text:
User talk:1sfoerster

Pages/Categories/Templates you are creating
1sfoerster responded interspersed, original Abd comments are now italicised. Original unindented Abd comments stamped 14:48, 19 August 2011. --Abd 19:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

''I see you are starting to work on what looks like course materials for use at Howard Community College. You are, of course, most welcome to do this. However, may I ask you to think a bit about resource, category, and template names that you wish to use as they might fit into an overall structure being used by many schools. For example, instead of Personal Weekly Summary Template (which is not a "template"), if this is something that would be of specific use in your course, you might consider placing this as a resource subpage under Howard Community College, i.e, Howard Community College/Personal weekly summary. Subpages are allowed in mainspace. But even more, this is probably more connected with a specific department at HCC. So it might be Howard Community College/Engineering/Personal weekly summary.''
 * I will change template to form .. 1sfoerster 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Small detail. Wikiversity standard form for page names, except for proper nouns, is sentence case, as I showed in the "might be" example. --Abd 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, you may build resources as general-use resources, but then use subpages for student projects; the actual student project pages might be in user space, for each student, and there can be a specific course section page, i.e, ResourceName/Classes/SpecificClass2011/StudentProjects, which would have links to all the student pages for that particular course.
 * You have described what I was attempting to build ... a user space, project space, course space and space for something like instructables that everyone can contribute to.
 * Am I using categories too much? Should I be using pages? I can see how to do this with pages, but categories are more flexible.1sfoerster 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. Categories can be used for lots of things, but if a Category name is general, but is being used specifically, then confusion can be created. Better, where you are going to use specific categories (i.e, to show a particular school's resources, or to show a particular section or course, to make the name specific. --Abd 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

''If we know who the teacher is, Wikiversity custodians can give special administrative assistance as needed. You can put this information on your user page. I highly recommend that you have all active students register as Wikiversity users. While anonymous editing is certainly allowed, anonymous editors do not get user space, and there is little way to communicate with them if there is a problem. I highly recommend that the teacher, especially, have email enabled (as you do); it's good for students, too.''
 * I am the teacher. 1sfoerster 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll email you. --Abd 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am planning on all the students creating Wikiversity accounts 1sfoerster 17:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that all this material and student work can be created here under Engineering, though that's kind of a mess.
 * The Engineering topic doesn't have a clear place for this course. I can not figure out how to get to the Engineering topic from the wikiversity main page without searching. 1sfoerster 17:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's part of the mess. --Abd 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... the school category, the project category, the learning project category and subcategories don't have a clear context .. I need guidance ... thanks for monitoring what I am doing .... keep giving me feedback .. I am going to try using pages more now. If you have clear recommendations ... or want to start moving things around yourself .. go ahead. I will try to figure out what you are doing. 1sfoerster 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there may not be clear guidance. Wikiversity never nailed this stuff down, so it's been a bit of "anything goes." And then it's hard to find things and hard to know what to do. I hope we can build this project so that it's more user friendly. --Abd 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

''Whatever is done here might be linked from the Wikibooks page that your HCC description links to. Thanks. --Abd 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)''

proposed organizational system
The root would be Project_name/School_name/Semester_name/Team_name

Categories can be added later, but the initial goals are to see all projects, and for individual schools to see their teams. The schools are going to want to compare semesters.

Each Project_name page will need to list the participating schools with links to the school name. The School_name page will need to list the semesters. The Semester_name page will need to list the Team_name pages. The Team_name pages will need to list the individual team members pages.

