Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Training feedback

You can leave a message here to let us know what you thought of the training.

Biolprof (talk)
...This was terrific help! I especially liked that the sample syllabus showed a breakdown of in-class/homework/ milestones. Would be helpful to know how much class time to allot.
 * What I liked:

...all helpful for me. easy to skip stuff that I didn't need.
 * What I didn't like:

...Can't think of anything other than my comment about classtime above. You don't want this to be much longer than it already is or else it will be hard to complete.
 * What was missing:

...Can't think of anything. We profs are all starting at different levels.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Biolprof (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dr LLB
The holistic view. Having done a Wikipedia Education Project before it is nice to see it all laid out like this.
 * What I liked:

Nothing.
 * What I didn't like:

Info on how students link their user accounts to the course page - show the course page.
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Dr LLB 16:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fiupsychology (talk)
Easy to follow presentation style and video tutorials
 * What I liked:

Nothing
 * What I didn't like:

Information on creating a course page
 * What was missing:

Nothing
 * What was unnecessary:

--Fiupsychology (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)fiupsychology

CogPsyProf (talk)
...The videos were particularly helpful. Thank you for those!
 * What I liked:

...See below about lots of time spent on referencing when it did not need to be that way.
 * What I didn't like:

...A heads up that there would be videos to show aspects of putting in references. Other buttons on the editing page were so self-explanatory that one click and they were figured out. I spent a bunch of timing messing up on references and finally went back to the training and found that the videos helped me identify my mistakes (the help pages did not work as well for me).
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--CogPsyProf (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Derosadual (talk)
...
 * What I liked: quick, straightforward

...
 * What I didn't like: the 12 week assignment portion

...
 * What was missing: a little more about the mechanics of creating a course page

...
 * What was unnecessary: the 12 week assignment portion

--Derosadual (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)derosadual

Mgantony (talk)
Simple and well-laid out presentation.
 * What I liked:

Nothing. The training was straight-forward, and there were plenty of folks willing to help me out when I ran into problems.
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Mgantony (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Amy (talk)
...the walk-through for a 12-week syllabus was particularly helpful in understanding how to "stage" a Wikipedia project in a course.
 * What I liked:

...I would have liked some discussion of the pedagogical theories/methods that a Wikipedia project utilizes.
 * What I didn't like:

...I would have appreciated more links to examples/case studies of instructors who did certain things--like exemplary course pages, PDF brochures, case studies.
 * What was missing:

...some of the videos did not seem to offer content beyond what was in the text of the tutorial--a bit repetitive.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Amy (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

PollonApollo (talk)
... The tutorial was very thorough and included several hands on examples. I am a beginner Wikipedian myself, but I gained a much better understanding of both the Wikipedia culture and the skills needed to take part in this fantastic knowledge sharing experiment.
 * What I liked:

...nothing so far!
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--PollonApollo (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Jackson Peebles (talk)
Concise and sufficient for educators.
 * What I liked:

The format of the actual education program could use some revision (i.e. simpler UI), but the training is straightforward.
 * What I didn't like:

Links to more detailed guides.
 * What was missing:

Nothing
 * What was unnecessary:

--Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DrJennyCee (talk)
It is simple, clear, well structured and concise.
 * What I liked:
 * Perhaps what I should also add is that the functionality of the course pages to track student users' edits and contributions on Wikipedia will be immensely valuable and time-saving. That was one of the issues I was scratching my head about: how to keep track of students in cyberspace (for the purposes of the course), without being intrusive. So that element, and the ability to include Courses on my preferences bar, will make a big difference to ways I can maintain ongoing feedback and assessment for students. Thank you so much for that - I breathed a sigh of relief when I found those functions to be there already. DrJennyCee (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I struggle to find the training pages: is there any way this could be more clearly signposted?
 * What I didn't like:
 * Can you elaborate a bit on what you were looking for, in what circumstances?--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. It may be because I am still a fairly new WIkipedian, but sometimes I have to try a couple of times trying out variations of 'training for educators', 'training/educators' etc using the general Wikipedia search. Sometimes I find it, sometimes I don't! So it was incredibly helpful that you posted the link on my talk page - thank you for that! DrJennyCee (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I missed information on setting up a course page in the first round of training I did. Could this be emphasised more clearly from the beginning?
 * What was missing:
 * The info about course pages may not have been there at all when you first did the training. The course page stuff is fairly new (and will be revised again soon).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would explain it! I'm quite happy to be a test guinea-pig to see how it works and how the students respond to it. Some of the information is replicated over from the University's Virtual Learning Environment, but some of it isn't - and in any case, I think replication is generally a good thing so material isn't lost, and so the crossover between VLE material and Wikipedia is more closely developed. DrJennyCee (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What was unnecessary:

As I'm using some elements of the course syllabus, and not others, I'm not sure how useful the setting up of the course pages will be, especially as I'm now part way through the first pilot of the course. However, I'm completely open to the new possibilities that this can bring, and it will be really helpful in giving transparency to the course so that Wikipedians can see what I'm doing (and maybe they'll even want to help!

