1,777
edits
Foundation:Planning:Education: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Roadmap
m (→Roadmap) |
m (→Roadmap) |
||
| Line 213: | Line 213: | ||
* Is there interest in using the materials and infrastructure that Seneca is sharing? Are Seneca and Mozilla happy with what has been produced? | * Is there interest in using the materials and infrastructure that Seneca is sharing? Are Seneca and Mozilla happy with what has been produced? | ||
** In particular, do we see early evidence that students, professors and mentors are planning to use these resources in the 2009/2010 academic year? If 'no', is this an issue of promotion or interest? | ** In particular, do we see early evidence that students, professors and mentors are planning to use these resources in the 2009/2010 academic year? If 'no', is this an issue of promotion or interest? | ||
* Do we have the materials and people in place to have a successful first course at URJC? | * Do we have the materials and people in place to have a successful first course at URJC? Are students registered? | ||
* Did people participate in first Mozilla community courses? Did the participating Mozilla projects get useful outcomes? If 'no', do we need to improve our approach or kill this idea? | * Did people participate in first Mozilla community courses? Did the participating Mozilla projects get useful outcomes? If 'no', do we need to improve our approach or kill this idea? | ||
* Are we starting to see traffic and use on the EMO site? If 'no', does this indicate a lack of interest or a need for improvements? | * Are we starting to see traffic and use on the EMO site? If 'no', does this indicate a lack of interest or a need for improvements? | ||
| Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
** state of participation in #seneca, Seneca wiki, etc., by non-Seneca students and faculty | ** state of participation in #seneca, Seneca wiki, etc., by non-Seneca students and faculty | ||
** state of development of packaged course material for "Real World Mozilla", etc. | ** state of development of packaged course material for "Real World Mozilla", etc. | ||
* | * Develop content and recruit students for Mozilla Technology course, making sure it's ready to go live in Q3. | ||
* Deliver at least one Mozilla community courses, ideally more. | * Deliver at least one Mozilla community courses, ideally more. | ||
* Evaluate the usefulness of the EMO prototype (e.g., based on traffic, content, comparison with related sites) and plan how it might evolve. In particular: should it remain a simple portal or take on other functions? | * Evaluate the usefulness of the EMO prototype (e.g., based on traffic, content, comparison with related sites) and plan how it might evolve. In particular: should it remain a simple portal or take on other functions? | ||
| Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
'''End of quarter check points''' | '''End of quarter check points''' | ||
* | * Do we see actual courses or individual student projects starting up with Seneca-resources? If 'yes', do we have the capacity to handle them? If 'no', assess why and adjust future plans accordingly. | ||
* Is the pace of Mozilla community courses meeting the needs of the potential audience? What do we need more of? Less of? | * Is the pace of Mozilla community courses meeting the needs of the potential audience? What do we need more of? Less of? | ||
* How useful is the new EMO functionality? | * How useful is the new EMO functionality? | ||
| Line 248: | Line 247: | ||
'''End of quarter check points''' | '''End of quarter check points''' | ||
* | * Did the URJC Mozilla Technology course generate good learning outcomes for participants? Was URJC happy with outcomes? Did we produce re-usable course materials? If 'yes' on most, consider second phase. If 'no', question whether worthwhile to do again. | ||
* Do any major tweaks need to be made to the Mozilla community courses for 2009? Should we bring all instructor duties inhouse (as part-time or full-time staff)? | * Do any major tweaks need to be made to the Mozilla community courses for 2009? Should we bring all instructor duties inhouse (as part-time or full-time staff)? | ||
* Is EMO important enough to evolve into a "first-class object" (e.g., comparable to SUMO, QMO, AMO, MDC) during 2009? | * Is EMO important enough to evolve into a "first-class object" (e.g., comparable to SUMO, QMO, AMO, MDC) during 2009? | ||
* What is our overall assessment of Mozilla Education activities in 2009? What are the answers to our core design and thesis questions? In 2010, should we expand, evolve our experiments or kill the program? | |||
'''Activities''' | '''Activities''' | ||