Strengths
An evaluative report similar to the one planned has been produced from last year. Feedback from the Client was positive, and she requested even more coded information about judging comments in the format I had delivered. We are familiar with each other and believe in the merits of informal learning platforms like the Hackathon. The event grows each year and is popular, so there is little need to advertise for participants, although there will be marketing & communications to increase visibility of the event.
Weaknesses
Student:Last year report was initially the wrong version – I had sent an incomplete document. And during the Project Pitch my computer went blank even though it was fully charged and I had had internet connection in the lobby of Dreese Labs just moments before. Fortunately I had a paper copy of the PowerPoint presentation and had run through the highlights of what I wanted to say. These were technical difficulties that didn’t harm last year’s review, but were flags that I want to avoid this year.
Client: The venue of the event, Ohio Union, has limitations with hands-on activities available to participants (for instance, no soldering is allowed – this limits production of DIY circuit boards and hardware creation). The Union also presents security issues due to their lock-down policies, and these policies were mentioned in some of the surveys as detrimental to the experience.
Opportunities
Coding more of the open-ended survey questions such as, “If you were in charge of next year’s Hackathon, what would you do differently? What would you do the same?”, and insert a question about reasons for not participating in the judging portion of the event. Attendance at more meetings will be possible, due to my more-open schedule this semester.
Threats
As with all technology, some possibility exists for tech failure, either with my surveys or with connectivity during the event,which could prevent or discourage participants from taking the time to fill out their thoughts.