On 1/27/06, Robert Kraemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Hoffman wrote: > > I've been working on a set of slides that explain how we're modeling > > curriculum and assessment in SchoolTool. This reflects the work that > > Stephan Richter and I have done in conjunction with Paul Carduner and > > the CanDo team. We feel that we've got an underlying model that > > allows both traditional and standards/outcomes/competency based > > assessment to share a common foundation. > > > > Nothing is cast in stone at this point, and your feedback is welcome. > > Good work! Compared to version 0.3 particularly the introduction of > 'evidence' and 'activity' objects is a benefit. > > Somehow I do not feel quite comfortable with the term 'activity', since > activity is more used in the context of learning / teaching activity. A more > precise term in German would probably be 'Leistung' which may be translated > as 'accomplishment' or something synonymous (knowing that there will always > be discussion on terms.).
To me, it was a toss-up between activity and assignment. Regardless, we can easily change what terminology is used in the user interface. > Referring to Mike's posting the relationship between requirement and > evaluation/activity needs not only to be one-to-many but many-to-many as it > seems rather theoretical that in competency tracking a given requirement is > linked just to a single activity or its evaluation respectively and vice > versa. I agree that one-to-one will only get us so far, but I think it will get us through the next year, and the additional complexity of one-to-many and many-to-many, particularly in terms of user interface, makes me believe we need to the simplest thing that could possibly work initially. The biggest challenge in creating SchoolTool is not getting so bogged down in covering all possibilites that we never actually release a product. --Tom _______________________________________________ Schooltool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schooltool.org/mailman/listinfo/schooltool
