Talk:Educators care/Defining OER
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Citations | 2 | 10:21, 31 January 2011 |
| Quiz affecting ordering in TOC | 1 | 10:17, 31 January 2011 |
| Definition of OER | 0 | 10:08, 31 January 2011 |
I suggest that we not have both parenthetical in-text citations and a subsequent clickable endnote number for the reference. It seems more than is needed. The clickable endnote code is so user-friendly in WE (unlike flipping back and forth to the end of a book to see what extra bits are available), that I propose doing away with parenthetical in-text references altogether. In addition, being that the purpose of these materials is learning, not communication of scholarly research, we should keep the content as clean as possible.
A consequence of this change will be that in the case where a specific page is part of the citation, it will be in the endnote, and we will not be able to bundle references, being that the page numbers differ. I think keeping the text clean without parenthetical references outweighs this unfortunate consequence.
Thoughts?
Alison
The quiz shows as a level one heading in the TOC, and then everything after that is under this heading. I looked around briefly and tried one option, but didn't find a fix for this.
Also, the TOC on this page is much more deep than on any of the other pages I've looked at, a few of the cc unplugged pages have TOCs showing only level one headings (because no lower level headings exist on the page). Is there a way to constrain TOCs to show only the top level? This would be my suggestion...this doesn't fix the problem with the quiz....just an additional thought while I'm on the topic.
Alison
The page begins with a definition of OER using the def template layout. This gives that particular definition some authority. But the content continues directly following suggesting that defining OER is not so simple. I do think the opening definition offers a good beginning for learners new to OER, but I think it shouldn't be in the def template. I'd present it as a quote (as the later definition is presented), with some brief detail as to its source (e.g., from a report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation).
Alison
