1,774
edits
Changes
m
→Roadmap
* 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?
* 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?
* 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?
** 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.
* Evaluate progress on the Develop content and recruit students for Mozilla Technology course and its readiness for going , making sure it's ready to go live in Q3.
* 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?
'''End of quarter check points'''
* Have all Do we see actual courses or individual student projects starting up with Seneca-related issues identified the earlier review been addressed going into the 2008-2009 academic yearresources?* What worked with If 'yes', do we have the URJC Mozilla Technology course, and should be repeated for subsequent coursescapacity to handle them? What needs to be changedIf 'no', assess why and how? What is the logical next step for URJC and Mozilla?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?
* How useful is the new EMO functionality?
'''End of quarter check points'''
* Seneca: See above.* What further is needed from Did the URJC Mozilla and Technology course generate good learning outcomes for participants? Was URJC to achieve Senecahappy with outcomes? Did we produce re-like successusable course materials? Are there any quick wins? What needs If 'yes' on most, consider second phase. If 'no', question whether worthwhile to be done in order to achieve a significant step up in activity for 2009?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)?
* 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'''