Hopefully the student will create a portfolio category of all their work. The school will added categories to their school name pages so that all the projects associated with the school can be seen. 1sfoerster 18:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. So on "Project_name" there would be a linked list of Schools offering the project (or on-line sections without a brick and mortar school). Each of these would then have their own pages and subpages. A clear hierarchy, easy to understand and navigate. And easy to maintain. Categories are useful to create cross-references. Probably not so good as part of the basic course structure. --Abd 20:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ddi you request this deletion?
. Did you request this deletion? If so, I'll delete it promptly. It looks like the IP has been used by many different students. Be sure to remind everyone to log in! Group projects can quickly become a mess if there isn't individual responsibility for edits.... Those who watch the wiki for vandalism can't tell if a blanking, for example, is from a participant or from a vandal. --Abd 19:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * yes i did 1sfoerster 19:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Abd 19:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Only 6 students were able to establish accounts ... then students got messages saying max of 6 accounts from one IP address. I guess the school has one public ip address. I told them to establish accounts from home. 1sfoerster 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably a measure to prevent flooding with sockpuppets. Easy to fix. Any of them have an iPhone? Or other smartphone with web access? I never heard of the account limit before. I should check and see how long it lasts.
 * Meanwhile, this is an example of what I was seeing that caused me to react: Chunk Poppit/Howard Community College/Fall2011/501 manbearpig/Drew Dollas. Not exactly transparent and clear structure. While it's possible for individual students to have subpages in mainspace, in mainspace pages are generally "public." We do allow some level of ownership, but it might be better for individual student pages to be in their own user space. That way anyone monitoring Recent Changes will see an edit in, say, Drew Dollas' user space, from the user Drew Dollas, and won't need to give it a second glance. Drew wants to blank something on his working page in his user space? No problem. But if it's in mainspace, it will give vandalism patrollers some pause.
 * I apologize, again, for the mess I created with that ill-considered move. Before I fix it, though, I'd like to see us settle on some structure, so I don't move a pile of pages only to move them again. --Abd 22:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working with me. A group of students named their team manbearpig after my lecture on creating boring names only they could remember, not names that raise respect flags. I would appreciate you deleting the team manbearpig page and all individual sub pages under it. This would reinforce my message. All the individual and team work appears after howard community college in the page path of a project. This way the students and their teams are clearly identified as to what college they belong to. I am hoping that the root main page becomes the polished summary of all this chaos. I am assuming the chaos after the college's name should be the responsibility of the college. There will be approximately 56 project teams and I don't know how many root projects created this fall2011 semester. I will be creating the root projects. Many of them will be empty, or filled with previous project information I've collected. They are what the students will pick from when they make their preferences. Ultimately, at the end of their projects I will want them to modify the root pages with a useful contribution .. if any. Have you found a better model or alternative in wikiversity? Can you visualize an alternative? I really struggled to come up with this system and admit that it is the first one and only one that I could come up with. By userspace do you mean their personal talk page? 1sfoerster 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Users have an entire namespace, User. If a user page is intended to be part of a final project, I'd say that it is better than the name doesn't have a username in the name, even if it's assigned to a user. If it's really the personal work of a user, say a record of contributions or assignments, I'd put it in user space. I.e., if I were in your class, User:Abd/1sFoerster/Homework. Those are my ideas.
 * Sounds good, will build student pages there173.69.172.33 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to take precautions, since a large deletion block might be difficult to undo, please take steps to confirm your identity as the teacher for HCC. Did we already do this? I don't recall for sure. Public email address, verifiable from HCC web site, that I can send an email to, for confirmation? I'll see if I can protect the pages meanwhile, so that students don't waste more time on them.
 * HCC web site with my email: http://www.howardcc.edu/about_hcc/contact_us/Staff_Directory/Profile.html?profile=32615&directory=21908, email at the college sfoerster@howardcc.edu redirects to scott.foerster@gmail.com 173.69.172.33 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted, since it was only four pages, really. Plus some redirects that won't ultimately be deleted. If there had been original content on the pages, I'd have moved them to the student's user spaces. But do please act to verify identity. Thanks. --Abd 18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks 173.69.172.33 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Howard Community College
from the talk page (also deleted):
 * this page was created by ada [Abd]
 * it redirects root chunk poppit to it
 * so there may be a redirect that is also needed
 * I have moved all important pages to the root poppit
 * users will be linked to their user space
 * (unsigned, edit 14:14, 7 September 2011 1sfoerster)

Looking at this, I'm a bit concerned. I'd have preferred to just undo the moves I made, and the only reason I was waiting on that was to make sure we had agreement on what was to be done ultimately. I did delete the Howard Community College page and the Talk page. You did not actually "move" pages to the root Poppit. You copied them, it seems. That loses any page history. Those pages may have editors other than you. But I don't think anyone will complain.

This is what you have requested I delete: HCC subpages. This is what you created: Poppit & subpages

I'm starting to delete pages which are just forms, no new information. --Abd 15:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All the pages have been deleted. One page had substantial edits to the form that had been used, that's been moved to User:DivaEngineer/501 trees/DivaEngineer. You might want to look at the users changes, you can use History to compare revisions.
 * You state that users will be linked to their user space, but what you have under Poppit is links to subpages for users, not in user space and, in fact, pointing to the old HCC space, the deleted pages. I will fix this so that each of these links points to a user page called "Poppit 501" in their user space.
 * For forms to be placed on the user page, you can use . This markup will cause the contents of "pagename" to be copied to the page. It's much faster and more reliable than copy and paste from one page to another. You may also which to consider transclusions. You could have a weekly announcement that changes, and if that is transcluded onto your student's pages, they just have to look at their own page to see the announcement. --Abd 16:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh. In the middle of doing this, some users started creating "enes100/poppit" files in their user spaces. I'm guessing that's what you asked them to do. I'll go back and fix the other links to match so that everyone is the same. --Abd 16:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Fixed.
 * Some users have used the pipe, i.e., I can be any name I want to display user names or handles instead of the actual user name. That's fine, as long as it isn't misleading. It can sometimes be confusing, but people do it. I'm a little wary of one user changing how another user's name displays, though.[] But that seems harmless here. I didn't pipe the names I placed. --Abd 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the pipes. As long as they link to a userid that I can track and grade, I am ok. If they choose names that are out of line with naming conventions let me know. 1sfoerster 20:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for all your work, I hope I haven't made too big a mess. I will try to figure out how to place forms, and what a transclusion is. I am learning canvas to communicate with students ... it is an open source learning management system ... which supposedly has a wiki in it, but it uses html markup and doesn't notify me of page changes and it is not linked to wiki space. In my mind there are three levels of project documentation in wikiversity, USER, COLLEGE and WORLD. The WORLD is the root. COLLEGE documentation is a subpage of WORLD. Some students will not be filling out the world documentation until the end of the project. Does this make sense? 1sfoerster 17:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, they might work on a team page. Basically, individual work at this point, for class work, can be and probably should be in the user's personal space. The team, though, may have a common page which is a subpage of a class subpage in what you call the WORLD space. We don't really have a "College" space, but use subpages. There's a lot of stuff on Wikiversity that is inconsistent, though. That's why there are no clear guidelines, and without clear guidelines, there will continue to be chaos. The purpose of the guidelines would not be to control or restrict people, but to suggest easy and effective ways of doing things, so that we don't keep reinventing the wheel. But square wheels, though easy to machine, don't work so well.
 * I'm not thrilled with Poppit as a top level name for your resource. But it's certainly okay for now. The entire Poppit hierarchy can be moved with a single action, that's why subpage references should be used within it. But the user pages are really not subpages, they are absolute references to users.
 * I agree that there isn't a "College" space. This is why I am trying to do colleges through subpages of the project "root" or "world." To keep my sanity and hold my students accountable I am using categories also. 1sfoerster 20:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Substitution can be used to create those individual user pages, I give an example below. Transclusion is useful where the content may be dynamic, changing. However, changes to a transcluded page will not trigger a user watchlist, unless they are watching the transcluded page. So if you do create an Announcements page, you should ask your students to Watch it. The announcements page can also be transcluded to the individual student pages, so they will have two ways to see the announcements: from checking their own class page, and from seeing a change to the Announcements page on their watchlist. They should also be Watching their group page(s).
 * To me, it looks like it's coming together. I reverted changes by Chaagii 0817 to General Engineering Projects/Team Done Form. I'll look to see what Chaagii was trying to do and see if I can assist. --Abd 17:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User of template subst:
see. That was created using only on a blanked page. --Abd 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

