Thanks for putting this together, Dan, it's really great!

I think one other question pair might be:
+ What is one need learners had that was well-met by the material?
+ What was one need learners had that was not well-met by the material?

That might help contributors to the repos identify where future development
needs to happen.

---------
Graduate Student
Section of Integrative Biology
University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station, C1100
Austin, TX 78712-0254
Phone: 512.940.5761


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Bill Mills <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Thanks, Dan!  I think focusing on questions about if / how / why an
> instructor went off script are really important for keeping those materials
> iterating along; one thing to consider would be a more free-form field at
> the end to prompt instructors to think about what else might need work.
> This would dovetail nicely into the live instructor hangout conversations
> we'll be spooling up shortly (also will be discussing live at the Mozilla
> Science Lab community call this coming Thursday).
>
>
> On 2014-09-05 7:16 AM, Bennet Fauber wrote:
>
>> Re Greg's recent Blog post, is it worth considering a question at
>> least about which topic was best received?
>>
>> As a self-evaluation, I take a minute or two after every workshop to
>> review and note where I thought I did the best presentation and why,
>> and where I was weakest and why.  Sometimes it's an off day, sometimes
>> it's a topic/attendee disconnect, sometimes it's my preparation (or
>> lack thereof).  Not sure whether that would be appropriate for
>> something like this.
>>
>> I also like to note whether there seemed to be anything -- topic, new
>> metaphor, student question, whatever -- that got people more
>> interested than others.
>>
>> -- bennet
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:04 AM, John Blischak <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for getting this started, Dan. Some other ideas for questions:
>>>
>>>    + For each topic they report teaching, have them also report the
>>> amount of time it took and which lessons they were able to teach.
>>>    + It would also be informative to know how many attendees they had.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Daniel Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mike:
>>>>
>>>> Yep, Greg just told me about an existing survey.  I'll take over the
>>>> data
>>>> collection and analysis for it.
>>>>
>>>> - Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Michael J Jackson <
>>>> [email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting Daniel Chen <[email protected]> on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 18:07:45
>>>>> -0400:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Hi everyone:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the discussion points in John's issue [1] regarding adding time
>>>>>> estimates and Greg's recent blog post [2] was to include a
>>>>>> post-workshop
>>>>>> survey for the instructors -- something that is short, but objective
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> can track how workshops are going from the instructors point of
>>>>>> view.  It
>>>>>> might be good to start documenting instructor feedback as swc's
>>>>>> instructor
>>>>>> pool increases, and can be used to supplement the proposed bi-monthly
>>>>>> instructor meetings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've done a very bad and rough mock up of what it might entail [3].
>>>>>> And
>>>>>> posting on this group for 1) general feedback on the idea of a post
>>>>>> bootcamp survey, and 2) any other relevant questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also this form which instructors complete post-workshop,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://software-carpentry.org/bootcamps/assess/post-instructor.html
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be worth combining that with yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>>  I am more than happy to add people as collaborators, just send me an
>>>>>> e-mail
>>>>>> of the email you want me to add you as.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/swcarpentry/bc/issues/689
>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/swcarpentry/site/pull/589
>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1rMuWJ8FrnvOWwHfI8aDVHUxDw0ZvO
>>>>>> fCges2k3OliZq8/viewform?usp=send_form
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Dr. Michael (Mike) Jackson         [email protected]
>>>>> Software Architect                 Tel: +44 (0)131 650 5141
>>>>> EPCC, The University of Edinburgh  http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk
>>>>> Software Sustainability Institute  http://www.software.ac.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.
>>>> software-carpentry.org
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.
>>> software-carpentry.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.
>> software-carpentry.org
>>
>
> --
> Bill Mills
> Community Manager, Mozilla Science Lab
> @billdoesphysics
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.
> software-carpentry.org
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org

Reply via email to