Saturday, November 27, 2021
Saturday, November 20, 2021
Saturday, November 13, 2021
Weekly Sporto bookmarks (weekly)
-
5 easy ways to make your data visualization more accessible — storytelling with data
-
Links | Usability & Web Accessibility
"Link Text It’s most important for link text to make sense without the surrounding sentences or content. The link text alone should convey the function and purpose of the link. Link text should also be unique and easy to speak out loud. Consider these guidelines when writing link text: Avoid link text like “Click Here,” “More,” and “Read More.” These kinds of links can be confusing when a screen reader reads them out of context. Use unique link text where possible. Speech recognition software users may have a bad experience with duplicated link text. It is OK to link a full sentence, but avoid longer. Use judgment when linking full URLs. When linking a URL, consider users who must speak it out loud and who must listen to a screen reader announce it. Fallbacks Occasionally, it may not be possible to make link text alone convey the link’s purpose out of context. In those cases, a few fallback strategies are available: The link together with the surrounding sentence, paragraph, or list item should be enough to convey a link’s meaning or purpose. You may give more context through the link’s title attribute. These approaches create a worse experience for users with disabilities, so they should a last resort."
-
Defining micro-credentials: Opportunities and challenges in shaping the educational landscape
Saturday, October 23, 2021
Weekly Sporto bookmarks (weekly)
-
Do we need a theory for blended learning? | Tony Bates
- asynchronous online learning has generally reflected a more constructivist approach.
-
-
AUTOMATIC READABILITY CHECKER, a Free Readability Formula Consensus Calculator
Saturday, October 16, 2021
Saturday, October 9, 2021
Weekly Sporto bookmarks (weekly)
-
Use point-biserial to discriminate high and low performers | GradeHub
- Point-biserial helps instructors know what makes a good or bad test question, and is essential for faculty developing exams for large class sections. The deciding factor between a good or bad test question is its ability to “discriminate” students who have mastered the material from those who have not. The key is to look at who is getting the item correct and who is getting it wrong. If only the high performing students are getting a question correct, it might be an indicator that the item is too hard.
- One of the most accepted ways to evaluate an item is to calculate a correlation. The technical term for the correlation used in exam item analysis is a point-biserial.
- A high point-biserial reflects the fact that the item is doing a good job of discriminating your high-performing students from your low-performing students.
- Values for point-biserial range from -1.00 to 1.00. Values of 0.15 or higher mean that the item is performing well
- Items with incorrect keys will show point-biserials close to or below zero.
- Point-biserials that are negative signal a big problem. With this pattern, the high-performing students are getting the answer wrong, and the low and/or mid performing students are getting it right
-
-
Digital Accessibility Foundations - Free Online Course | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) | W3C
Saturday, September 25, 2021
Saturday, September 18, 2021
Saturday, September 4, 2021
Saturday, August 28, 2021
Weekly Sporto bookmarks (weekly)
-
Open Badge eCredentials for Extended Enterprise Learning | Littoraly Don
- It comes with a twist, focusing not on employee development, but on partner development in the value chain, with the goal of measurably improving customer satisfaction and sales growth.
-
-
- initially designed to recognise informal learning, Open Badges have been used efficiently by the enemies of informal learning and Open Recognition. If we do not pay attention, Open Badges could become the weapons of mass destruction of informal learning!
- Open Badges are overtly used to submit informal learning to the codes and rules of formal learning and, in doing so, destroy the very soul of informal learning.
- On our view, recent government attempts to try to formalise informal learning suggests an almost obsessive distrust of the role of judgement through agency
- The sub-text is that there is no recognition, at least, no valuable recognition, if not performed by or within an authoritative institution — school, college, university, employer, public authority, etc.
- Open Badges were designed to support the formal recognition of informal learning. They were never designed to address the informal recognition of informal learning.
- the actual place of informal recognition in those projects remains principally ancillary to formal recognition
- If institutions of formal education love badges, it is not so much because they are the instruments of innovation and transformation, but because they allow them to continue business as usual while pretending to do something new
- Another critical issue is that, before their invention, there was a clear separation between the formal and the informal spaces, and informal meant a sense of freedom and independence, at least not being under the scrutiny of institutions of formal education.
-
-
Towards an Ethical Framework for Open Recognition | by Serge Ravet | Open Recognition | Medium
-
Kirkpatrick and Open Badges: Can do better! | by Serge Ravet | Medium
-
Competency Badges: the tail wagging the dog? | by Serge Ravet | Medium
-
Learning Futures – Reflections on Learning, Technologies, Identities and Trust
-
Full article: Wikipedia and open recognition: writing the future of work
-
All about Open Badges – Open Badge Info : Tout savoir sur les Open Badges
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)