Re: On sentence "Topics to support the teaching sequence"

Hi Daniel

You're right, I hadn't considered the possible ambiguity of the word "develop" in the context of this particular curriculum. Though if we're looking at standard language for all curricula, it may be less of an issue for other curricula that don't include the word stem "develop" in their titles? 

But I agree we should think more about the most appropriate verb to use, and as I don't immediately have another suggestion to make right now, it makes sense to consider it for discussion next meeting.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Montalvo <dmontalvo@w3.org>
Date: Tuesday, 22 December 2020 at 09:09
To: David Sloan <dsloan@paciellogroup.com>
Cc: "shadi+eosurvey@w3.org" <shadi+eosurvey@w3.org>, "wai-eo-editors@w3.org" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Re: On sentence "Topics to support the teaching sequence"

Hey Dave,

This is really Good point. I have gone through the resource you pointed 
me to. It is true that our topics have the intention of developing the 
learning outcomes that we have at the top level.

However, I am a bit hesitant to use the word “develop” in this context, 
as its primary meaning in our context is more related to coding (which 
is a subset of our learning outcomes) and this could create confusion 
among the readers.

Maybe “topics to extend the learning outcomes” could resolve that 
confusion?

Anyway, happy to discuss in the TF meeting January 5th.

Best.



On 2020-12-18 17:22, David Sloan wrote:
> Hi Daniel
> 
> Good question! I think my problem is that learning outcomes are a
> student focused way of communicating qualities of a curriculum, in
> particular what students should expect to gain from the course (and be
> assessed on). (see for example [1])
> 
> The U. Toronto reference talks about "developing learning outcomes". I
> think this works well as a phrase, as it can apply to the process of
> learning and to the process of designing a learning experience to help
> learners achieve these outcomes.
> 
> So maybe we could use the following?
> 
> "Topics to develop the learning outcomes"
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Dave
> 
> [1] 
> https://teaching.utoronto.ca/teaching-support/course-design/developing-learning-outcomes/what-are-learning-outcomes/

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Montalvo <dmontalvo@w3.org>
> Date: Friday, 18 December 2020 at 12:26
> To: David Sloan <dsloan@paciellogroup.com>, "shadi+eosurvey@w3.org"
> <shadi+eosurvey@w3.org>
> Cc: "wai-eo-editors@w3.org" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
> Subject: On sentence "Topics to support the teaching sequence"
> 
> Hey Dave,
> 
> Thanks for your comments, I will be working on them and bringing
> proposals to our next discussion meeting, which will probably take
> place January 5th in the Task Force.
> 
> Since you raised it before...
> 
> Some responders have concerns with "support the teaching sequence". It
> is true that you can choose to teach these topics in the sequence you
> feel more comfortable with, as long as you teach them within the
> module they belong to. So "sequence" there ends up being a
> controversial thing.
> 
> Most suggest going back to "achieve the learning outcomes" I think
> what distracted you previously was that topics themselves do not
> "achieve the learning outcomes".
> Would you be comfortable with something like?
> 
> "Topics to teach the learning outcomes"?
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> 
> Daniel Montalvo
> 
> Accessibility Education and Training Specialist
> W3C/WAI
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Sloan via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org>
>> Sent: viernes, 18 de diciembre de 2020 12:00
>> To: dsloan@paciellogroup.com; dmontalvo@w3.org; shadi+eosurvey@w3.org
>> Subject: [wbs] response to '[Curricula] Review of changes before 
>> Butterfly Approval'
>> 
>> The following answers have been successfully submitted to '[Curricula] 
>> Review of changes before Butterfly Approval' (Accessibility
>> Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG)) for David Sloan.
>> 
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Introduction
>> >
>> > ----
>> > This is another thorough review survey to discuss changes resulting
>> > from:
>> >      * EOWG Monkey Review survey.
>> >          * Brainstorm for Clarifying curricula titles survey
>> >          * Approval of changes after thorough review Task Force survey
>> >          * EOWG discussion 30 October
>> >          * EOWG discussion 6 November
>> >     Preview with proposed changes is at:
>> >
>> https://deploy-preview-273--wai-curricula.netlify.com/curricula/developer-modules/

