[00:00:27] While also thinking about how they find out about how they find the next skill they take. [00:01:17] So, you're going to have to use your imagination and see what happens given the skills and paths we have developed so far. I think there are lots of ways editors can go through our skills. [00:02:07] I dont think there is any way for us to answer the "How will they find the next skill they have" easily [00:02:24] *Without actually looking at editors [00:02:48] You're right, it's not going to be a definitive answer, but we need to see what is available to them based on what we've laid out. [00:03:05] And what will those options be? [00:04:47] From my perspective, the options primarily come from the "leads to" suggestions we've made, and the recommended prerequisites. [00:05:43] Another good thing about doing this is to make sure we are making the right suggestions and that the prereq's we've set up make sense. [00:05:51] I see. [00:06:31] Those two ways are the primary ways the Co-op is going to communicate with the learner. [00:07:46] Editors who don't have a specified goal may not be heading to anything specific, but they may want to progress through the program, as you've said. The question is, what might that look like given the system we have right now? [00:09:03] This exercise will also help us figure out what set of lessons are going to be important to do in the beginning for new editors, for instance. [00:09:51] So, I know you can't edit the sheet, so let me send you a copy of this directly... [00:10:00] Alright. Makes sense. [00:12:21] tos - Okay, sent. [00:12:56] So, I'll be working on the other two, which are more specific as to the end-goal. [00:13:43] And for the more experienced editor, I'll need to specify what skills they know already and that will change how the lesson path starts. [00:17:22] tos - And with that, I think that's enough for today. : ) [00:17:37] We've been at it for about five hours now! [00:17:53] A little over that, actually. [00:19:55] I think we'll tackle profiles later on this week. Thanks a lot for being available today. [00:21:26] tos - What days this week work well for you to meet? I'm a little busy on 7/8 and 7/12. [00:26:04] I have to run to go to dinner, actually. Let me know about your availability when you have a chance. Take care, Soni! [05:05:30] I_Jethrobot|food, Really sorry to keep you hanging there, I ended up falling asleep :/ [05:07:01] I'll really keep in mind to let you know if I cant continue on the work rather than risk overdoing like today [05:09:14] Also, I'm mostly available throughout the week. So feel free to choose a date you prefer and I'll be adjusting. [16:03:24] user136 - Gabe? [16:06:13] Hooray! [16:06:14] ok [16:06:54] glad I got that sorted out! ahha [16:06:54] Hey, so sorry about the inconvenience of using IRC, but since these chats are logged, they are helpful to refer back to. [16:07:04] no problem [16:07:15] (Also, so I don't have to keep notes while we chat for once.) [16:07:25] haha I see [16:07:52] im pulling up the measures document now [16:08:29] Sure-- I've been focused on skills stuff since our last meeting, but I'll be doing measures / question building today and tomorrow. [16:08:54] Great. So our goal for today is to establish high level RQs [16:09:38] Yeah, I think that's a good end point for today. [16:09:50] I'm also looking at our original proposal... [16:10:43] I think that some of the headings I used in the document could be used as a start for thinking about the high level questions [16:10:59] e.g. Mentor, Motivation, etc [16:12:08] Im going to start a new document [16:12:27] Agreed, I think some general questions can be directed at those ideas. [16:12:33] Yeah, I think that's good. [16:13:01] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_JfQ0AtBaJXY-gttbIcO4513YGZvoSDIDWEncZFSzoo/edit [16:14:20] So one basic question on my mind is whether the co-op can improve upon aspects of previous mentorship projects (or not). [16:14:51] are there particular baselines you have in mind? [16:15:15] I'm thinking time to match [16:15:22] or time to complete [16:15:22] Yeah. In the proposal, we discuss the wait time. [16:15:24] Correct. [16:16:38] But there are a number of other things as well, like the amount of time spent actually doing mentorship, or how productive an editor is during or after mentorship. [16:17:55] A lot of this is definitely more on the quantitative side, but given that we are trying to interview existing mentees, I figure there are qualitative approaches to this question. [16:18:47] absolutely. qual will give us the "why" for many of these questions [16:19:22] we can rework the questions in the doc into formal RQ later. for now I'm just getting the broad intent behind what we are interested in [16:19:53] leaving them open to quan or qual approach [16:20:28] Got it. [16:21:40] I think another broad question, which you addressed under Learners, is about what prompts editors to seek support. [16:22:25] Or perhaps even mentorship, specifically. [16:24:32] right. so I