Intro to the Open edX Project course feedback

[sarina]

Reviewers:

• [ ] @gabrieldamours

• [ ] @sambapete

  I’d love feedback on where we could use graphics, videos, and/or assessments to make the course more engaging.

[sambapete]

In About this Course > Who should take this course?

The Discourse and the Confluence links do not work. Page not found in both cases.

[sambapete]

Shouldn't some of the videos produced by the Marketing Working Group be included in the course at some point?

I am thinking of at least those two videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFdWM1a44C8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqRWGfyeE1Q

I agree that it might be too early to make comparisons between Moodle and Open edX, but at least the video about The Global Impact of the Open edX Platform could be interesting for some in the introduction of the course. Just a suggestion.

[sambapete]

Nitpicking at this point. The footer still refers to "presented by The Center for Reimagining Learning (tCRIL)"

[sambapete]

In "Module 1 - The Open edX project > About the Open edX Project > Open edX Project Today"

Should we include a link to an explanation of the Maintainer Role and Program? Same for the Open edX Roadmap.

[sambapete]

In "Module 1 - The Open edX project > About the Open edX Project > Major Community Members"

Reusing [1] 3 times. The last two should probably be [4] and [5]

The first [1] links to a Page Not Found.

[sambapete]

Still in the nitpicking category. It might just be me, but using [1], [2] or [3] links as if we were in a physical book biographical references should probably be replaced by a link associated with the preceding text. Or at least be consistent through the course. I don't have a "real" problem with it.

[sambapete]

Still in the nitpicking category.

Mixed use of "Open source" and "Open Source". Sometimes OEP is being used. Sometimes Open edX Proposal.

[sambapete]

Overall, a very good introduction to the many aspects of the project and the community. Short and sweet.

I wish I had someone internally who is not as familiar to the project as I am and that could review the course. I might be too biased. And @gabrieldamours might have the same issue since he was working for one of our partner at EDUlib before joining OpenCraft. We definitely need a newbie to crash-test the course.

[sarina]

@sambapete thanks for your comments! I have addressed them all. I think they were good. I agree with the [ref] notation - I don't like it in the context of an online webpage. I'm going to download the course and search for other instances of that, as well as non- "Open Source" capitalizations.

[sarina]

We also did get a newbie from eduNEXT to take the course, and they gave excellent feedback. And I think @mariajgrimaldi has another person who will take it as well.

[mariajgrimaldi]

I asked another new teammate (non-technical this time) for a review as well. I hope we can get that soon!

Thank you so much @sambapete!

[gabrieldamours]

Just a quick note that I went through the course materials today (amazing job!) and have collected some notes, which I'll organize and share next week.

[sarina]

@mariajgrimaldi @gabrieldamours I plan to release the course next Tuesday (30 May), so please provide your feedback by Thursday this week (25 May).

[gabrieldamours]

Pierre covered a lot of ground here -- thanks a lot! Here's my remaining feedback/suggestions, and don't hesitate to take this with a grain of salt ; )

• The" Who should take this course" unit should be renamed to something like "Why take this course", because that's roughly what the unit explains.
• There should be a new unit called "Who should take this course" that briefly describes the target learners. This should also help answer the question "do I need to know how to code to contribute to the Open edX platform?".
• Potential contributors need to know quickly how they can help out. If I'm already familiar with the project and want to skip to the part where we can learn about how to contribute, maybe we can add a link in the intro section that leads directly to Module 3?
• In the first unit of Module 3, it would be helpful to briefly describe what's it like being a CC, and what types of tasks are involved.
• We should add a subsection in Module 3 that describes the core contributor sprint process and schedule, so that potential contributors understand and adhere to the process.

I found there was a sufficient amount of images (they look great!) and video, and didn't find any specific units where I felt we should add more.

Kudos to everyone involved in the design of this course -- this is a great first iteration, and we can always adjust based on learner feedback!

[sarina]

Thank you @gabrieldamours - I think this is good feedback. I hesitated adding links to modules from the intro section, because you get that already when you land on the course page:

But if that's helpful, I can do it.

What text would you suggest to "briefly describe what it's like being a CC"?

I'm not sure I agree on a whole subsection on the CC sprint process, but worth a mention.

[sarina]

@gabrieldamours I addressed your first two points:

And I added a note about Core Contributor sprints. I don't think at the beginning of their journey it is appropriate to ask them to do their own work in 2 week chunks - that's a large and unnecessary expectation at this point.

Can you reply to my questions in my previous comment, or close the ticket if you're satisfied?

[gabrieldamours]

Thanks for the nice additions, @sarina. For the pending points:

I hesitated adding links to modules from the intro section, because you get that already when you land on the course page

Right, I also think it's fine to leave as-is.

What text would you suggest to "briefly describe what it's like being a CC"?

After giving this some thought and reviewing the course materials, it feels to me like the various units give a good idea of what the task looks like -- so I'm withdrawing my suggestion.

This looks great all-around, kudos for building this great course! I'll close the ticket as suggested.