instructions not clear
.
 * Is BobFK part of group "superior"?
 * The user has indeed followed the instruction on the page, has linked to his "personal page." I did supply such links for other users, but BobFK was added later today. He does have a link to his Poppit classwork page on his user page. It's a bit bizarre, but it works. However, he hasn't copied the form to the page, he just created the page User:BobFK/enes100/poppit.
 * My observation about classes involving many new users. Murphy's Law, if it can be done wrong, every possible way of doing it wrong will be explored. I've been learning to make instructions excruciatingly explicit, or it "will" be done wrong. --Abd 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I added myself to the team superior to show students how to add themselves to a team. Unfortunately this team is not functioning. I can not map BobFK to any user. I will request deletion Monday afternoon next week if it is not cleaned up. Again, thanks for your work and advice. 1sfoerster 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:BobFK. Do you mean you cannot map him to a student in your class? Are outside students allowed? He actually tried to create his user subpage, you can see the efforts in the history of the "superior" page, this would have worked. He made several false starts. The page still is there, with the right name, he just hasn't added the form text. The link that stands in the superior group takes you to his user page, where he has two links, the second of which goes to the working page for the course.
 * As this course is a specific class, with working groups who meet face-to-face, presumably, the issue of non-HCC students should be made explicit. Another page under Poppit could be created to handle non-HCC students who want to kibbitz or whatever. I'm okay with class subpages being routinely restricted. But we need to know. --Abd 19:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to register for the Wikiversity Assembly

 * The Assembly has been established as a technique for developing reports on topics of import for Wikiversity administration. The Assembly is not a decision-making body, per se. Rather, it is designed to create or discover or estimate consensus, through focused, facilitated, thorough deliberation. Assembly reports may be referenced in regular Wikiversity discussions, but will not directly control outcomes. Where full consensus is not found, minority reports may be issued.
 * I invite you to register for the Assembly by adding your user name to the Delegable proxy/Table.

 * Registering for the Assembly creates no specific obligation, but does consent to direct communication as the Assembly may determine is appropriate. You may opt out of such direct communication by adding "no messages" to the Table when you register, in the user comment field, but it is unlikely that the default (communication allowed) will create burdensome traffic for you.

You are invited to name a proxy

 * When you register for the Assembly, you may optionally designate a "proxy."

 * I suggest that you nominate, as a proxy, the user whom you most trust to participate positively in a Wikiversity discussion if you are unable to participate yourself. The proxy will not be voting for you in any process. Rather, the proxy will be considered to loosely represent you, as a means of estimating probable large-scale consensus based on small-scale participation, in the event that you do not personally participate.

 * If you name a proxy, you will be consenting to direct communication with you by that proxy. If a named proxy accepts the proxy, you become, as long as you maintain the nomination (you may change it at any time), the "client" of the proxy, and by accepting, a proxy has consented to direct communication from the client.

 * See Delegable proxy for details.

