Talk:OERu/Planning/OERu input evaluation

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Grammar quibbles016:41, 26 July 2015
Feedback on Version 2 of the Input survey216:38, 26 July 2015

Grammar quibbles

Edited by author.
Last edit: 16:40, 26 July 2015

I propose rewording a bit of the introduction:

The survey results will be published in the final evaluation report that will be publicly accessible and some research publications. We will

list institutions who have responded but that aggregated data will be reported.

The survey results will be published in the publicly accessible final report and some research publications. We will list institutions who have responded but only aggregated data will be reported.

Does your institution claims government grant for OERu learners?

Is this a difference in English plural handling? As an American I would have written:

Does your institution claim a government grant for OERu learners? or Does your institution claim government grants for OERu learners?

  • Very likely
  • Likely
  • No
  • Not Sure

No does not parallel the other responses. Unlikely, Very unlikely, or Not at all likely perhaps. (Not Sure is capitalized differently from Very likely)

Jim Tittsler (talk)16:26, 26 July 2015

Feedback on Version 2 of the Input survey

Please download a copy of Survey questions for the Input evaluation (Version 2) Please provide feedback and suggestions for improvement be 31 July 2015.

Mackiwg (talk)18:35, 25 July 2015

I have read through the survey questions, and they are very comprehensive. They may be too comprehensive, in fact. I think a more focused set of questions might help us to get at what it is we are looking for.

In fact, here are my two main questions upon reading through these survey questions:

Is this survey for existing partners, as originally proposed, or is it intended for all types of institutions, as enumerated in question #2? If it is the latter, some of the questions may not make sense--on the BGS, for example, or question #20, about the 2-course contribution. If it's the former, then perhaps it isn't necessary to ask about how we first heard about the OERu. (I actually can't remember the answer to this question.)

What do we mean by "Inputs" in this case? Much of this goes beyond what I had understood this word to mean. My recollection is that we were trying to think about obstacles to participation for institutions. If that is the case, some of these questions are really off-topic, and others could be modified to be more focused on the overall concern. For instance, the section on Open Business Modeals could be reframed along the lines of something like, "would you be interested in learning more about open business models? Is this something the OERu could/should provide?"

This is not to say that these questions are not ones to which we might like the answers. But I think this survey should be more focused and actionable, giving us information upon which we can follow up.

Marcsinger1 (talk)10:55, 26 July 2015

Thanks Marc,

This is valuable feedback. The researcher does not have intimate knowledge of the OERu and we need to guide the project to generate the information we need for this input design phase.

I agree we should focus on actionable items which inform the design and implementation of the OERu. If you get a chance - would you mind listing the question numbers you feel are less important.

Mackiwg (talk)16:38, 26 July 2015