Anonymous user
Community Data Science Workshops (Fall 2014)/Reflections: Difference between revisions
Community Data Science Workshops (Fall 2014)/Reflections (view source)
Revision as of 02:28, 24 December 2014
, 9 years ago→Structure
(added structure) |
imported>Mako |
||
Line 10:
== Structure ==
The [[Community Data Science Workshops (Fall 2014)]] consisted of [[Community Data Science Workshops (Fall 2014)#Schedule|four sessions]]:
* '''Session 0 (Friday November 7th)''': [[Community Data Science Workshops (Fall 2014)#Session 0 (Friday November 7th Evening 6-9pm)|Setup and Programming Practice]]
* '''Session 1 (Saturday November 8th)''': [[Community Data Science Workshops (Fall 2014)#Session 1 (Saturday November 8th)|Introduction to Python]]
* '''Session 2 (Saturday November 15th)''': [[Community Data Science Workshops (Fall 2014)#Session 2 (Saturday November 3rd)|Building data sets using web APIs]]
* '''Session 3 (Saturday November 22nd)''': [[Community Data Science Workshops (Fall 2014)# Session 3 (Saturday November 22nd)|Data analysis and visualization]]
Our organization and the curriculum for Sessions 0 and 1 were borrowed from the [http://bostonpythonworkshop.com/ Boston Python Workshop] (BPW): Session 0 was a three hour evening session to install software. The other sessions were all day-long session (10am to 4pm) sessions broken up into the following schedule:
* '''Morning, 10am-noon''': A 2 hour lecture
* '''Lunch, noon-1pm'''
* '''Afternoon, 1pm-3:30pm''': Practice working on projects in 3 breakout sessions
* '''Wrap-up, 3:30pm-4pm''': Wrap-up, next steps, and upcoming opportunities
We had 12 mentors volunteer initially although more joined as the event progressed.
We had about 150 participants apply to attend the sessions. We selected on programming skill (to ensure that all attendees were complete beginners), enthusiasm, and randomly to maintain a learner to mentor ratio of between 4 and 5. We admitted just over 50 participants.
Our feeling was that nearly every student who came to the first week (Sessions 0 and 1) came to Session 2. Retention between the second two sessions was much worse with perhaps only 60% of the full group returning for Session 3. We attribute this rentention to poor timing (the weekend before finals at UW which affected many students) and to the long space between the sessions.
We collected detailed feedback from users at three points using the following Google forms (these are copies):
* [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1gPmgZvOxfE0KVRkb_ySgTqNvCaa4Rl8PYUY9u-NVwTE/viewform Application to the workshop]
* [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1FGASnZLA3V13JTuJg5LF0fVvrUX9quKYc95yeEATzHY/viewform After Session 1]
* [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1UhEU3aWKSuLpfBgR8CZcW8JrdgNRDj6FuT8yAqFCFmE/viewform After Session 2]
We used this feedback to both evaluate what worked well and what did not and to get a sense of what students wanted to learn in the next session and which afternoon sessions they might find interesting. We did not collect feedback after the final session but we should have.
== Unprocessed ==
'''
Scheduling the next workshop''': Not too close to the end of the quarter.
| |||