Grants talk:IEG/Patterns of Peeragogy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Participatory Action Research in a Venn Diagram.jpg

(PAR) Participatory action research ?[edit]

Participatory action research (PAR) seeks to understand the world by trying to change it, collaboratively and reflectively. An alternative to positivism in science, this long-standing tradition emphasizes principles of collective inquiry and experimentation grounded in experience and social history. Within a PAR process, "communities of inquiry and action evolve and address questions and issues that are significant for those who participate as co-researchers" (Reason and Bradbury, 2008, p. 1). practitioners make a concerted effort to integrate three basic aspects of their work: participation (life in society and democracy), action (engagement with experience and history), and research (soundness in thought and the growth of knowledge) (Chevalier and Buckles, 2013, ch. 1). "Action unites, organically, with research" and collective processes of self-investigation (Rahman, 2008, p. 49). The way each component is actually understood and the relative emphasis it receives varies nonetheless from one PAR theory and practice to another. This means that PAR is not a monolithic body of ideas and methods but rather a pluralistic orientation to knowledge making and social change Chambers, 2008, p. 297; see Allen, 2001; Camic and Joas, 2003; SAS2 Dialogue).

--Fabrizio Terzi (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

SWOT Analysis?[edit]

SWOT en.svg

SWOT Template

--Fabrizio Terzi (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Deadline reminder, and thoughts[edit]

Hi all,

Thanks for the draft so far! Just a reminder that the deadline to propose for this round is 30 September. When you're all ready for review, please let us know by updating the status in your infobox to status=PROPOSED. I've answered your recent questions on another page, hope that helps (and let me know if not).

A couple more suggestions as you're finalizing your draft:

  1. Can you break down your activities a bit more clearly in the activities section? I think if I understand the idea correctly, your core plans would involve doing participant observation research with Wikimedians, incorporating that into the existing handbook, translating the updated handbook into at least 2 languages, and then probably initiating some further discussions...but I'd love to see the actual concrete list of things you'd want to do spelled out in a bit more detail, to be sure. :)
  2. Do you have a plan for how a handbook that incorporates learnings from Wikimedians' practices would have then carry back to have impact on Wikimedia communities? I'm curious to know a bit more about what you envision happens after the handbook is updated...what might you do to encourage its uptake, to spark conversations or learning in practice from it in the Wikimedia community, etc? We're particularly interested in projects that aim to offer some direct improvements or enhancements to the community. It is clear to me how involving more Wikimedians would improve the handbook, but I'd like to see you make the reverse idea (how the handbook gives back to Wikimedians) a bit more explicit in your proposal as well, and give some thought to what you would do during the grant period in order to facilitate that more directly.

Wishing you best of luck with the rest of the draft! Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestions Siko (WMF)!! We will incorporate these into further drafts. --Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
--Thank you Siko (WMF), I would also try to convert the manual in a Audio Wikibook in order to facilitate students with different cognitive needs to find content...-- different format option. --Do you think it might be useful to include it? --Fabrizio Terzi (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

some key details[edit]

Here: [1].

In short: we should have no more than 4 grantees, plus one or more named contractors, plus a pot of funds for bidding is OK, but we need to clarify more about how we'll use it. --Arided (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Visual Peeragogy Team[edit]

I moved these from the top of the page b/c they weren't working with the layout! Maybe another location would be better? I like the video in the side-bar, but couldn't figure out how to give it a frame AND have it float right...

Peeragogy in Action

Arided (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback[edit]

Hi there Peeragogy team! I think this is a compelling project. Here are a few questions for you:

  • Can you briefly address some of the concrete ways that the resources/infrastructure (patterns, tools, etc) generated through this project will be used to support Wikimedia projects and further Wikimedia's strategic priorities? This is covered in general in the "intended impact" section, but perhaps a brief use case or scenario at the head of the proposal would make it even more clear.
  • Can you provide some examples of patterns, and briefly describe what a pattern is and what it's useful for?

