On 13 June 2012 17:37, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 17:11, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@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