Posts

Final Numbers

Survey Results - Entry & Exit
As of November 7, 2018

Entry Survey –  181

Exit Survey – 124

While the survey response rate isn’t what I had hoped for,  respondents had offered several informative comments that will help inform Julia and her team. Most important was the response to judging at the event,  with several direct answers from the question about judging;  in addition, there were comments about judging in the sections that invited general thoughts about the event.

This year I had added a feature preventing “ballot box stuffing” – so all survey responses were original this year.  While I have no reason to think that last year’s responses were duplicates,  the possibility was there.

Update:  New Numbers as of November 10:

A chart with results of the Exit & Entry Surveys - Nov. 10

Post- Hackathon Data Issue

Very low response rate is the immediate concern now that the Hackathon is over.  The Entry Survey was distributed on Friday before the event,  and we had a pretty good immediate response,  thinking that more would come in later.  But the responses are stuck at 105.

A few days before the event,  the student lead of the sustainability committee quit, but did so in a very responsible way,  with assurances that another student would take over and distribute the surveys.  That student has been helpful,  but in the beginning we have had differing opinions on when to send out the Exit Survey.  I had initially thought that while students were waiting for judging would be a good time to send the email or announce the Survey,  but I eventually agreed that an “Exit” survey means that you could respond after you have exited the event. And I have incorporated some suggestions which may have complicated sending out the email, perhaps contributing to the delay.

Now,  with only 16 responses 2 days after the event, I feel we need to send out another email soon so I can begin work on the coding, sorting, gathering and curating of data.   If no email is sent by tonight,  I’ll ask my Client (Julia) or Danny (a key stakeholder and Hackathon advisor) what should be done.

UPDATE:  Just received an email that the updated survey message goes out tonight October 30 …

UPDATE:  Just received an email that the updated survey message goes out tonight October 31  …

Hackathon Week!

The Week is finally here!  Tonight is the last pre-Hackathon meeting and I am planning on handing off the Surveys for anonymous distribution, preferably with a QR code, but that decision is final with the Sustainability Committee.  There have been several changes (see Oct 10 post) and I have added a few restrictions, like the ballot-box-stuffing restriction feature; response recording after one week; and respondents’ ability to go back and change a response.

We meet Friday – Sunday to move materials to and from the Union – this I have never done.  And I’ll be on my own this year for the opportunistic interviews and observations.  Last year we thought we could catch participants at certain times,  but rooms were empty and judging was going on,  so we missed a few opportunities.  This year I will know when to be there for face-to-face data gathering. Looking forward to “beginning the end” of this project. It will go very very quickly post-event!

Changes to Survey Questions

Man's hand checking boxes on paper

Did you come with a Team?

Did you consult with a Mentor?

These questions were improved by adding skip logic to their answers, which re-directed the respondent to an appropriate location. The improved questions offered “Yes/No” answers, which allowed for a skip to a follow-up question based on the response. Danny Dotson offered great suggestions on how to tweak those questions – he’s a key stakeholder in the HackOHI/O events and has been on the organizing committee with Julia (my Client) since the inception of the Hackathon.

 

HackOHI/O Meeting #2

Julia brought her 7-month-old daughter Alana Jane to the meeting and so I got to hold her and keep her busy so Julia could be there for the group.  Not much “insight-gathering”,  but the main meeting notes are available for me to look at and review.

First HackOHI/O meeting

A toy Lego character sitting on a samsung device with a tool

Last Thursday, September 13, an all-committee Hack OHI/O meeting was held in the 18th Ave Library.  I presented a little background on what was done last year,  which surveys were coming for this year, and handed out the coded 2017 Question #10 from the Exit Survey, including last year’s surveys, to team leaders (here’s the link to the Word document:  2017 Coding Q#10 Suggestions for Next Year’s Hackathon-1r4he0i)

There are about 12 teams:  Logistics; Registration; Marketing; Promotions/Communications;Community Engagement; Sponsor Engagement; Web Team; Mentorship; Project Resources & Hardware; Showcase (awards ceremony); Sustainability and, loosely,  help during the event.

