privacy, and to double instead of single beds and no air-conditioning. The food also posed a certain controversy, however with often contradictory comments. As for the difficulty of the exams, they were marked as 3.82 (theoretical exams) and 4.12 (practical exams), where 1 = Very easy and 5 = Very difficult.
finalreportIBO | 109