>> >
>> >
>> > Main changes include:
>> >      * Rewritten overview page based on requirements analysis for
>> > supporting materials
>> >          * Added Module 7: Rich applications, to better clarify scope
>> > for accessible rich applications
>> >          * Streamlined learning outcomes to better relate to
>> > accessibility requirements
>> >          * Define accessibility related terms such as simple and
>> > complex images and tables consistently throughout the resource
>> >          * Qualify specific situations where several techniques can be
>> > used to provide labels or descriptions, such as alternative texts for
>> > images, table descriptions, or labels for forms and controls
>> >          * Renamed some modules to better reflect their actual content
>> >          * Renamed topics and reorganized their contents to facilitate
>> > teaching sequence
>> >     The following questions will guide you through the most
>> > significant changes. Please provide any specific feedback you have,
>> > especially if you don't agree with the proposed changes.
>> >
>> >
>> Comments:
>> Due to limited time, I focused most of my review attention on Modules 
>> 6 and 7, so my comments for the other modules are from a less
>> thorough review.
>> Overall, I think the additional detail provided for each module has 
>> really enhanced their quality as references for curriculum design.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > General Changes
>> >
>> > ----
>> > The following is a list of general changes affecting the whole resource.
>> >
>> >      * Changed introductory paragraph at the top of each of the
>> > modules from "Courses based on this module:" to "Courses based on this
>> > module should:" Example at Introduction for module 1Rationale: This
>> > clarifies that the below bullets are expected goals or objectives for
>> > the courses and not actual courses that we are listing.
>> >      * Changed order of bullets in the introductory paragraphs for
>> > each of the modulesExample at Introduction for module 1Rationale: New
>> > order better reflects how accessible coding benefits people with disabilities.
>> >      * Changed "summarize" to "recite" when providing sign posting
>> > references to other roles responsibilities in learning
>> > outcomes.Rationale: It better communicates the importance of knowing
>> > such requirements, instead of just summarizing them.
>> >      * Change explanatory sentence at the "topics to teach level":from
>> > "Optional topics to achieve the learning outcomes"to "Topics to
>> > achieve the learning outcomes".Rationale: A specific order or teaching
>> > method is not required, but all topics are recommended for the teaching sequence.
>> >      * Changed idea to assess knowledge for module: "Practical —
>> > Students are guided to use mechanisms that assistive technologies
>> > provide to [...]"
>> >     from "Short answer questions"
>> >     to "Practical",
>> >     Rationale: It better reflects the assessment type.
>> >     Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue on
>> > general changes
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Comments:
>> I support the general changes with one minor exception: I'm not sure 
>> "Recite" is the correct verb to use for the cognitive skill of being 
>> able
>> to remember the responsibilities of other roles. "Recite" specifically 
>> implies reading them aloud from memory. I suggest "Define" or
>> "Identify" as better options.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > [New] Module 7: Rich Applications
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Module 7: Rich Applications has been added to clarify scope for rich
>> > applications, such as Single Page Applications (SPA), and others
>> > generated by JavaScript.
>> > This is a thorough review of this module.
>> > What you're reviewing is everything in the final draft.
>> >  * This is EOWG's pre-publication review, our internal "last call".
>> >  * Review and comment on anything and everything, including
>> > copy-editing as needed.
>> >  * Speak now or forever hold your peace.We hope there will not be any
>> > more new comments after this review.For more details about EOWG's
>> > review process, check Review Stages and Levels Please provide comments
>> > in the below box or open a GitHub issue about module 7
>> >
>> >
>> Comments:
>> Overall, I think this module draft does a very good job of building on 
>> previous modules, without unnecessary overlap.
>> 
>> Minor suggestions:
>> * in Topic: Structure and Relationships, Teaching Ideas for Topic. 
>> Suggest extending the description of the aria-hidden idea to cover the
>> difference between visually hidden, hidden from the accessibility tree 
>> *and focus order*, given that focus management is a distinct thing
>> and something that is not in the accessibility tree could still be 
>> focusable.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Changes in Module 1: Page Structure
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Please have a look at module 1 page structure, specifically focusing
>> > in the following:
>> >  * Changed module and topic titles. Current proposal is:
>> >      * Module 1: Page Structure
>> >        * Topic: Section Headings
>> >        * Topic: Sections of Content
>> >        * Topic: Page Regions
>> >        * Topic: Page Composition
>> >
>> >  * Added or reworded learning outcomes for module.
>> >  * Added and reworded learning outcomes for topics "Section Headings",
>> > "Sections of Content", "Page Regions", and "Page Composition".
>> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
>> >
>> Comments:
>> This looks good to me. One minor suggestion would be to include, 
>> somewhere in Page Regions or Page Composition (or both), the
>> relationship of responsive design to structure and order. The 
>> intention would be to reinforce the idea that visual layout may change 
>> at
>> different viewport sizes, but underlying page composition generally 
>> does not, except when using techniques like menu buttons for nav
>> menus.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Changes in Module 2: Menus
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Please have a look at module 2 Menus specifically focusing on the
>> > following:
>> >  * Changed module and topic titles. Current proposal is:
>> >      * Module 2: Menus
>> >        * Topic: Menu Structure
>> >        * Topic: Menu Styling
