Re: Course List Requirements Review

Hi Howard,

We have included it in the open questions to further discuss this collaboration.

And yes, just your response is fine, this thread is also sent to public-eo-archive, so your feedback is already logged.


Thanks again,

Letícia

________________________________
From: Howard Kramer <howard.kramer@colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 9:21:49 PM
To: Letícia Seixas Pereira
Cc: Carlos Duarte; public-eo-archive@w3.org
Subject: Re: Course List Requirements Review

Sorry for the delayed response. This all looks fine to me.

I think I might add it as an open issue (item 4) just to keep it on the radar.

Is this reply all that's required? Or is there an online form or something that needs filling out?

-Howard
________________________________
From: Letícia Seixas Pereira <lspereira@fc.ul.pt>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:36 PM
To: Howard Kramer <howard.kramer@colorado.edu>
Cc: Carlos Duarte <caduarte@campus.ul.pt>; public-eo-archive@w3.org <public-eo-archive@w3.org>
Subject: Course List Requirements Review


Dear Howard,

Thank you very much for your feedback on the survey on the Course List Requirements.
Carlos (in cc) and I went through your comments and made a few changes in the document in order to better address some of them.
We also have further remarks on a few topics that you have brought up:


Audience
1. What about faculty looking to build their own course on accessibility or incorporate it into their existing courses? I suppose it's included in 'Formal education providers' but that seemed to be departments and programs, not individual faculty.
We consider that this scenario (faculty looking to build their own courses) is representative of the audience for the WAI Curricula resources (https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Curricula), as it addresses more specifically learning objectives, teaching materials, proposed teaching, assessment methods, and other aspects. Nevertheless, as you state, faculty looking to build/update their courses are represented as part of “Formal education providers” doing “market research to compare their offering with other offerings”.

Resources
2. I thought it weird that 'courses' themselves seemed implied as a resource instead of stated as the number 1 resource. The first resource item is 'List of education, training, and certification offerings, including:'. Courses are mentioned in the next sentence. Is there a way to reword resource 1 to emphasize that the main resource here is 'courses?' Maybe change 'offerings' to 'courses' in the text I quoted above.
(Partially agreed) As this resource aims to be as comprehensive as possible, we decided on using the term “offer” to represent all different types of content that may be addressed in this list. We also consider the term “courses” as being comprised within “education and training offerings”. We further modified this section in order to better emphasize this aspect.

Approach
3. Is 'Degree/Qualification' the degree it leads to? Qualification combined with degree is confusing. Qualification to take the course? Should that be prerequisite? Perhaps a field for non-credit, undergrad, graduate?
(Agreed) Modified the term “Degree/Qualification” to “Degree/Certification”. Included a new category (Prerequisites) and updated the entry for Course type to show examples of possible course types.


Open issues
4. Not sure if this falls under an open issue but Teach Access has a database of course resources - i.e. lessons, exercises, syllabi, course descriptions, etc. (see https://www.uduc.org/find-or-contribute-a-resource/). Seems like there's some potential for collaboration. I think the individuals working on this project should consult this resource to see if it might be useful. I'm a member of Teach Access so could introduce you to the key players in maintaining the resource. (FYI - I designed and maintain the interface on the UDUC site).
It is a great resource and we will certainly consider it in further activities, in particular for the first phase of our approach (Explore existing criteria for describing offers). We could further explore potential approaches for collaboration. Do you think we need to explicitly add this as an open issue?

Additional Comments
5. This is a much needed resource. I could also see it as a resource for faculty and other interested parties from campuses to argue for the need for including accessibility topics and programs by showing that it is a growing field. (Maybe include this as another audience).
We consider that this scenario is already covered in the established audiences, by having “market research” as part of all classes of providers.


Let us know if you have any further comments or thoughts and thanks once again for your input.

Best,
Letícia Seixas Pereira