Comments
Please consider registering for the Assembly. This doesn't mean a lot of work, unless you choose to participate heavily. Registering, though, sets up the possibility of participation, directly or indirectly through the method shown. Thanks. --Abd 19:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
If it was your intention to register a support for permanent custodianship, it's common to put a "support" template at the beginning, after the asterisk. That's * The reverse is * I did move your comment to the Voting section; if that was incorrect, let me know or just move it to Comments. If you just want to make a comment, either use the Comment section, or use *Comment.. Thanks again, it's been a pleasure to work with you, and the results have been positive for Wikiversity. --Abd 17:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you may delete stuff here.
. You saw notifications of changes because your page was vandalized. Look at the page history. This was your page for a short time. That's the "Hunter Mariner vandal." It was reverted, that's why you didn't see it. Nothing we can do about the notifications. --Abd 18:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:KeyboardInterface.jpg
Hi ! This file, which doesn't have a license, was uploaded by someone who I presume is one of your students. Would you be able to clarify the licensing of it ? It appears to be the student's work. -- Simone 20:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, I added the public domain license and I will contact the student. 173.69.172.33 10:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What I have learned
Hello, from Category:Howard Community College can be seen your activity/contribution related to Brick and mortar collaboration. It would help Wikiversity + its future users if you could share some feedback (later on), e.g. on What I have learned. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat + Identi.ca 13:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are inviting me to do. The brick and mortar seems to be organized by language rather than brick and mortar universities. 204.126.132.241 14:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any feedback would be nice, e.g. here with:
 * could I achieve the goals I had from begin with Wikiversity (WV)?
 * If not, perhaps some suggestions (so people here could initiate steps so things could be improved for next classes).
 * perhaps experiences by the students? (contributions can also be done anonymous)
 * will I use WV again?
 * The brick and mortar link shows activities from all Wikiversities (I intended to show that it is kind of a global effort), if you want to see only EN.WV related ones, here's a starting point Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat + Identi.ca 14:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Project pages
Hello! I wonder if you have a some in-depth knowledge about this project here? It came up as an example as some Wikiversity regulars were discussing revisions to the deletion policy. If you have a moment, could you take a look at the page and offer your thoughts here? I think your feedback would be really valuable. --HappyCamper 16:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again, do you know if Arduino/Junk pile steeper motor survey is a page that should be deleted? Someone put it up for deletion, but it was from an IP address only. --HappyCamper (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Jromanch0088 work page moves
Hi 1stfoerster, FYI I've replied to your query here - User talk:Jtneill. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving student work out of main space
Student work which consists of answers to exercises is probably better placed in userspace rather than main space. What do you think? Could you help to encourage student work currently in main space to be moved into students' user spaces or intos subpages of a course? Let me know if I can help. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * yes .. I do ask them .. I do try to monitor .. and have physically helped them move ... 173.69.172.33 01:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention - FYI, here's are some pages I've noticed that need moving:
 * My Work3 + subpages e.g.,
 * My Work3/turnFanOnAndOff
 * Egm4313.s12.team5.R7
 * Egm4313.s12.team11.R7
 * Egm4313.s12.teamboss + subpages e.g.,
 * Egm4313.s12.teamboss/R7
 * Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are four levels of pages, three are root documents where teams of students are summarizing work ... just one type of page belongs at the user level ... see general engineering projects ... I just removed a move command from puttputt team page1sfoerster (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Egm4313 (all of it) is not my students work 1sfoerster (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved the My Work3 page to user space 1sfoerster (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Just so you know, the edit history can (and probably should be preserved) for a page move. So, try the page move function, which can be found on any page via the arrow next to the star (top-right) and select Move. Then the user space can be selected and page name can be the same, and the edit history as well as talk page and any subpages can also be moved automatically. Let me know if I can do anything else. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

p501acm
Hello Professor,

I noticed that the page here was recently blanked by a contributor. Do you still require that page or would you like it deleted?

Thanks,

Geoff (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Geoff, Thanks for alerting me. I don't think there was enough work on the project to warrant restoring the page. Thanks 00:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright templates on photos
I note that many of the people who upload photos without copyright templates are apparently students. If these are people you have any influence over, please ensure that they do not upload photos unless they are public domain, or ones that the students took themselves. They should always add a template to show copyright status. Suitable templates include PD and Cc-by-2.0. Thank you for your assistance.--Collingwood (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, it is the students. Reposting other's pictures as their own is an ethics violation. We are starting the wikiversity project pages over again and will emphasize this even more. Thanks --1sfoerster (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Misty
I have seen you adding pages like |User:[name]/Project]. I am a little concerned --The Gir’s and Sing 19:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 * It's okay, Goldenburg. The user is an Associate Professor of engineering and runs most of his class work through user space pages. It's been discussed above. It's one of many ways of doing things here. I hope he builds mainspace resources from the material, though. Otherwise the value is transient. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks! --Aaqib talk 20:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the concern and feedback. I agree with everything above. The goal is to build something of value out of the student pages. There are three other instructors working with me on this now. We are getting closer. Confining students to user space was a great first step. Publishing to an article page needs to be seen as an honor. --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello,

I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Tim Ruijters. I work as a software engineer in the Netherlands. I added some information to the software development page. I hope I didn't mess up your work.

Regards,

Tim Ruijters, Timboliu (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks ...

Pending Deletions
I've been researching the list of files with Category:Pending deletions. There's a discussion started at Colloquium, and an organized list of the affected resources posted at Resources with Files Pending Deletion. It appears that the majority of the files are related to Howard Community College projects. Could you please review and then let us know whether you would prefer to have these images saved and tagged as Fair Use, or if you would prefer to have them deleted. Any assistance you would be willing to provide with either approach would be greatly appreciated. If there is someone else at Howard who should also be involved in this discussion, please share with them as well. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure .. go ahead and delete --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Requests
Hi! I was able to process most of the deletion requests. There are three remaining. See Cardboard boats/design, Cardboard boats/materials, and Cardboard boats/Themed. Can you tell me what page each of them has been merged into? Because you weren't the only author on these, we need to merge the edit history into the page that received the text to preserve CC-BY-SA licensing. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * sure .. they all collapsed into the new cardboard boat article ... there are not as many pages now .. but the design, themed and materials section on the main page has expanded .. even though it looks smaller with all the collapsed macros --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

ComboLockPick
What about Combo Lockpick/Howard Community College/Fall2012/p1-502-hwht/Friction Decision Matrix? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Other pages also have subpages remaining. See ComboLockPick/Howard Community College. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi, how do I see subpages? I want to do a massive cleanup ... collapse of sub pages into pages ... ... this doesn't work ... tools?special pages? --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 * In general, you can see subpages by using the Tools section / Page information link. Subpages are listed from there.  It is also available as a direct search under Special pages using the page name as the prefix.  Finally, if you visit ComboLockPick/Howard Community College, you'll see I've added  so you can see the subpages directly from the page itself.
 * I'm not aware of any tool that will collapse subpages into a main page. You can include (transclude) content into a main page, but you can't simply eliminate the subpages.  It gets back to the licensing problem and having to merge edit histories for the BY part of CC-BY-SA.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... Tools>Special pages while on the page interested in ... and I see the Subpage/List --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Brad9621
Regarding User:Brad9621, if you check his edit history, you will see that he has been defacing other users' personal pages, and also harassing other users by altering their pictures and posting them on Commons and then linking to the image on the user's page. I'm not providing links here so as to reduce embarrassment for the targeted users, but a review of his edits should provide clear evidence of harassment if your school is willing to pursue this matter.

