Summary of discussion - for scoping and plan

Jump to: navigation, search

If we decide to make the material usable by both vet nursing and human biology students it will be necessary to decide:

  • whether we want both to be at the same level
  • what level that is
  • whether there is a clear core of material common to both
  • what additional material is required for each
  • is it possible to make the material relevant for other levels by including add-ons

My feeling at moment is all these things are possible but doing anything that takes us away from the core A and P material as it stands in WikiBooks will require considerably more input in terms of negotiation over content and writing that content. This will mean including consultation with others involved in the delivery of human biology and from my point of view will mean I have to devote a lot more time than I have available at the moment.

RLawson (talk)18:01, 17 May 2008

My personal sense is to avoid the temptation of "mission drift"

This core text was designed for vet nursing -- so why not build and add value to a solid foundation for the intended audience.

It is always possible at a later stage to take a small representative sample or subsection to explore the implications (technical, academic and otherwise) of recontextualising for human A & P.

What do you think?

Mackiwg (talk)18:09, 17 May 2008

I do like the term "mission drift". I would feel much happier building on what we have and know and then when we know what we are doing and what works and what doesn't then moving it out into other subject areas.

RLawson (talk)18:16, 17 May 2008

Ruth,

I think that's a good call.

What do others think?

W

Mackiwg (talk)18:19, 17 May 2008

I'm all for what's going to be 'doable'. Ruth, you're probably the one with the best sense of how much work is really involved. I think your idea to focus on development of the work you have specifically done for animal A and P is the 'most doable' option and as you say, Wayne, we can look at what it takes to recontextualise later. We should hold it in mind as we go. --Fiona 03:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FSpence (talk)15:25, 27 May 2008