Open jurra opened 4 years ago
We want to find out what worked, what didn't, what new things with regard to these topics we should add to the curriculum/program:
List of activities and interactions we want to enable with this evaluation, improvement program: (These are just proposals add more to the list)
Add things we are missing......
Proposals from: @amchagas and @thessaly
Pay for the time of a group of mentors and experts to review the curriculum and help us transform it into something better.
advanced is more focused on sustainability. Starting 2 weeks after the end of the program Tentative duration of 2 weeks
What do we need?
I think it is crucial to review the curriculum as a whole before a second round can be announced.
I really like the idea of two different tracks but I'm not sure how to combine them? Where do they overlap? Otherwise, they are basically two independent programs.
Did you think about it as an (online) event/meeting, asynchronous reviewing or a combination of both?
I agree, with @Alex, and I find we dont have to rush specially after not doing the after math of this particular round. At the beginning of this issue there are some guidelines ideas on how to do this analysis, evaluation.
I have a remark and concern: we are tending to propose solutions before understanding and formulating accurately problems. This doesnt allow us to take distance and validate our original goals and assumptions.
The first thing we should do is to evaluate how do we think the curriculum (and the program) have implemented the core goals of the program originally. That is why we made the personas, the canvas and all that.
We have already sent out the forms which are quite well formulated. Lets go step by step in this analysis and spot in concrete what are the problems, concerns, improvements.
We also need to review several things that are fundamental organizational wise:
This is very important because there will come new activities that also require a lot of effort and organization, and clarifying this will give us an understanding of how are we going to work on the next tasks together, what energy we need to put, and how do we prepare to improve the program, etc...
I think it is important to evaluate the program within two weeks after it's over because then everything is still very present.
I think your second point is especially important. Things changed a lot and for me, it really depends on when the second round will start and what my role would be. The current situation screwed up a lot of my plans for work and private projects (like finishing my dam thesis). I have to work on solving this issues first before I can dedicate the amount of time to the program it deserves. That's why I don't think I could contribute much time to a second round of the program within the next couple of months (not before 2021). However, I could imagine contributing as an expert and/or take over one week-session with a specific topic or something like this.
As we are approaching the end of our program, we started to prepare feedback interviews and questionnaires, which will allow us to learn from mentors and mentees highlights as well as things that need to be improved for the next cohort. Once we have that we would like to implement it into our program curriculum and internal documents (code of conduct, contribution guidelines, etc).
After the program
The grant would be used for a series of online meetings where small teams (composed of domain experts in open hardware, open source and online education, mentors and the organizers) would:
- Work on the program curriculum, internal docs (as stated above) and prepare material (presentations slides, video recordings of presentations, etc) for online distribution.
- We would like to pay people for their time while working on this, as the results of these activities will be used to refine our program, and create updated content with new videos and presentations for each week of the program (14 in total).
- We would also like to use a smaller part of the grant to buy services for online convening, such as Zoom membership for the coming cohort.
Again I feel like we proposed a solution for problems that might not exist, I propose to slow down and make a careful planning/design of what would be our next steps.
As we are approaching the end of our program, we started to prepare feedback interviews and questionnaires, which will allow us to learn from mentors and mentees highlights as well as things that need to be improved for the next cohort. Once we have that we would like to implement it into our program curriculum and internal documents (code of conduct, contribution guidelines, etc).
After the program
The grant would be used for a series of online meetings where small teams (composed of domain experts in open hardware, open source and online education, mentors and the organizers) would: