# Carpentry@UiO 2020 report

## Learner Feedback and Continuous Evaluation
### Carpentries survey

In this year, we used the Carpentries pre- and post-workshop survey. Due to the problems described in the next section, we have not yet gotten access to the whole dataset. However, the responses given in 5-likert scale were mostly positive.

On the other hand, the responses written in free text are summarized in "Carpentries-survey-results" Sheet in Carpentry@UiO G Suite shared drive, which is accessible only to board members. If the contents are deemed to be non-person idenfiable, this can be archived in GitHub repository in tsv format.

#### Major strength

Among the 47 responses (in total for all the workshops) on major strength of the workshop, the followings are found as commonly expressed.

- **Access to helpers and responsive instructors** Learners appreciated that their problems were quickly solved by the helpers and instructors.
- **Easy to follow and understand** Clear instructions from basics, good pace, access to written lesson materials are much appreciated.
- **Good lesson materials and hands on style** Practical exersizes with realistic examples well mixed with lectures were raised as a solid strength.

#### What to be improved

From the 36 free-text responses (in total for all the workshops) on something to be improved, the followings are found to be major issues.

- **Time allocation** For example, suggestion for 2 days instead of 1 day, felt the pace is faster in the latter part compared to the time spent on the basic parts in the morning.
- **Preparation** Both for learners and instructors. Lack of preparation should not drain others' (regardless of the role) time.
- **Clearer description of the workshop contents and prerequisites** These are expressed in terms of level o f the workshops and the skills that were necessary for the workshop (such as use of command line interface).

#### How instructors and helpers affected learning experiences

Most of the 36 free-text responses (in total for all the workshops) on how instructors and helpers affected learning experiences, were about **quick and flexible help on troubles learners got**.

Other minor opinions include themes relevant to the **preparation** mentioned above. In online workshops, **effective use of helpers** were raised as a factor that affect learning experiences on both positive and negative side.

### Survey in future
Using the Carpentreis survey was found to have some drawbacks.

1. **Low response rate** The response rates, especially for post-workshop survey, were generally low (mostly less than half).
2. **Limited access to results** When the number of responses is less than 10, the system does not allow downloading result data but only show the summary. Naoe has requested the core team to gather all the responses to the surveys for UiO workshops in 2020, but the data is not yet available.
3. **Not fully applicable/relevant questions** Besides the questions asked are not necessarily very relevant to each workshop, as the workshop by Carpentry@UiO mostly focus on single lesson rather than the 2-day standard workshops.

The board meeting on the 9th December discussed and decided to continue using the Carpentries survey. Instructor onboarding manual is to be edited to make sure that the instructors keep the last 5 minutes for completing the post-workshop survey.

Also, some fundamental questions that the Library is interested in will be implemented in the sign-up form.

## workshops
For the 11 Carpentry workshops arranged by UiO-Carpentry, in total 492 sign-ups were made. Total capacity was 283 and the number of learners who actually attended was in total 187. Due to even more limited access to rooms in addition to reduced capacity of each room at UiO, in-person workshop capacity in Autumn semester was reduced to approximately 1/3 of that of Spring semester before covid-19 related restrictions applied.

## Organization

### Website

Regarding the Carpentry@UiO-relevant webpages within uio.no domain, there were/are the followings:
1. uio.no/carpentry, redirected to [a page under UiO employees' site with various information](https://www.uio.no/english/for-employees/support/research/research-data/training/carpentry/) - to be deleted/edited
2. [A page under UiO employees' site, research data management, along with other things than Carpentries](https://www.uio.no/english/for-employees/support/research/research-data-management/courses/carpentry/) - to be deleted/edited
3. [A page under University of Oslo Library, Courses and Events, Free standing courses](https://www.ub.uio.no/english/courses-events/courses/other/Carpentry/) - edited considerably
4. [Under 3 above, focus on Software Carpentry](https://www.ub.uio.no/english/courses-events/courses/other/Carpentry/software-carpentry/index.html) - deleted
5. [Under 3 above, focus on Data Carpentry](https://www.ub.uio.no/english/courses-events/courses/other/Carpentry/data-carpentry/index.html) - deleted

Based on advices given by the web editor at the Library, the the Carpentries-relevant pages in uio.no domain were set as follows.

#### Workshop page
* Where: https://www.ub.uio.no/english/courses-events/courses/other/Carpentry/
* Focus: Descriptions of typical lessons covered and format of the workshops.
* Structure: Having a sub-directory that contains files that are about each workshop (called "arrangement files").

#### Community page
* Where: https://www.ub.uio.no/english/writing-publishing/dsc/carpentry-uio/index.html
* Focus: Introduction of Carpentry@UiO as a community.
* Structure: Currently a single page under DSC's site. Giving info about who we are, what we are doing, and how to get involved, as well as explanation of the Carpentries.

-----

#### What to be improved

Among the 36 free-text responses (in total for all the workshops) on something to be improved, the followings are major issues with some typical comments. All the results of the free-text responses are stored in

- **Time allocation** For example, suggestion for 2 days instead of 1 day, felt the pace is faster in the latter part compared to the time spent on the basic parts in the morning.

> *not move so fast. we did not have time for everything, but maybe take it over two days instead of 1?* ("Plotting and Programming with Python", January)

> *Could have allocated the time better (went a bit too slow in the morning, a bit too fast after lunch)* ("The Bash Shell", January)

> *a little fast in the second part* ("R for Reproducible Scientific Analysis", October)

> *The material we covered was too much to be covered by one day workshop. So it is better if it could be divided it to at least two days.* ("R for Reproducible Scientific Analysis", October)

> *didnt have time for the most relevant and important part of the course. Sticking to the time would improve the couse drastically even if sacrifyzing some info in the first part* ("Databases and SQL", November)

> *Instructors spent too much time setting up for the people who should have set up in advance.* ("Databases and SQL", November)

- **Preparation** Both for learners and instructors. Lack of preparation should not drain others' (regardless of the role) time.

> *more prepared examples and less typing during the lesson* ("Python (intermediate)", February)

> *Try all the activities beforehand with a group control. Despite we can learn how they solve unexpected problems, they drain a significant time of the workshop.* ("Version Control with Git - Online", May)

> *Instructors spent too much time setting up for the people who should have set up in advance.* ("Databases and SQL", November)

> *not waiting for people to come, ask if people wanted explanation fo the solutions, when one had already seen them*("Databases and SQL", November)

- **Clearer description of the workshop contents and prerequisites**

> *I think the workshop covered a bit abstract topics, instead of focusing in examples that can be more applicable to everyone's work, like for example working with files. I did not think the workshop was a good continuation to the beginner's workshop, since you needed to know a lot more than what was taught at the beginner's workshop.* ("Python (intermediate)", February)

> *it was maybe a bit more basic than I had expected, so it would have been nice to have a clearer status about the level in the invitation* ("Version Control with Git - Online", May)

> *A tiny bit more theroretical background til version control. A bit more explicite about target group. If the course is meant for people who are not even familiar with comandline and editors - make this VERY clear.* ("Version Control with Git - Online", May)