Our evaluation

a) What are our general thoughts, and do we want to organize the workshop again?
The workshop in general went really fine, and we liked organizing it. We would certainly like to do it again.

b) Where the resources provided enough? what was more useful? what was missing?
There were more than enough resources provided. For the morning session we used the web-page exercises to look at the event selections and which events would pass the HESE cuts. During the lectures after some events the students started sort of a competition who got the best results, but at some point they ran out of events to continue. It would be nice if the total number of events to analyse could be extended next year (when of course we will also have more HESE events). Next to this, we did the web-page exercise looking at the HESE events and select the five highest energy events. We did not have time to perform the other web-based exercises.   

c) After running the first masterclass, would you like to propose changes in the program? what would you improve from each of the activities: webcast, icebreaker, lectures, analysis, virtual interaction with other students. 

-Webcast: In general we think the webcast went really fine. In Brussels we had the problem that part of the group had to leave early and could not participate. Furthermore, we should think how to get the students more involved in the webcast, in general we have the impression they are rather shy to ask/answer questions.

-Icebreaker: We had the impression this activity went really fine and was very useful in its goal. 

-Lecture Francis + South-Pole talk: Both lectures went really fine, these were considered very interesting by the students. Furthermore, for part of the group a small hardware lecture was presented which was also received really well. We are considering to include a hardware part into the lectures next year.

-Analysis: Both the morning and afternoon analysis went fine. Since this was the first time we did not knew the knowledge of the students, and at some points during the analysis we had to improvise. For the HESE event selection, we got the students in to thinking about new/different selection criteria. It would be really nice if they could apply these. For example include/leave out the dust layer, ask for a zenith cut etc. Considering the five highest energy events, the answer was given immediately when asked for. Maybe a correction like "You have got two correct answers" with an additional hint, could make the students think a bit longer about these events. The P-value analysis was slightly extended by having the students 'simulate' many maps from a Poisson distribution and have them determine how many events they should have measured in the signal region to have a discovery. In this part we are considering to include a small programming exercise to perform these simulations. In general we have the feeling that a small programming exercise would make things a bit more interactive.

-Virtual interaction with other students: We covered this part in the webcast session.

d) Wiki. Have you used the wiki? do you think can be a useful tool for IceCube hosts and participating teachers? what is more useful? what is missing?
We made a lot of use of the icecube webpages and the wiki and we think these were very useful for the masterclass. We gave used the following pages:

-http://icecube.wisc.edu/masterclass/neutrinos
-http://icecube.wisc.edu/viewer/quiz
-http://icecube.wisc.edu/viewer/training
-http://icecube.wisc.edu/viewer/hese-all

We did not have the impression that something was missing.