Regarding the block, I double-checked, and it was user account only. It should not have blocked your school, except for anonymous access. But I've removed the block for now so you can continue to hold classes. Let me know if you still have issues.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks ... I really appreciate what you did .. and someday hope to help others like you ... Wikiversity is starting to work for us ... it has taken 3 years of fitting in ... --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 * If and when I am confirmed as a full custodian, I intend to give you that opportunity. :-)   -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Probationary custodianship is a brilliant device, making it possible to allow people to learn to be custodians, in action, that came under attack, largely because I was a probationary custodian.... If the mentor actually supervises, it simply amplifies the effectiveness of the mentor. If the mentor does not adequately supervise, it can be a problem.
 * I suggested a fix for that, and used it, with Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement. Instead of following that summary process or the like, trivial to use, we had massive disruption, Community Reviews, and hysterical emergency desysop requests. To understand why probably requires an understanding of human psychology that exceeds mine. I was just reading the old posts on Wikiversity talk:Requests for deletion. JWSchmidt was (sort of) right, but took it all so personally, and became so angry, that he was utterly ineffective at stopping what he saw as destroying Wikiversity. In fact, Wikiversity has become much closer to his vision than what he saw as arising with the "takeover."
 * Anyway, I will again ping JTneill, who has clearly approved the probationary work, but simply hasn't gotten to doing the paperwork on the Candidacy page to open up community discussion. I'll offer to clerk it for him. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Blood cooler
CoreControl has been merged into Blood cooler and content restored. The merge is necessary to preserve the edit history of the content (the BY part of CC-BY-SA). You may want to take a look at Special:PrefixIndex/Blood cooler/ to see if other pages should also be cleaned up or merged. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the previous documentation and so have my students. It is all now in the root article. All the stubs can be deleted. Do I need to put delete on all of them? This is a dry run. The goal is to clean up everything. --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent Deletions
The pages you requested for deletion are removed. Note that when you're the only author, they can be deleted. When there are other authors, the edit history needs to be merged with the page you move the content to. The easiest solution is for you to use the Move option yourself from the More tab. Otherwise, tag them the way you have been and I can make sure the histories are merged with the deletion. Be sure to go back and check the ones I merged. Sometimes it doesn't display all of the versions immediately, so I may have restored one version off from the copy you created at the new name. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks .. --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional pages deleted. You were not the only author for one of them, so histories were merged instead. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Moving a page for the preferred approach to moving content like this. If you scroll down to Page histories, you'll see why it is preferred. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks .. I read the part about page histories being important for the wikipedia copyright license .. I will try to move in the future .. maybe even tonight --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved a page .. but it left a redirect that is not needed and I moved twice .. first to Wikiversity:Fly Stick and then to just "Fly Stick" .. so there may be another redirect .. the redirects feel like random garbage that I am leaving behind .. what happens to them? --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 02:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can tag those for speedy deletion. This way is better, because the page content keeps the history, and the redirect becomes the new creation with no history.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 02:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Requests for import
Pages can be copied to Wikibooks while preserving the edit history. See Wikibooks:Wikibooks:Requests for import. You have to use that page, because it needs to be a Wikibooks administrator who processes the request. After the request is processed, then you can add the delete tag here. This is only necessary on Wikiversity pages with other authors. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks .. I doubt that there will ever be any other authors than myself --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Both of the ones you just moved had multiple authors. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

General Engineering Projects/Overview/Instructor
Recent deletions have left a number of broken links at General Engineering Projects/Overview/Instructor. You may want to investigate. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks .. they were all linking into my user account .. I need to make them independent of my user account .. I will fix .. --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of project organization
I came across two user names for BDolge, and asked him about it, and was led to discuss project organization, you may be interested, see User talk:BDolge. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Quintana-Gonzales,_Joseph
Hello... in an effort to clean up all pages that are proposed to be moved to a certain name/page, can you deal with this page? Thank you ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 * The page and subpages appear to have been examples only. We will delete unless you have any objections.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

pagemoves
List of pages moved:
 * User:1sfoerster/Tape purge
 * User:1sfoerster/Tape purge/Howard Community College
 * User:1sfoerster/Tape purge/Howard Community College/Fall2011/502 ZNS

-
 * To see what is in your userspace click here

Here are two wikitext scripts that you can use to keep track of subpages in your userspace.

creates a page called My subpages

creates a list of all subpages in your userspace.

