Note: You are currently viewing documentation for Moodle 2.0. Up-to-date documentation for the latest stable version is available here: Metacourse.

Talk:Metacourse: Difference between revisions

From MoodleDocs
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
===Usage===
===Usage===
The phrase "child" course is confusing and even misleading. In scenario 4, the meta courses are the "real" children and the enrollment course is "real parent" course.
The phrase "child" course is confusing and even misleading. In scenario 4, the meta courses are the "real" children and the enrollment course is "real parent" course.
I agree, this, I suggest confuses the basic concept of what is parent and what is child.--[[User:Colin Fraser|Colin Fraser]] 04:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 04:27, 7 January 2010

Intro and Examples

Really like the graphics which helped me (the auto enrolment box). Read the forum thread link and decided to update the intro, with Darren Smith's mantra and include Randy Orwin's example. I like the combination of a generic graphic with a simple example that uses different labels to add additional learning hooks.

I tend to agree with Darren that metacourses may not be the best name (is it hard to change MoodleSpeak such Branch Table) but my goal is about not what it is called but how to explain it. (big grin) I saw that somebody used "program" which might help describe this feature in some but not all examples.

My site administrator wants me to gather information on the direction of groups and groupings and how they interact with metacourses in 1.8 and onward. Especially when they deal with enrolments. My secondary goal is how to simply explain it. Best to all --Chris collman 06:38, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Scenario 3 and 4 are similar in a way. Can they not be clubbed into one scenario?

Usage

The phrase "child" course is confusing and even misleading. In scenario 4, the meta courses are the "real" children and the enrollment course is "real parent" course. I agree, this, I suggest confuses the basic concept of what is parent and what is child.--Colin Fraser 04:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Helen Foster and Bella 23 November 2005 17:44 (WST)

Diagrams

I'm wondering whether adding some color (and/or total student numbers) to these diagrams would help to show that in the first example C contains the sum of all students of the other courses i.e. ten students in each of C1-C4 would mean 40 students in C. While in the second example X students in C means the exact same X students are in C1-C4. --David Scotson 23:20, 14 July 2006 (WST)

Does anyone know why the language in the diagram appears to have changed to chinese? I'm fairly certain it was english at the time I made the above comment, but I can't find any log of changes relating to it --David Scotson 17:30, 31 July 2006 (WST)

The language change is a mystery to me too, anyway the new diagrams are really great! :-) --Helen Foster 19:40, 1 August 2006 (WST)

Page spelling

Metacourses, Meta courses, Meta course? Put a redirect on Meta course which is how they are called in help.--Chris collman 06:26, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Chris - I altered the change you made as it was this sort of minor semantic detail that had me confused before. The main course from which enrolments are inherited in the example is not a metacourse, but the ones that inherit from it are. Hope you agree :) Matt Gibson 04:27, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
Hi Chris, as it's called meta course (two words) in Moodle, I think this page should be named the same. Thanks for pointing this out :-) --Helen Foster 08:51, 8 September 2008 (CDT)

Feb 09: The referent for 'new course' and 'the course' was a little confusing in the sentence:

In order to re-link the child course, navigate to the new course and select the link "Child Courses" from the "Administration" block on the main course page and re-link the course to its parent.

where I think they mean, Navigate to the new Metacourse (not a new child course). . . . re-link each child course selected back to this new metacourse (the parent). This would clear it up at least for me but maybe I'm the only one who was confused by the referent.