It’s been a while since I last posted here and there are actually two reasons for that. First, I’ve got a really heavy workload and it’s going to remain so for a while. What is most upsetting, I haven’t got enough time for doing the Python course, but I’m certainly going to make up for it as soon as possible. Second, we were busy organising and then participating in the first Russian-language experimental data-expedition, or data-MOOC. And this is the experience I want to share here as well, because it was extremely inspiring and rather instructive. Besides, it’s about p2p-learning, which is one of the subjects of this blog.
While writing this account I was using the model provided in the account of the School of Data/P2PU’s MOOC.
Now, some overview
- This project was inspired by participating in Data-MOOC organised by School of Data and P2PU in April-May 2013. Also, I must say that the blog of the Python MOOC has been really helpful and instructive.
- The project was based on p2p-learning principles and a mechanical MOOC model. For the sake of brevity and attractiveness, we used the term ‘data-expedition’ (экспедиция данных, дата-экспедиция) to describe it.
- It was a week long: from July 22 to July 28.
- Its declared objective was to learn how to look for datasets online. To focus the task, we suggested a topic, which was collecting data about universities all over the world. So, unlike the School of Data’s Data-MOOC, it wasn’t supposed to reproduce the complete data-processing cycle, but rather to perform its first stage.
- The project was organised by Irina Radchenko and myself as part our larger informal project Datadrivenjournalism.ru. Within the Expedition, we acted both as the support team and participants.
- The goal of this Expedition was twofold. First, we wanted to see if this format works in the local environment. Second, well, I personally wanted to learn more about how to search for data.
- We announced the upcoming data-expedition ten days before the start and by the beginning 20 people submitted for participation. Which was actually more than we expected.
- Participation was absolutely free and open and no special skills were required.
- The participants’ main communication platform was a Google group set as a forum (with a possibility to turn on the mailing option).
- Our main collaboration tool was Google Docs.
- This expedition heavily relied on collaboration and p2p initiative. It had no prescribed plan or step-by-step tasks, apart from the initially formulated one. So the organisational messages were first and foremost aimed at facilitating people’s communication and introducing into the specific of the format.
As expected, they are twofold.
- 3 visualisations
- 1 data-scraping tutorial for beginners
- A collective Google Doc with a list of sources
- 2 surveys (preliminary and final)
- The participants’ exchange documented on the Google group’s forum
- The set of collective Google Docs
As to the participants’ results, here are some links:
- Map of Russian state universities based on the data published by Russian Ministry of Education and Science (Google Maps)
- Same made in Many Eyes
- Map of universities around the globe (Google Fusion Tables)
- Data-scraping walkthrough for beginners (in Russian)
But in this post, I’ll focus on some highlights of the process.
1. Speaking of the organisation, our main target was to help people get involved in cooperation and boost activity. To this end, we started introducing people into the format a few days before the expedition began. Judging by the previous experience, the lack of confidence and the uncertainty about where to start and what to do is one of the barriers to be overcome. In order to facilitate cooperation, we published consequently a number of organisational messages:
- Introduction to the objective of the expedition (explaining why searching for data is an important skill)
- Introduction to the format of ‘expedition’ (or a mechanical MOOC) with some tips on what to do and how to react
- List of tools for online-collaboration (and invitation to contribute participants’ own ideas)
- Invitation for the participants to introduce themselves (several possible key-points of introduction were suggested)
By the beginning of the expedition the participants knew each other’s names and how to address each other; they also knew each other’s area of expertise. Moreover, they started communicating before the expedition officially began.
2. Some figures:
- 20 people joined the expedition group
- 10 people filled the pre-face survey
- 6 people actively communicated at the forum during the whole expedition
- 7 people filled the final survey
3. During the whole period of the Expedition, including the unofficial preliminary/introductory part (which began on 17 July), 124 messages were sent via the forum. Of course there were instances of bilateral communication, but we couldn’t register them for obvious reasons. Here’s the distribution of the forum activity (with the peak in the middle of expedition).
4. The atmosphere of the communication was friendly and relaxed. The participants actively discussed each other’s initiatives and provided encouraging feedback.
Here are some facts about the participants (based on the pre-face survey):
Figures can be found here.
- People got interested in the project and willingly joined
- The participants demonstrated friendly and careful attitude to each other
- The core of the group (6 people) were active during the whole period of the expedition
- All the respondents in the final survey expressed their intention to participate in following expeditions
- Most of the respondents in the final survey expressed their intention to complete the projects they started in the course of expedition, but failed to finish due to the lack of time
- Obviously, the output of the project wasn’t confined to the declared objective. On the one hand, it’s natural: people learn are free to learn what they want to learn. On the other hand, the absence of a more precise schedule made some participants feel uncomfortable. From which we conclude that a more concentrated approach is needed.
- All the respondents in the final survey said they didn’t have enough time to compete what they wanted. At the same time, most of them admitted that the terms were adequate to the task.
- Most of the respondents felt some discomfort because of the lack of a coordinator or instructor and also said they didn’t always understand what and how they should do.
In the final survey, we asked how we could make the process more efficient and here’s the summary of the ideas:
- More precise schedule of our activity would be good (like breaking the whole expedition period into specific phases)
- Coordinator is needed
- Some instruments for encouraging shy and unconfident participants would be helpful
- It might be better if the output of the whole project is formulated more precisely
- The topic should probably be narrower
- Longer expedition terms would make it easier for self-organisation
We are totally going to continue our experiments with this format. In the future, we are going to try something like:
- One-day intensive online expeditions with fixed roles and distributed responsibilities
- Long term (several weeks’ long) expeditions with a coordinator (constant or elected for a certain term)
- Workshop-expeditions: online massive projects lead by a volunteer instructor or mentor willing to share their skills
- Expeditions based on the Data-MOOC scheme (with pre-planned tasks)
We are also going to develop a method to register participants’ achievements, even small ones, in order to encourage further efforts.
Also, we feel the need to create a way to proudly present major achievements. Here we should consider the experience of creating badge systems.
Well, that’s it for now. It was really cool! And there’s quite a bit of work ahead too!
The Russian version of this account can be found here.