Keep in mind that these two scripts here on this talk page, and on your user page User:. They won't work on most Wikiversity pages.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:1sfoerster


text:
User talk:Ramocon

 Hello Ramocon, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Ramocon


text:
User:Royce

Hello! Welcome to my basic user page. Royce 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

 * My unified username is Royce (rights).
 * For more about me, see my English Wikipedia page.

title: User:Royce


text:
User:1sfoerster

Scott Foerster, Associate professor of engineering, Howard Community College, Columbia, Maryland USA

I work on engineering projects and tutorials .. how they are graded, how to set up User pages, and documented .. with
 * John
 * Mark
 * Michael
 * Jey
 * Cheryl
 * Ali
 * Brian (old account), Brian (current account), Brian on Wikibooks.

The Engineering Projects I am involved in with students are:
 * /enes100/ Fall 2014
 * /enes245/ Fall 2014
 * Spring 2015

There are lots of old projects that I haven't got around to converting to the version 3 format. But I will someday.

 * /portfolio/
 * /sandbox/

title: User:1sfoerster


text:
Engineering and technology learning projects

This is an overview of engineering and technology learning projects instructor/student interactions and grading. A list of the projects can be found here.

Problem
Engineers are hidden from the public like precious jewelry whether working on military projects or commercial projects. Sometimes the engineering work is kept secret. Documentation is unique to the company and exists only for internal purposes.

This is a wiki. Everything on it is public. Everything here can be used for commercial purposes. The goal is to capture engineering project documentation and provide a method for grading it. The transparency and public nature of this documentation is unique. The goals of this engineering project documentation are: Below are issues associated with designing an environment for engineering projects within an educational organization.
 * Repeat success or failure by reading this documentation (not talking)
 * Others can jump in, find a starting point and push the project forward
 * Set starting point expectations, capture next steps and assume projects never end
 * Trust future people working on these project to join the wikiversity community and leverage/polish existing documentation
 * Evolve the documentation tools and organization so that it is attracts a growing community of people wanting to experience engineering projects

Conceive
The words project and lab have too many different meanings. Project in this context means open ended. Students need unique tasks that are managed by instructors. Students have to recommend materials needed for the project. Instructors have no particular experience with the technologies and tasks required.

Lab in this context has the objective of replicating previous success. Materials are ordered beforehand. Instructors have done the lab over and over. All students do the same thing. Documentation consists of one boring step after the next with boxes to write numbers in. A group mind left over from the previous semester absorbs the new students whose only method of distinguishing themselves is to do the labs really fast.

The joy of engineering is feeling the inspiration associated with solving problems. But freshmen associate inspiration with freedom to do what they want. The narrative of a freshman engineering class is to mature them, transition them to documenting failure with inspiration and joy.

The term "Design" is used here to generally describe the gateway between freshman engineers and materials/tools. The D of CDIO is a much more specific/narrow definition.

Freshmen are first inspired by the outside world of things. Teaching "Design" should not cripple them by imposing a random business processes between the engineering experience and hands on experiences. Bloating "Design procedures" to the point where students are deprived of hands on experiences until the last weeks will turn freshmen off to engineering.

Let the project context, it's history, the materials on hand, the talents and abilities, the enthusiasms and conversations, narratives and presentations guide the design/hands-on oscillation. Have a design gateway that evolves as students mature away from the need for hands-on and into design. The gateway (a drawing, schematic, list of materials/vendors, etc.) should be justified by the project, not the course syllabus. Bring up the design/hand-on conversation in the context of project needs rather than individual maturity.

Exactly when the hands on experiences occur is ancillary, incidental and should not impact a students grade. Hands on experiences only exist to provide a reason for meeting as a team, creating tasks and documenting something. Student feelings have to be matured (don't wait for seduction), their source of inspiration has to change (frustration as inspiration), their definitions of engineering success (documenting what doesn't work) need to change. Hands on experiences are expensive.

The focus on design is not a marginalization of implementation or operation. Design can occur within implementation or operation. CDIO can go on with C or inside D or inside I or O. The bulk of engineering is in implementation and operation.

Most of the world expects tutorials with steps that lead to success. Engineering projects can result in tutorials, but tutorials are not engineering documentation. Documenting what hasn't worked is more difficult, and ultimately more important to a successful project involving many engineers. Engineers document failure.

So what is engineering project documentation if not DIY tutorials? Engineering is a creative process that involves an objective that has never been tried before, a guess at what to do, clear descriptions of dead ends and failure, proposed next steps and an occasional tutorial celebrating a success. In this format, projects are open ended, never ending and more driven by a sense of art than science and business. Open ended projects are driven first inspiration, not requirements. Requirements are the discussions after inspiration and before perspiration. The goal is to capture a knowledge base of attempts (failures) rather than successes (tutorials).

The scientific method is a close cousin when focusing on replication and reverse engineering. But otherwise, it cripples freshman engineering students if referenced.

Asking for a hypothesis creates a competitive, idea ownership, territory grabbing conversation. Most of the silent people don't feel qualified to even talk ... and these are the most careful, thoughtful and respectful students. The best potential engineers say nothing. Slackers and cave dwellers are created rather than teams of engineers working together.

Try encouraging questions. Admit not knowing yourself. Begin suffering the conversations that trail after "But you are our teacher." Students have been taught that questions are a sign of "not doing your own work." Questions are a sign of weakness. Admitting no knowledge doesn't cause a loss of respect among engineers. Engineering is everyone on the edge of the unknown, asking questions, harvesting the collective mind, working as a team. Reputation is enhanced by facilitating conversations; not by owning solutions; not by claiming command because of prior experience.

Asking for procedures causes students to try and visualize 20 steps before doing something the first time, or forces students to write after the fact. Visualizing procedures beforehand leads to feelings of inadequacy. Writing after the fact focuses on success, not failure and most detail is lost.

