Education area minutes
16.06.06

Budva, 09:30

Participants: L3S (Jörg), FU Berlin (Elena), OU (Enrico, Martin), U. Mannheim (Heiner), U. Einhoven (Lora), U. Alcala de Henares (Sinuye)

1. Discussion of the agenda
2. Topic Status of the deliverables 
Jörg gives an overview of the current state of the deliverables
3. Topic: EASE foundation: agenda and participants.
Enrico M. requests details on the next steps after the event in Budva
Heiner might also join the foundation and is interested in finding out details about Ease.

4. REASE evaluation (with the help of Lora, Diana): preparation of a user study, completion of the task by the end of the year.

Two approaches to evaluation (evaluation of the usability of the materials, Lora; usability of the tool, taxonomy etc. Enrico M.)

Lora: metrics and criteria to design the evaluation framework. 

Martin: tool usability does not make much sense as we use an existing platform. Discussion the criteria and the difference between resource evaluation and tool evaluation. 

Enrico M. emphasizes the difficulties associated to this task and suggests we should try minimizing the efforts involved in this activity.

Lora will use the repository in Einhoven. She suggests universities should recommend students to use it, and to collect feedback from students. OU and Lora will collaborate with Jörg in this activity.

Lora: small tutorial on REASE for the students required

Jörg suggests Martin to create a short demo video demonstrating the functionality of the repository. Martin argues that such videos bias the respondents. 

Lora: what is the core functionality of the repository: recommendations, search, categorization as the three main feature. Create questionnaire of 15 questions, 5 for each of the 3 features.  Two versions of the questionnaire, for two groups: students and teachers.  Further suggestion: measure time spent for performing specific tasks.


Summer school: use the PhD stundents as user study for rease

5. Phd symposium: students should be given time (5 months) for the submission to the symposium. extra mail gender issue. extra mail about the award. evaluation of the event