The teams are student-led,  mostly CSE students. Dan Dotson from OSU Libraries was present. He has been with the hackathon since its inception.

 

SWOT Analysis of this project

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.

What is a Hackathon?

Shape of Ohio with the words Hack OHI/O on the image

A hackathon usually lasts for 24 hours or more.  It’s a group that meets for the purpose of creating something. The energy, creativity and sustained concentration that is generated when like-minded people pursue their own projects in an intense atmosphere makes for an event like no other.  The genesis of Ohio State’s event is described below:

The OHI/O program was created in 2013 with the goal of fostering a tech culture at Ohio State and its surrounding communities. The program has created Ohio State’s first hackathon, as well as spin-off events including the hardware-focused Makeathon, ultimately providing students the opportunity to learn and build with real technologies outside of the classroom. OHI/O is a student driven, self-sustaining platform that now runs Ohio’s largest hackathon, bringing together over 700+ students from various schools nationwide with the support of over 20 industry partners.” – Dr. Arnab Nandi, Retrieved from: https://www.flickr.com/people/hackohio/

An energetic HackOHI/O video from 2016 can be found here. Danny Dotson provided a youtube channel with several descriptive videos here.

An article on the Computer Science & Engineering (CSE) website about the 2013 hackathon can be read here.

 

Reference:

Nandi, A., & Mandernach, M. (2016, February). Hackathons as an informal learning platform. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 346-351). ACM.

 

MOU Completed August 9 – Reflection

Initial Reflection

After solving some technical issues regarding pdf signatures,  Julia helpfully sent her signature in 2 formats –  here is the final document and here is the Rubric from ESLTECH 7289.

This MOU was completed during the summer, well before the ESLTECH 7289 Practicum course was opened.  Nevertheless, it is surprising that the document was pretty thorough,  and addressed most of the concerns of the MOU in the MLT Practicum course.  For instance, the MOU identifies the Project Outcomes as “Deliverables” on the page 2.  There were few disagreements – the only slight modification was to a comment I made during the kickoff meeting with Dr. Correia and Julia.  I had suggested a change to the wording in Entry Survey Question # 6, “Did you come wanting to be inspired?”,  and Julia gently suggested keeping the wording as is.  Another similarity between the guidelines in the course and working with the actual document is that  MOU needs to accomodate some changes.  For instance, since I am  graduating in December, the final deliverable needs to be completed way ahead of when I thought it needed to be done back in the summer.  I will complete the report in about two weeks instead of having more than several months to do so.  And finally,  the most challenging part of getting the MOU completed was the initial confusion with signatures.  A pdf didn’t allow for Julia to easily sign – and so she signed several versions.  The final document above looked the best. An additional feature was that all 3 of us signed using different fonts,  so the website contains this version.

MOU Reflection – October

    Q. Does your MOU effectively/clearly address all project outcomes? What feedback did you receive? Did you agree with it? How did you go about settling agreements/disputes?       A. I feel that the MOU addresses the ways to obtain the project’s main outcomes (called “goals”  in the MOU), two of which are for the Client and one of which is for me the MLT student. Project goals for the Client include creating a Report offering insights into the Hackathon and curating good/bad comments.  The broad project goal for me is discerning whether my practicum experience reflects that I have learned how to become a learning technologies professional. To address this last goal,  I have created a survey for the Client that asks questions about my performance in a professional capacity.
    Q. Is your MOU realistic for the semester’s timeframe? Do you feel like it is over/under ambitious? Why?  A. The timeframe was very generous,  since some footwork was completed last year, so I had time to include different methods of approaching the report – theoretical grounding in lit review studies, some questions changes and a section on recommendations for future hackathon study topics.
    Q. Had you thought of each of these MOU’s stipulations beforehand? When drafting the MOU, did you encounter any considerations you never thought about before?   A.Yes, some of the considerations in the MOU Rubric were not addressed (examples: my responsibility to consider accessibility and intellectual property issues).
    Q. What was the most challenging part of the MOU drafting process? Why?   A. The physical signing by all participants took longer than anticipated,  and caused additional emails due to technological difficulties.