Overarching Project Goal

This project will focus on how to offer insight into the OHI/O 2018 Hackathon through the administration of two surveys, several observations and some opportunistic interviews during the event. Insights will be determined by analysis and synthesis of observations and survey responses, and qualitative coding of some survey response and interviews.

Client Background

My Client is Julia Armstrong.  Julia’s background is diverse – her degrees are in CSE (Computer Science & Engineering), education and music.  It is apparent the student leadership team at OHI/O respect Julia and seek her thoughts and opinions.

Learning Problem

One of Julia’s interests includes informal learning, and a hackathon is a platform for that.  Results of survey questions, observations and interviews with participants will offer insights into the perceived benefits of the Hackathon for participants. One of Julia’s concerns was identifying the reasons why participants may not stay for judging, but more broadly the learning problem for this Practicum project can be described as a lack of insight into the hackathon experience.

Literature Review

My literature review includes several studies on informal learning that will be incorporated into the Client presentation. Various papers that studied aspects of hack events such as social “cause” hackathons,  entrepreneurial hackathons, hacks for innovation and older adult hack events will also be considered as important contributors to understanding the general benefits of this type of event.  But relevant information for the Client will be emphasized and the main learning problem – uncovering insights into the 2018 Hackathon – will take priority.

Learning Problem Solution

Through the two surveys,  my observations and several interviews, I will be able to present a report to Julia that will answer several of her questions – why participants do not stay for judging; what are favorite/least favorite parts of the Hackathon; what level of engagement with mentor and sponsors take place during the event; how team formation occurs (or doesn’t occur); the level of inspiration at the beginning of the event; reasons for attending the event and many other insights.  I will connect existing literature about informal learning platforms with this event and summarize existing literature for Julia (she specifically wants a summary of Warner & Guo 2016, Hack. edu: Examining how college hackathons are perceived by student attendees and non-attendees.).

Assessment of Outcomes

Timeline

Work Breakdown Structure

Project Pitch Reflection

 

Dr. Correia’s LED Research Group had conducted surveys at the 2017 Hackathon, with my lead and Dr. Correia’s guidance. Presentation of that report to the Client was combined with a pitch to do it again for 2018.  Julia was familiar with my style and basically knew what to expect, and the pitch went well. She agreed to let me evaluate the 2018 event.

We talked about some of the changes that would happen this year.  A major change will be the amount of time I’ll have to spend on the 2018 report, because I will be graduating (as all Practicum students will be) and the time frame will be tight.  Julia wanted more insight into why participants do not stay for the judging rounds in the last Hackathon day,  so a question addressing that will be included in the Exit Survey this year.