>> >        * Topic: Fly-out Menus
>> >        * Topic: Application Menus
>> >
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
>> > knowledge for topics "Menu Structure", "Menu Styling", "Fly-Out Menus"
>> > and "Application Menus".
>> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
>> >
>> Comments:
>> From a quick read, this looks good to me.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Changes in module 3: Images
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Please have a look at module 3 Images specifically focusing on the
>> > following:
>> >  * Changed module and topic titles, as well as reorganized topic
>> > contents. Current proposal is:
>> >      * Module 3: Images
>> >        * Topic: Text Alternatives
>> >        * Topic: Functional Images
>> >        * Topic: Complex Images
>> >
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
>> >  * Content related to images of text moved to topic "Complex Images"
>> > (was previously under topic "Simple Images")
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
>> > knowledge for topics "Text Alternatives", "Functional Images", and
>> > "Complex Images".
>> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
>> >
>> Comments:
>> From a quick read, this looks good to me.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Changes in module 4: Tables
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Please have a look at module 3 Images specifically focusing on the
>> > following:
>> >  * Changed module and topic titles. Current proposal is:
>> >    * Module 4: Tables
>> >        * Topic: Simple Tables
>> >        * Topic: Complex Tables
>> >        * Topic: Table Descriptions
>> >
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
>> > knowledge for topics "Simple Tables", "Complex Tables", and "Table
>> > Descriptions".
>> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
>> >
>> Comments:
>> From a quick read, this looks good to me.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Changes in module 5: Forms
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Please have a look at module 5 Forms specifically focusing on the
>> > following:
>> >  * Changed module and topic titles, as well as reorganized topic
>> > contents. Current proposal is:
>> >    * Module 5: Forms
>> >        * Topic: Controls and Labels
>> >        * Topic: Instructions
>> >        * Topic: Notifications
>> >
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
>> >  * Content moved to topics "Instructions" and "Notifications" (was
>> > previously under topic "Time Limits" now removed).
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
>> > knowledge for topics "Control Labels", "Instructions", and
>> > "Notifications".
>> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
>> >
>> Comments:
>> From a quick read, this looks good to me.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Changes in module 6: Custom Widgets
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Please have a look at module 6 Custom Widgets specifically focusing on
>> > the following:
>> >  * Changed module and topic titles, as well as reorganized topic
>> > contents. Current proposal is:
>> >    * Module 6: Custom Widgets
>> >        * Topic: Role Definitions
>> >        * Topic: Accessible Names and Descriptions
>> >        * Topic: States and Properties
>> >        * Topic: Keyboard and Focus Management
>> >
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
>> >  * Content related to live regions partly moved to topic "States and
>> > Properties", and partly expanded in new module 7, Rich Applications
>> > (was previously under Topic "Live Regions" now removed).
>> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
>> > knowledge for topics "Role Definitions", "Accessible Names and
>> > Descriptions", "States and Properties", and "Keyboard and Focus
>> > Interactions".
>> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
>> >
>> Comments:
>> From a quick read, this looks good to me.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Changes in Developer Modules overview page
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Please have a look at Developer Modules overview page specifically
>> > focusing on overall wording to outline the curricula contents.
>> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
>> >
>> Comments:
>> I have one suggestion for the description at the start of this page, 
>> in the "The curriculum guides the creation of courses that" list:
>> Include something like: "help developers understand the responsibility 
>> of other roles in making accessibility decisions necessary for
>> developers to implement designs in an accessible way."
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Changes in Curricula on Web Accessibility overview page
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Please have a look at Curricula on Web Accessibility page specifically
>> > focusing on the following:
>> >  * Changes in structure resulting from EOWG discussions
>> >  * Overall wording and tone
>> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
>> >
>> Comments:
>> This looks good to me. My only concern to be sure we effectively 
>> communicate that these are module definitions, rather than 
>> ready-to-use
>> teaching materials, so that we manage readers' expectations 
>> appropriately.
>> So I wonder if in the Summary section, we should use the phrase 
>> "teaching module definitions"? I appreciate this issue has likely 
>> already
>> been discussed and a resolution agreed, but I raise this anyway just 
>> in case we still need to consider it.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Additional comments
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Please provide any other additional comments or suggestions you may
>> > want to see addressed before we bring the curriculum back to the whole
>> > EOWG for Butterfly Approval (Approval to publish) survey.
>> >
>> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
>> >
>> Comments:
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> > These answers were last modified on 18 December 2020 at 10:58:17 U.T.C.
>> > by David Sloan
>> >
>> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at 
>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/curricula-review-before-butterfly/

>> until 2020-12-18.
>> 
>>  Regards,
>> 
>>  The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2020 09:51:54 UTC