Demand that students write what they are going to do, before they do it. Ask that they write while doing and then stop and reflect, analyze and figure out the next steps (RANT). This is done in a notebook. It will be chaotic, random and full of wrong turns, blind alleys and frustration. The weekly report written electronically in a student wikiversity user space is a summary of this chaos. Out of this chaos, progress that pushes a project forward has to mined.

Don't ask for conclusions or analysis. It causes panic attacks in some students. Instead of going inside themselves and reflecting, they automatically look outside themselves for expectations, form, boundaries, detail level, error analysis and lots of other context that exists in other educational experiences. But engineering analysis is vague on purpose. It could merely inspire next steps. It could expose a empirical pattern. It rarely traces back to already existing analysis.

The scientific method has morfed into GoingToDo, Doing, RANT triplets in an engineering notebook. The "triplets" typically occupy 1/3 of a page, take about 15 or 20 minutes to write and should be fun for the students and a minimal requirement (more design may be needed) before touching any materials.

Scaffolding (teaching students something so they feel confident moving forward) was necessary in the pre-Internet world. Before the Internet, only a small minority of people had both access and talent to learn on their own. After the Internet, everyone has access. Information exists to enhance all talents. Students know this. They can guess your direction, mine the Internet and know more about the subject than you ... before the words finish coming out of your mouth. Some can build presentations in real time. Others need to be taught how.

Homogenizing students by regaling them with random detail is the worst thing one can do to prepare them to become engineers. Projects should put boundaries or context around the knowledge that is needed. A freshman course needs to explore this boundary rather than detail titillation which grows weaker every generation.

Suppose every project appears to be using an arduino. Don't create a scaffolding exercise in class involving every student that teaches them the arduino. Instead, seed the knowledge by demonstrating to a few that can understand it with the least work on your part. Then promote this few to spread this knowledge. Create a group competence within the classroom this way. There will always be some students that are slow. Identify them positively by figuring out what they are inspired to do rather than label them negatively by failing a group exercise.

Students should own the content of their first engineering class. Don't fill it up with scaffolding and then add a token engineering project at the end. This is bait and switch. It does nothing to teach the joy of engineering. It would be better to going back to teaching drawing or Fortan as the first class.

There is a text associated with these projects in wikibooks. Quizzes exist that can be captured and put in a school LMS. The text book describes how handwritten, physical computation notebooks are to be written in and how they are graded. The first step in a project is learning how to write in an notebook before, during and after any engineering activity. Then projects can be documented.

Ideally, students know each other. They register together a semester early. They meet before class starts for the purpose of negotiating projects. They produce material lists a month early so materials will arrive before the first class meets.

If this is impossible, create projects yourself. Order enough materials for a starting point that involves some hands on experiences. Don't try to do the projects. Don't expect or even try to order all the material necessary.

Allow three weeks (or 12 hours class time) for students to get to know each other through one-day mini projects. Put a twist on each project/challenge. Make some competitive. Make some sign up .. Form teams randomly, then let them self select. Encourage them to think about what project they want to do the rest of the semester. Give them a list of starting points. Ask them to think about who they want to do the project with.

Students want to be told what to do. If ownership is left open ended, then the project task setting agenda will be get mired in opinion conflicts with no clear way to resolve them. Instructor has to be the boss, call the shots and ultimately determine weekly tasks.

The instructor has to publish the project (move out of user space) in wikiversity. Ideally students create/modify/improve a project document that instructor doesn't have to edit.

The concept of documentation improvement by forcing hand off of the project from one team to another team of students within the same section does cause conversations about engineering documentation style, clarity, usefulness. Have these conversations when they crop up. But forcing a change of individuals on teams isn't necessary to cause these conversations. Changing a few members of a team can cause the engineering documentation quality conversation. Forcing completion every four weeks in order to be able "to present at any time" can cause these conversations.

The following immature behaviors derail documentation improvement conversations:
 * Find random starting points searching the internet rather than focusing on what has been done
 * Don't absorb all previous work ... would rather start with re-inventing the wheel
 * Try to please the instructors or their own ego rather than look for the next steps in the project goals and objectives

Opening up the possibility of changing projects due to "like/dislike" will cause at a minimum a scaffolding challenge. Asking students to climb the scaffolding quickly results in them wanting to start over. This has to be channeled into improving the scaffolding which isn't as sexy as working on the edge of the unknown.

Changing teams can also result in "ownership" issues. Previous team members, particularly those identified with the success of the past project will still try to own this success. Other students will respect this. Creating the ability to both find problems and still respect previous success is a mature behavior. Opening projects up to this dynamic should minimized in a first year experience.

Instead promote students with specific talents/gifts to "help/serve" other projects (see Promotion below, or Reduce Scaffolding above). Instead leave the most vested students on a project and move the least vested around to see if they stick to another project.

In any case, students will want to wrap the project in a context they control. It is hard to stop this from happening in a brand new project. Most projects attempted should be building on top of previous projects so that the context obviously has to be learned.

The goal is to get students to improve/add/push demos and documentation forward. This means the wikiversity documentation has to be the root of the project. Success in physical space should not be rewarded in the grading system. Success in physical space is an opportunity to document .. which is rewarded.

Success, competence and feelings of contributing to the well-being of the world should come from the documentation, presentations and demonstrations. Success feelings do not come from hands on experiences. Success in physical spaces is that of a temporary performance. Documentation success lives forever.