Thanks very much to Sage Ross for all his help on this. DrJennyCee (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

--DrJennyCee (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ToniSant (talk)
...
 * What I liked: how relatively easy it is to set up a course.


 * What I didn't like: the whole thing is rather North America oriented...I'm based in the UK.
 * Can you expand a bit on what specifically is North America oriented? We built it for the US and Canada initially, but we'd like to make sure it works well for instructors from anywhere.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What was missing: a more flexible course banner, which lacks the date feature on the available prior to the course wizard creation.
 * Thanks for this feedback. The banner now takes a "term" parameter that will show the date, which you can add to the course page wizard template too to make it part of the banner code that appears on the course page. (I added this to all the existing course pages that use the wizard.) It's sort of a stopgap, as we'd like eventually to have a more automatic way of handling these things.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What was unnecessary: the first request for a course description. Seemed redundant when there's another opportunity to fill out course description/details in the course wizard.
 * I take it you mean the course description that you posted with your request for instructor rights at the the education noticeboard? The idea there is that an instructor posts the description at that point to give the Wikipedians reviewing the request enough context to decide whether they're ready to get started or need some feedback about their assignment plans first.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

--ToniSant (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hakeleh (talk)very helpful
... Very helpful tips on the syllabus layout with timelines for having milestones in development of the articles. Very helpful. I'm already in the middle of the semester, but will be able to add some milestones (and will be able to integrate these tips for the next time I use this assignment- in the fall!. Also, very helpful tips on how to find articles.  I'm going to incorporate the student page tracking feature into my existing course page tonight, hopefully.
 * What I liked:

... Haven't thought of anything yet.
 * What I didn't like:

...ditto
 * What was missing:

...ditto I'll let you know if I realize there's something missing, as I know feedback is helpful! --Hakeleh (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What was unnecessary:

Georgiasouthernlynn (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary: Just curious why I don't have instructor rights when I've been involved in this program since 2010.--Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

--Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

RobertK Prods (talk)
I really liked it, it is useful, not intimidating, and it provides useful (and not too many) links to further learning.
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--RobertK Prods (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Gehgoi (talk)
...
 * What I liked: Step-by-step, detailed instructions on Wiki course integration.

...
 * What I didn't like: Nothing

...
 * What was missing: Perhaps an easier way of navigating the course materials without all the clicking through (for repeat users/easy reference). Just found it - nevermind!

...
 * What was unnecessary:Nothing

--Gehgoi (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

melo (talk)
...I've been teaching for 17 years at the college level but was unaware of WP educator capabilities. The orientation gave a good introductory overview.
 * What I liked:

...Nothing
 * What I didn't like:

... Nothing, but since I'm new to WP education I am probably unaware.
 * What was missing:

...Nothing
 * What was unnecessary:

--melo (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Eprugl (talk)
... Very clearly organized. Liked in particular access to sample syllabi and evaluation methods.
 * What I liked:

... It seems all more complicated than I hope. But perhaps that's just a matter of starting ...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Eprugl (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oconnor.ua (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Oconnor.ua (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Csheetz (talk)
quick and painless, no plug in required...
 * What I liked:

nothing...
 * What I didn't like:

still trying to soak it all in, while mulling over my assignment...
 * What was missing:

not sure...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Csheetz (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Equus venaticus (talk)
All very informative.
 * What I liked:

links didn't open in a new tab.
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Equus venaticus (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Pangurban22 (talk)
...
 * What I liked: I really liked the videos, especially the one about creating a course page.

...
 * What I didn't like: I'm not sure it's something I didn't like, but I just feel a little bit overwhelmed with this project, probably because it is new to me.

...
 * What was missing: Maybe more videos? But I think (I hope) it will all make sense as I go along.

...
 * What was unnecessary: Nothing.

--Pangurban22 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Marimfdh (talk)
It was very detailed and very easy to follow. I liked not having a lot of links to distract me.
 * What I liked:

It said it will take from1 to 1 and a half hours! Took me way more !!
 * What I didn't like:

Information for instructors working with classes translating content between languages. Like in my case from English into Arabic. What language should they choose for their course page English or Arabic? Will they be able to move their translations from English Wikipedia to Arabic Wikipedia if that were it will be while they work on it inside their Sandboxes before publishing it. I can't find anything about Course Pages in Arabic Wikipedia.
 * What was missing:

Not sure where exactly but the part on Classroom took very long to complete and seems like it needs some refining to include only the necessary bits. But all in all thank you anyone who contributes to making working with Wikipedia possible for instructors and students.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Marimfdh (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Breamk (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Breamk (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Breamk (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Breamk (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Enstandrew (talk)

 * What I liked:

Very clear flow to the orientation, opportunities to stop and practice segments (username creation; editing; sandbox; links), concise and direct language


 * What I didn't like:

my videos would not play within Wikipedia--had to go to Youtube


 * What was missing:

cant think of anything missing


 * What was unnecessary:

nothing, i found it all helpful! good work!

