On 13 June 2012 17:37, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 June 2012 17:11, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
It might
be worth talking to potential accreditors earlier rather than
later in the process (although not having already spoken to them two
days in is forgiveable!). One thing you'll need to agree with them in
the learning objectives, and they should be worked out before you get
too far with producing content.
So getting into more detail: what I'm proposing to do for WMUK myself
includes four "baseline" tasks. One of those I didn't mention as a
subproject, but it is the step of taking the baseline list of topics
and rendering it into a baseline list of specifications of modules. So
the spec here will be a standardised "what you will learn" at least.
Technically you'd work with separate "aims" and "objectives",
and
having been told by a Board member that "objectives" should be at
least potentially measurable, getting that deep at the baseline stage
might be too much. I think I have to work out version control and
categorisation of modules before knowing everything about what to do
here. Spec might just mean a sensible two-category system first.
I suspect there might be some confusion here caused by there being two
different meanings of "objective" that are relevant to this project.
Kind of a red herring, but no need for mystery. At the workshop I
prepared the presentation on "talk page etiquette" with Doug Taylor
and we gave it jointly. Doug is immensely experienced in all this
stuff: he said "measurable objectives", whatever the trainer-trainer
had said. So ours were signing, colon indents, and ability to create
new section on talk pages. And, yeah, you can count contributions of
those types. Shame I skimped on saying out loud while we were
presenting what exactly the objectives were, but I did say we had
three (I think) (getting to this sort of detail you need a video).
Charles