have that as "signs up for Coop" [16:25:15] treating it as a moment [16:25:29] fun exercise actually [16:25:30] And I think your further point about "what keeps them coming back" is an excellent extension of that. [16:26:25] (I am actually going to start drafting our questions, though we can change them for sure) [16:29:41] I think these are the two key questions [16:29:48] as you have written them at the top of the document [16:30:11] perhaps a question that addresses motivation and retention of mentors [16:30:21] Right. [16:31:07] I was actually thinking we would have something on outcomes specifically, but I think could be a part of "how does the Co-Op improve upon existing projects" question. [16:31:14] that could* [16:33:19] Right [16:33:39] I think we begin with How does it change newcomer behavior [16:34:01] I see...yeah, I think a question aimed at new editors and editing behavior is helpful though. [16:34:13] and from the data we gather there we can answer how the Coop has different outcomes from other projects [16:35:16] although we also need data on the experience of mentors to answer the first question [16:35:51] Right. [16:35:53] actually the third question might address that [16:37:23] I like the four questions we have right now [16:37:51] All of those lend themselves to a solid mixed methods appraoch [16:38:37] Sure, I think some of these questions inform each other, but they are distinctive enough in focus that we should treat them somewhat separately. [16:38:48] agreed [16:38:53] And yes, I agree. This seems like an solid set of questions we can start to answer with this pilot. [16:39:38] So I think we can now move to the subset of still broad questions for learners and mentors [16:39:58] OK. [16:40:12] and break them up by the four broad questions [16:41:11] before we move on [16:41:35] Let's add a header for each broad question under learners then, hang on... [16:41:35] do we want to frame question four as "improve" or as " how ar ethe outcomes different [16:42:45] ok that works [16:45:15] That's a good question... [16:45:46] I think that we want to see changes first and we can come to conclusions about improvement in the analysis [16:46:14] well... [16:46:27] this is my exploratory research side coming out [16:46:28] haha [16:46:37] i realize that we could hypothesize improvement [16:46:57] The phrasing you suggested definitely has the benefit of being more neutral, of course. : ) [16:46:59] which we can do once we drill down to specific questions [16:49:26] what do you think of the change I made [16:50:44] Sure, I think that's fine. : ) [16:51:55] I think it's probably OK either way really. [16:52:46] From the improvement side, I think we've made some effort to identify gaps and problems with existing mentorship, so I think we are justified in putting all our chips on the improvement end of things. [16:53:09] right [16:53:12] good point [16:53:43] But you are right that we are taking a different approach, and I think this new phrasing highlights why that is important. [16:53:52] haha [16:54:09] Ah, I see you just changed it back. : ) [16:54:16] I changed it back. we can leave it for now. it communicates the same idea [16:54:25] OK. [16:54:29] wondering where to fit mentor assessment [16:57:05] we could ask what learners think of their mentors under the question about their return to the program [16:58:51] Yeah, I think that'd be possible. [16:59:14] We would want to get feedback on their impressions of the teaching relationship. [16:59:18] but I am struggling with where to fit some of the broader UX questions [17:00:18] I suppose much of the UX questions can come out in the data related to question 1 [17:02:31] Or perhaps it can come out of question 4 [17:02:31] I think perhaps we need a top-level question that captures that. [17:02:55] in that we are interested in how the UX compares to what we see in other programs [17:03:06] so 4 takes on a catch-all [17:03:26] That's true. Do you think we'll be able to make comparisons for the UX questions you want to ask? [17:03:29] that takes us back to 4 being neutral :-) [17:03:43] Yeah, I was just about to suggest that. : ) [17:05:04] To an extent I think we can get to many of the UX questions under 4. going back to the gdoc to take a look [17:08:13] Hah-- when I read "Trusting the Co-op", it felt a little like "Trusting Big Brother." : ) [17:08:22] haha [17:09:47] But we'll have to tread carefully about guiding people through the lessons. I think it could actually feel a little bit like Big Brother if we use the wrong approach with recommendations and all that. [17:10:19] right. and that is a question we want to ask regarding subsequent participation [17:12:20] I have to leave right now but I will come back to this later today. I can email you when I have finished organizing this doc [17:13:09] No problem Gabe. [17:13:25] Thanks for helping to get this started. [17:14:34] thanks for your help! [17:14:49] still not sure what to do with assessment by mentor... [17:15:13] anyway. great start. ill email you later