Closed Bug 891526 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago

Document list of tags for teaching kits on webmaker.org

Categories

(Webmaker Graveyard :: General, defect)

Product:
Webmaker Graveyard
Component:
General
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: matt, Assigned: laura)

References

(
URL
)

Details

(Whiteboard: [mentor] [teaching kits])

* Goal: tie these tags directly to our Web Literacy Standard. So that in addition to helping to sort teaching kits, they also help tell a story about what we think is worth knowing about digital literacy * @ Doug: we understand you're shipping in two weeks. a) How stable is the current version? is anything likely to change over the next two weeks? b) And is this still the right place to pull from? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Learning/WebLiteracies * @ Laura: let's document this here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Teaching-kit-tags
Assignee: nobody → laura
I'm thinking we should use the competencies, NOT the skills. Skills are too granular for this tagging, we'd have tags out the ying. Competencies are listed here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Learning/WebLiteracyStandard/CompetencyDescriptors (@Matt, I think you can trash that etherpad. It's pulling from the legacy Web Literacy page)
Great idea, Matt. :-) I agree with Laura - start with the competencies and then use the skills if it makes sense to later on. The competencies are stable for the beta release. They may change (slightly) for v1.0 release at MozFest.
@Doug - Great idea? When I told you about this a couple weeks ago, you were all "not yet!!!" :P Re: Cassie in bug 888272 - we should be using this bug to track ALL the tags we need. First stab: Competency tags listed here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Learning/WebLiteracyStandard/CompetencyDescriptors How long it takes tags: <30 min 30 min to 1.5 hr 1.5 hr+ What is the setup / Audience tags: entire group small groups individual materials (hrm) tags: online offline
* Ok thanks guys * @ Cassie: I have updated the tags here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Teaching-kit-tags * Question: do we think these are effective from a user point of view?
Not sure I understand your question about effectiveness from user POV? These are community defined, and in aligning with the WebLitStd we should be using common nomenclature.
Summary: Document list of skill tags for teaching kits on webmaker.org → Document list of tags for teaching kits on webmaker.org
* It's a question for Cassie from a webmaker.org user experience point of view. * These obviously work from a web literacy standard point of view. But just want to make sure they work for this new purpose we're proposing for them: as a way to tag, search and filter resources on webmaker.org
@Laura: Ah, but I've slept several times since then. And things have changed in the WebLitStd landscape, and, and... ;-) @Matt: Not sure *everything* needs to be tagged just for the sake of it. Let's be choosy. :-)
* ok sounds good! please feel free to suggest edits directly to the etherpad.
Yeah I think these tags are right on track. My hopes are that this central list is what your team uses to disseminate advice to other mentors for tagging their makes appropriately. This will ensure you can easily find what people are making and highlight it appropriately in the site. It's also a good way to establish search conventions, so we can further extend the discoverability (in a meaningful way) for content throughout the site. I've mentioned before, Search is going to become increasingly important to the UX of webmaker.org, and good tagging (and other metadata) will be central to good search. At the very least, we should be strict about using these tags consistently internally, to be a leading examples for all other users. :) We will need to bear in mind that there will likely be lots of variations of these tags, given there's always another way to say something. Users will abbreviate, sometimes use an s, sometimes use other cognates. Might spell three vs. use the number 3. Not sure there is a lot of that we can do about this at the moment, besides pay close attention to how users tag their kits (despite all our best efforts), and adjust our methods accordingly. Perhaps there will be a way down the line for us to automate tags, but that is not imminent. FYI, Cade is investigating how/if we can allow users to tag multi-word phrases, and with potentially strange punctuation. This is happening in bug 890323, if you want to follow along.
You're response makes me (again) wonder if we should have any content type tags. OER land there are zillions of potential tags (cheatsheet, rubrics, assessment, standards, STEM, activity, reading, discussion guide, case study, game, full course, syllabi... I could go on). Shall we make the decision to just tag by competency and hope Mentors can find what they're looking for by searching titles and descriptions? We can always revisit this later when competency isn't enough, right?
We could start with only adding WebLitStd tags to those that are featured content? That would give us a chance to review, build a more rigorous approach, etc.?
That sounds like a good approach, Doug. I actually think tagging by content type in addition to competency is good, but I'd pare down that list and structure it so that it all fits neatly into a list that users will understand at first glance. Ie. if a user asks themselves, "What type of content am I creating?" they will be able to find a clear answer within your list. Granted, these content tags should not conflict with the two overarching categories of "kit" and "activity".
* +1 to Doug's suggestion to be more rigorous about recommended content. Consistent tagging can be a main feature of the curation / editorial process. * I'm in favor of keeping the "content type" tags to a minimum. Let's not over-engineer. Keep it simple. :)
* Let's have one tagging system for all. Instead of a separate one for kits vs. activities.
OK, so from a *process* point of view, I'm happy to have a weekly half-hour tagging call so that we start off with some consistency. What do people think? :-)
* Ok so is this list now up to date and where we want it? We need to get this done: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Teaching-kit-tags * @ Doug: not sure we really need a regular call. Let's just take a first pass at translating your standards into skill tags. We can go with whatever you think works best. Then iterate as we go.
@Doug - Matt means competencies into tags ;) I think this tag list is in the right place. We may have to tag single words (e.g "Collaboration" instead of "Sharing and Collaborating"), at least until bug 890323 is resolved. Doug, perhaps you and I should arrange that 30 minute call to determine which tags we should place on each of the 10 launch kits? Kits are in active development, but we should be able to attach the tags anyway (basic content won't change too much) https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Teaching-kit-tags Circle up on Monday?
I've left some comments in pink in the etherpad.
* I've tried to address some of Cassie's comments. * Doug and Laura: can you take next pass?
* After reviewing the pad some more, got me thinking: * Do we really need to include "audience size" and "time required" as tags in this iteration? * Potential reasons to leave them out for now: 1) put emphasis where it matters: on our alignment with the Web Literacy Standard. 2) simplify. Simplify our taxonomy. add complexity later as its needed. 3) gather more user data. do testing and see what and how users really want to search these. not sure we actually know much about that yet. * So I guess I'm floating that as a proposal: Laura and Cassie: what do you think about leaving "audience size" and "time required" out of this iteration?
I like the simplifications you added to the tagging doc. Personally, I'm all for filling in metadata that will make the content for searchable/discoverable. Alignment to the Web Lit Standard is an important piece of curating awesome, appropriate content, but at first it may not mean a whole lot to users who are looking for something specific, and I err on the side of serving users.
Cassie, Matt - Lines 6 to 29. I have saved a revision and reverted. Doug, other staff, the WebLitStd community of educators, orgs and *actual people* have been discussing this nomenclature for MONTHS. The "ing"s, the formulations (though probably not the "&" signs) – they have very real, serious reasoning for choosing the *exact* wording they did. Reasoning is well documented. Despite your wish for simplicity, we need to NOT change these. On #3 We can leave "audience" and "duration" out for this iteration. However: How exactly are we going to do user testing here? How do we tell how people are searching? Do we have a system in place for this?
* @ Laura: ok. I removed some ampersands but left the list as is. * re: leaving out "audience" and "duration" as tags for now -- cool with that if Cassie is. * re: user testing. great question! I know Cassie already has some plans there -- Cassie let us know if there's other tickets we can follow there.
So I 100% agree that we should keep the existing competencies as tags. Let's not change them. :-)
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Component: Community → General
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.