Also, I want to make my relationship to this project clear, since I'm mentioned in the proposal. I suggested that Joe apply for an IEG grant. Joe and I met during the last researcher office hours, and subsequently been corresponding about how design patterns can be used to support peer learning and evaluation.I am currently experimenting with incorporating design patterns into Grantmaking Learning & Evaluation. Many of my goals are similar to Joe's and I benefit from his experience, so Joe and I will likely continue to bounce ideas off of each other whether or not this grant proposal receives IEG funding. However, I would not have any role in this particular project if it is funded. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Added an example pattern, and terse summary of what they are in our "tools" section. I'll add a more developed use case -- but for the moment, I'll note that I mentioned to Jmorgan that this use case seems highly reminiscent of and relevant to his role at WMF :-). Arided (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I added a new use-case in the sidebar of the "Sustainability" section. Arided (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2013[edit]

IEG review.png

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 review. Please feel free to ask questions here on the talk page and make changes to your proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 begins on 23 October 2013, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Siko (WMF) (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Community Notifications[edit]

Hi Peeragogy Team: Joseph, Charlie, and Fabrizio
As you know, the IEG committee will begin their review of round 2 proposals on 23 October 2013. To expedite proposal review, I'm looking over the community notifications section of each eligible application. It looks like your Bergamo-Hub notification links to the main page of that site, not to your post itself. Please re-link to your post's present location. Also, your engagement targets include Wikibooks, Wikipedia, Meta, Wikiversity (multiple languages), yet this indicates that only one veteran English WikiBooks and Wikiversity User has been contacted. Please paste links to where those communities have been notified about your proposal. Doing these things will help the committee follow up more easily. Thanks!
Best of luck!
Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Anna Koval (WMF): I think my brain got this project crossed with another proposal where we did more wide notifications. I'm not sure there are other notifications at present. Is it useful to add them at this point? Arided (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Arided, I do think it's useful to add the additional notifications. The committee will appreciate you following up and following through, but more importantly, so will the community. :) --Anna (WMF) 23:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Anna Koval (WMF): Thank you for the helpful suggestion!!! I notified the Wikiversity Colloquium. Did I do that in a way that will help the committee follow up? --Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Charles. :) You're welcome for the suggestion; I'm glad it helped. :) I saw all of your new notifications, and I think it's awesome you did them. They're all right there where the committee can check them. Now we just wait and see what they say. Good luck! :) --Anna (WMF) 23:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi peeragogy Team:-)
@Anna Koval (WMF), community notifications pointed to Bergamo-Hub main page where we can find a direct link to IEGprposal, as Wikipedia Peeragogy Education Program. in fact, the discussion does not take place on the website but face-to-face at the moment .... so I will remove it from the community notifications section. Thanks for point it out . --Fabrizio Terzi (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, Fabrizio Terzi. You might want to leave that notification in your list so that the committee is aware of it, but add a bit of explanation there as you've done here. :) Good luck! --Anna Koval (WMF) 19:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Patterns of Peeragogy[edit]

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background) Score
1=weakest 5=strongest
Potential for impact
(A) The project fits with the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities 3.5
(B) The project has the potential to lead to significant online impact. 3.5
(C) The impact of the project can be sustained after the grant ends. 4
(D) The project has potential to be scaled or adapted for other languages or projects. 4
Ability to execute
(E) The project has demonstrated interest from a community it aims to serve. 3
(F) The project can be completed as scoped within 6 months with the requested funds. 4
(G) The budget is reasonable and an efficient use of funds. 3
(H) The individual(s) proposing the project have the required skills and experience needed to complete it. 4
Fostering innovation and learning
(I) The project has innovative potential to add new strategies and knowledge for solving important issues in the movement. 3.5
(J) The risk involved in the project's size and approach is appropriately balanced with its potential gain in terms of impact. 3
(K) The proposed measures of success are useful for evaluating whether or not the project was successful. 3
(L) The project supports or grows the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. 3
Comments from the committee:
  • Appreciate the proposers' focus, professionalism, talent, honesty, transparency, and enthusiasm.
  • Project is interesting but budget is quite high - would like to see more direct impact on Wikimedia projects for this cost, and more specific focus on Wikimedia-related issues.
  • Perhaps more appropriate for funding via Open Knowledge Foundation, or we might suggest trying for a Wikimedia Project and Events Grant.
  • Hope to see further collaboration between the researchers and the Wikimedia community develop over time.

Thank you for submitting this proposal. The committee is now deliberating based on these scoring results.

Funding decisions will be announced by December 16. — ΛΧΣ21 00:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know User:Hahc21 and thank you to all the reviewers for their feedback. --Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome :) — ΛΧΣ21 18:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Status update[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Comments regarding this decision:
We hope you’ll give serious consideration to the feedback above, and not give up on your idea! Thanks for engaging in the process - we really look forward to seeing ideas from this team in the future.

Next steps:

  1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
  2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
  4. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.