--Enstandrew (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

AminMDMA
It is useful to see how other educators are using wikipedia editing in coursework. Marguerite seems like a good student.
 * What I liked:

I think it was fine overall-- nothing specifically to critique!
 * What I didn't like:

It would be useful to see some exemplars of grading rubrics.
 * What was missing:

Nothing comes to mind in particular.
 * What was unnecessary:

--AminMDMA 05:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Annekingsley (talk)
...the step by step methodology and information walk through. Very easy to follow.
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

various options for small edit projects (rather than semester long article creations) ...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Annekingsley (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

SnowShine84 (talk)
...
 * What I liked: It was a well structured and informative introduction, with lots of practical tips. Running training classes now seems a lot less intimidating. It's always encouraging to see your progress through an on-line learning guide, so this feature was great. Having the option to get Instructor rights using the template provided, and to set up courses using set-up wizards was really useful.

...
 * What I didn't like: There was some duplication with the other training hand-outs.

...
 * What was missing:It would be good to have more feedback directly from students. Plus links to any research projects that are happening regarding Wikimedia in education.

...
 * What was unnecessary: The case study of the 12 week syllabus plan, as I'd already read the handout and the example didn't add much to it.

--SnowShine84 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Joe (talk)

 * What I liked:
 * Detailed enough to make me feel comfortable.
 * A number of links to help me think through details for the course.
 * The outline that required me to get most of my draft syllabus completed.
 * Methodical step by step instructions that ended with the action item to get the Request for course instructor right


 * What I didn't like:
 * Having to remember to right click links and videos to open a new tab.
 * Having to wait before being able to add my institution and creating the course page.

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Joe (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Profkls (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Profkls (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Knbrennan (talk)
I found the week by week narrative of Professor Ruppel's syllabus very instructive...
 * What I liked:

There wasn't anything I disliked...
 * What I didn't like:

Nothing that I could see...
 * What was missing:

Everything seemed appropriate and necessary. Thanks!!...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Knbrennan (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nnkapoor (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Nnkapoor (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Jdmathewson (talk)
...The case studies were very helpful. It's good to have examples about what other professors have been successful in doing.
 * What I liked:

...I can't tell if some of the passages in the orientation were unclear to me, or if there were some actual typos. I think someone needs to look over the training documents and do some editing
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Jdmathewson (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Zelbinian (talk)
Easy to understand, covered everything necessary.
 * What I liked:

The requesting instructor stuff was confusing. The course I'm going to be instructing for is already set up on Wikipedia, I just want to be added as another instructor and I couldn't figure out how to do that.
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Zelbinian (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

DrX (talk)
Simple, to the point, clear explanations.
 * What I liked:

Nothing.
 * What I didn't like:

I do not know yet. May have to come back to give further feedback.
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--DrX (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr Ashton (talk)
... I liked the whole thing. I've done this before and this covered all of the based I did myself when I taught myself to do this. I especially liked the videos. ... nuthing! ... ibid ... ditto --Dr Ashton (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What I liked:
 * What I didn't like:
 * What was missing:
 * What was unnecessary:

Rmalouf (talk)
Good pointers to resources, like the suggested syllabus and class handouts
 * What I liked:

Too much detail about the syllabus/sample class.
 * What I didn't like:

More about the mechanics of working in the wikipedia ecosystem.
 * What was missing:

Nothing, really.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Rmalouf (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Humanrights4nz (talk)
...Comprehensive. Short and to the point.
 * What I liked:

...It was all useful.
 * What I didn't like:

...There was a reference somewhere (in the Course Page module I think) to students registering their own articles AND pages of other students they critique/comment on. I am unclear whether best practice is that students both contribute their own page and comment on each others' pages. Doing both of these things might be too much work for the size and scale of the particular assignment I have in mind. But perhaps something to add for next time.
 * What was missing:

...It was all useful. Some of it was a refresher as it is a while since I have edited a page. I went a little faster in those sections. But, otherwise good! Thanks.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Humanrights4nz (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ms. G
The training was well written and easy to follow. It does an great job of introducing teachers to Wikipedia and providing references for best practices and examples.
 * What I liked:

There's was nothing I did not like.
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

While the exemplar was a useful example it was not specifically what I am aiming at with my students.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Ms. G 15:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Salubrious Toxin (talk)
Well organized, I could follow at my own pace, appropriate resources
 * What I liked:

Case study might be a little wordy.
 * What I didn't like:

Nothing comes to mind
 * What was missing:

Nothing comes to mind
 * What was unnecessary:

--Salubrious Toxin (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ajete Kosumi (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Ajete Kosumi (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comtebenoit (talk)
Consistent styling with other training, direct and easy to read. Nice to know there are some easy ways of tracking students' contributions using the course pages and custom scripts.
 * What I liked:

nothing
 * What I didn't like:

nothing
 * What was missing:

nothing
 * What was unnecessary:

--Comtebenoit (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

KatieBU (talk)
The material was well organized and clearly presented.
 * What I liked:

I didn't notice if there was a way to stop, save my place and come back. That would have been helpful.
 * What I didn't like:

Nothing.
 * What was missing:

Everything seemed relevant.
 * What was unnecessary:

Thanks. --KatieBU (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)