Talk:Art Appreciation and Techniques/Module 2
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Breaking down into subpages||8||00:30, 1 June 2012|
|Using a quote template||5||08:22, 31 May 2012|
Hi Irwin, Alison
This is coming along rather nicely.
I recommend breaking each "Module" into subpages, ie each of the following as a separate subpage of the Module:
- Description (or overview of the module)
- The Individual Artist
- Becoming an Artist: Training
- Art as Social Activity
Breaking into sub-pages will make it easier to integrate within a learning management system or alternative delivery website, but also create flexibility to embed activities (eg Microblog reflections, self-assessment quizes without the pages getting too long.)
Something else to think about - eg naming conventions of the pages.
I would recommend not using the actual Module number - -eg "Module 2" but rather refer to the name of the Module as the page name - -eg "The artistic process".
This provides greater reuse flexibility -- another course may want to re-use this in a different sequence - -and if we use "Module 2" as the title -- it will reduce this flexibility.
Alison - is the best method just to create the new pages, copy over and then get rid of the old ones? Guessing there's no way just to change the page name/url
It possible to use the move feature in Mediawiki,
But in this instance I would suggest is may be easier just to create the new pages. In the first edit, acknowledging the copyright of the original contributors.
Now is a good time to make the change before history of community edits becomes a challenge.
Hi Wayne and Irwin,
The idea behind these big module 1-8 pages was so I could begin to get a handle on the content. We needed a starting place, and just dumping it all to WE seemed like as good a plan as any. I was thinking we would use these pages for general cleanup and then convert them to a suitable sub-structure (as you suggest). In fact, I posted up a suggestion for the page structure for mod 1, at the beginning of that page.
But you bring up a good point about the history. I hadn't considered that we would lose the history for these when we converted to the subpages. hmmmm.
Would it be reasonable to refrain from any substantive edits on the module pages until we get the structure worked out and the content moved? Another option is for Irwin to decide the substructure, post to the planning page, and then one of us makes the pages for the content, which is then dumped in through the conversion process.
Some other things for consideration:
A style consideration which I began considering a few days ago was whether the subpages should be subbed under the main course page...or made into stand-alone units, as the OCL4Ed modules are. I'm leaning toward recommending the latter, as I think it makes them more useful....other courses can reuse more easily. But on the side of making them true sub pages, others can copy and *adapt*. Probably something for the style guide, once we decide.
Also, we should add to the style guide some guidance on naming. I was wondering if we should include the word Module in the title, eg., Module 2: The Artistic Process
I figured that you were using the big pages to help figure out the structure. Its a good way of working because its easier to visualize the structure that way and save time later down the track.
It is possible to preserve the edit history if you use the export and import page feature. You have admins -- so you can export a page as XML text. Save locally and then edit the target page (new page) in the xml text file before importing again into the wiki. You can set the option to retain edit history. However, that is a time consuming process.
If its only the team members who have added edits -- If Irwin and (other editors) are OK with not having the edit history preserved for the initial edits - it will be quicker just to copy & paste into the new pages. Just remember to acknowledge the copyright of the source in the edit comment when making the first entry.
Jim and I had a chat about the sub-page conventions. Initially I was thinking along the same lines as you -- ie having the Modules in the main namespace and not sub-pages of the course homepage. In the case of AST1000, we opted for having all the course materials as a subpage of the AST1000 page, as we though that the contributing institution would like to retain identity as the original contributor. (This is different from the Saylor course in the sense that that AST1000 was developed by USQ.)
I agree having the Modules in the main wiki space will facilitate greater reuse options and will be fine in my view. We just need to think carefully about the style guidelines -- eg if the contributing institution wishes to retain identity or association with the course, that we then create subpages.
Yes- -we need to provide style guidelines for naming pages. I would recommend that we don't included references to "Module" or numbers in the page titles because in reuse scenarios course may wish to use an alternate sequence. The specific OERu course pages will still be able to use the "Module" label in the pipe for the link -- so I recommend that we don't include numbers or module references in the page titles. Thoughts?
Hi Irwin and Wayne,
I think we should continue our discussions on these topics on the planning page. It's not clear what will happen to these pages as we move forward.
I started two new threads to continue some of what we were discussing here:
I moved the quote on this page to use a cquote template. What do you think? Another option is to use the quotation template, which has a different look. Probably we should pick one and use it consistently for all quotations in the course.
Also, while we are discussing the quote, I think the quote has typos/conversion errors, eg. can' I think should be can't, and seems like the later apostrophe needs a match.
I like the cquote - it's breaks up the page. Anything we can do to avoid long strips of text... And yes there are conversion errors for both single and double quotation marks. This seems to happen when I use the WE export plugin in Open Office (which is how I convert the files). I'm cleaning them up after I find them.
Glad you like it. As to the conversion errors, I wonder if Jim Tittsler is aware of the errors. He has google plus office hours on Thursdays. I think the hangout starts at 5pm est. Might be useful to get his thoughts on the conversion process. If I'm around tomorrow, I'll pop in.
Good point Alison. I'll see if I can make it in there as well. Irwin