From:
dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 3:13 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] Tutorials at Eclipse Con
Hi Doug,
I do not like the idea of a "just talking" VLT.
I think that from whatever people go to on the "tutorial day",
they should have
something
to take home with them. In other words, even if it's a
short (2 hour) tutorial, people should
be able to pick up an example project as well as setup
instructions, that allows them to
experiment with the stuff on their own (in their freetime at
EclipseCon, or later at home).
IMHO it's not
so important to do the actual hands-on exercises right in class, but to get
help getting started with setup and an initial project.
I agree that this hasn't been very effective last year, mostly
because speakers typically
distributed their examples in last minute. Having an USB stick
handed out in class
worked OK, but it typically took half an hour or so until everybody
had the examples
on their laptops, and even longer until things were really set up.
So I think the key part
in making tutorials more productive, will be to ask speakers
prepare their material
well in advance and encourage participants to
download examples BEFORE they
enter the tutorial.
When this is done, I think that
* A 2-hour tutorial (aka VLT) would be sufficient to get
participants set up with their
example projects, and walk through the examples
together. In other words, people
would not write code on their own, but watch the
presenters write or explain the
examples. They would typically not have time to
do their own local experiments.
In practice, last year several 4-hour tutorials
were set up like this [but too long
for such a sort of "interactive
presentation".
A 2-hour tutorial should have one 15-minute
break in the middle, in which people
can either get some refreshment or ask
presenters for help setting up their
workspaces. The ultimate goal of a 2-hour tutorial would be
that people get
some feeling for the technology, and (if they
want) get a workspace set up
themselves.
* A 4-hour tutorial should follow the same basic outline as
a 2-hour tutorial but have
3 15-minute breaks for setup help, asking
questions or getting refreshment. It would
allow to cover more technical aspects and
details, optionally allow participants to
do a little bit of coding their own (this
worked truly well in the EMF workshop last
year).
The goal
of a 4-hour tutorial would be that people get a workspace set up,
and understand the core APIs of some
technology.
* In a full day workshop, I think the goal should be that
participants not only get
set up, but get some help specific to their
particular needs. In other words, they
should be able to do some coding their own;
they should be able to ask questions
regarding their needs in their current project.
They should be able to experiment
with examples and try their own side-tracks
(assisted by the presenters). I guess
that whoever goes to a Hands-on Workshop should
acutally use what they have
learned in their daily work later on.
Note that according to this description, a
Hands-on Workshop would actually make
sense for plain beginners or users too (not only
add-in providers), explaining JDT or
PDE features from a user's perspective
... perhaps a hands-on workshop / beginners
class for plugin writers would really
be well received.
The goal
of a HOW would be that people get everything they need to use the
technology themselves in their own projects.
The main background of these thoughts is that the core value of a
tutorial is to get
started with something. After this initial hurdle is taken, it's
always much easier to
explore the help system etc.
The difference between a tutorial and a long talk would still be
that the tutorial digs
into the technology and allows people to actually use it, while the
talk would be
more of a presentation. Therefore, I'd still call the 2-hour thing
tutorial rather than
VLT.
HTH,
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:34 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] Tutorials at Eclipse Con
Here’s the email thread that I talked about on today’s PMC call.
In summary, tutorials become:
Very Long Talks (2 Hours; 3 per day)
Hands On Workshops (all day; 1 per day)
So DSDP can have 3 VLT’s or 1 HOW.
From our discussion today, I think we agreed that VLT’s would
suit the projects better.
From: eclipse.org-pmc-leads-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-pmc-leads-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff,
Doug
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:12 PM
To: Richard Gronback; Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Cc: John Graham; Scott Rosenbaum; eclipse.org-pmc-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eclipse.org-pmc-leads] RE: Suggestion for tutorials
The conversion is as follows: 2 tutorials = 3 VLT’s or 1
HOW
I think each track lead should survey the projects that fall
into their track to figure out what would suit them better.
From: Richard Gronback
[mailto:richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:22 PM
To: Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Cc: Gaff, Doug; eclipse.org-pmc-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx; Ed Merks; Scott
Rosenbaum; Tim Wagner; John Graham
Subject: Re: Suggestion for tutorials
I like the explicit distinction between
hands-on and “just talking” with this approach, which is as important to the
presenters as it is the attendees when selecting.
I also think it fits well with the concept of multi-project/track mash-ups, as
they would require longer talks and/or day-long tutorials to do well. If
we’re going to do this, we’ll need to adjust our current allocations to make
room. Volunteers?
Who else is in favor of this approach, and which tracks would like to divide
their tutorial allocation along these lines? Attached is an updated
spreadsheet.
Thanks,
Rich
On 7/27/06 11:49 AM, "Bjorn Freeman-Benson" <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
There
are no logistics constraints on tutorial length.
The hands-on tutorials have not been a big success at EclipseCon in the past
few years for a few reasons: (1) some people don't have laptops (I can't
imagine why you would go to a hands-on tutorial without a laptop, but there it
is); (2) the exercises tend to be too hard to do in a short time (basically,
it's very hard to design small informative coding lessons against the huge
Eclipse APIs); (3) many of the attendees are at the wrong knowledge level to do
the exercises effectively. (Note that there have been successful hands-on
tutorials so these are not 100%.)
So I like this idea. In fact, maybe we should change the tutorials to two
kinds: Very Long Talks (2 Hours; 3 per day) and Hands On Workshops (all day; 1
per day). The HOW could then be smaller and have sufficient time to really do a
programming exercise. The HOW would be sort of a plug-in clinic about one
specific topic.
Richard Gronback wrote:
Re:
Suggestion for tutorials Hi Doug,
I don’t think it’s a bad idea, although I personally feel tutorials should
be hands-on and not just a long(er) talk. In reality, not all who attend
tutorials come prepared to actually do hands-on activities, which is
unfortunate.
>From last year’s feedback (http://www.eclipsecon.org/2006/SurveyResults/report.html),
<http://www.eclipsecon.org/2006/SurveyResults/report.html%29,>
it’s not quite clear what the general consensus is, so I’d be interested in
hearing feedback from others on this as well. I’m sure there are some
logistical aspects Bjorn can enlighten us about.
--
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215