Create a set of unique/different projects for each team of 3 or 4 students before the class starts. Make the classes large enough (15 to 20) so there are 4 or 5 projects to choose from. If these projects are unique to each section, then a school with 5 sections could have 20 to 25 unique projects. Attempt to find a starting point for each and associated materials. Attempt to line up a real world client beforehand for each project. If this is impossible institutionally, then use internet DIY projects as a starting point.

Design
Engineers explore the unknown from a scaffolding of previous experiences. The goal is to know how to build upon this scaffolding. Most students have been taught they have no scaffolding and perpetually need to be educated. This creates a double bind in their mind: Maturity is working within this double blind. Instructors can speed up this maturation process with these snippets or sound bytes: The brightest students have learned how to derail everything by bringing up this double blind. They can play dumb/incompetent through the first and second, plead ignorance on the third, but students generally have not "valued their ignorance." The fifth visualizes what results from maturing through this double bind.
 * Can not do project because know nothing
 * Can not learn anything without experience
 * Can only gain experience through doing projects
 * Can not learn without a teacher
 * Can not gain experience without demonstration
 * But there is no teacher, no existing project demo
 * Therefore I will fail
 * 1) learn the minimum, learn just what you need to know
 * 2) find starting point
 * 3) leverage the group mind .. teach learn build
 * 4) value your ignorance
 * 5) expect to be bored as an engineer .. leverage this down time by learning on your own

Don't have students do long introductions. Instead start with this Ethical Code.

Then form small teams randomly of three or four to talk about the Ethical Code and give them a little project to do in class. Next class form different random teams and repeat. But have them work over the first weekend and present next class as a team. Then form new teams that do a project for the rest of the week and next weekend. Third week starts with presentations and then negotiation of final teams and the projects they will hopefully do for the reset of the year. By this time, students ideally will self select into teams of three or four, choose a project from a list and then approach the instructor.

The instructor should have a variety of projects select from. A good engineer should be able to contribute to any type of project. The best engineers are delighted when they can get a project they have no experience on. They get to learn something new! Most engineers select projects based upon how much they can: Freshman make the mistake of selecting projects where they can:
 * contribute
 * learn .. in order to be eligible for a wider variety of projects in the future
 * repeat previous success
 * experience a certain technology

The best projects are where the same group of students stays together the entire semester and works on the same thing. A bonus should be given to groups that stay together. And a bonus should be given when the talents of a student are needed in another project and the student moves to another team for this reason.

In some classes, one third of the students drop or stop participating. Under performing groups and groups that have shrunk to one person need to be reassigned. Sometimes a project reaches a standstill where nothing more can be done and a new project has to be created. Sometimes materials are ordered for another group of students that continue the project next semester.

With this in mind, it is good to have planned boundaries upon which team documentation captures the individual student's weekly work. A good boundary is four weeks for a class that meets four hours per week.

Students mature during these conversations about reforming teams. Make sure the conversations happen.

Students will only experience success when they can present ... when they can say look at what I did. This has to be coupled to documentation. Only allow Presentations from project documentation. The tension of a presentation exposes a student's character or personality. Mature behavior needs to be promoted. Here are some signs of mature behavior: Typically instructors are trained to focus on the behavior that needs to be changed and let the mature students do what they want. The idea here is to promote the mature students.
 * Working independently rather than being told what to do
 * Design first rather than let materials at hand determine design
 * Error on the side of narrowing task focus, rather than broadening, starting all over, changing the agenda.
 * Find work rather than excuses to stop
 * Troubleshoot rather than list problems/frustrations and ask for something new

Identify strengths as soon as possible. Then give these people tasks that are outside of their normal team. For example, someone figures out how to test if an arduino is working. Send this student to spread this skill into the group mind by jump starting other teams using the arduino. Don't give it a name. Promote by giving them more visible, respectable tasks. Something as silly as "Go listen to Nancy .. she learns best by talking" is a form of promotion if it is something you as an instructor, would have to do. The best promotion is letting them choose teammates when it becomes necessary to re-form teams.

Promotion does not have to be graded. The respect created is enough to motivate more mature behavior.

Project grading has to be done continuously in a freshman class. This promotes continuous work on projects. Otherwise, nobody works until the last moment and the chances for personal interaction and conversations are greatly diminished. Most of face to face class time should be talking about projects, documenting projects, negotiating who is doing what for the team outside of class time.

The focus of face to face class time is on task negotiation, CDIO document names/outlines, notebook grading and presentations .. not working on projects. The instructor first meets with each project team quietly, sitting down, talking about who is doing what, finding sources of materials, and harmonizing expectations of the wikiversity documentation. Then the students finish the wikiversity documentation, stand up present to the entire class from the wikiversity documentation. Optimal class size is around 16.

Students are going to want to build first. Slow down. This is not the first step. Gathering materials, touching things happens after design. It happens after Team meetings, individual tasks, and writing in a notebook.

Unfortunately student enthusiasm will overwhelm any speed bump between them and a hands on experience. Access to tools and materials has to be through a physical gateway. But this gateway has to be tailored to the individual student. The context of the project and the "Hands On" starting point of the student will mix to form a gray scale. A universal and fair gateway will cripple a class. So this has to be a private thing between an instructor and each student or group of students.

Materials feel like presents. Giving students something to take home inspires them. But only let students with a very good attendance record take things home. Track these things with a sheet of paper students sign. Penalize them through the same system as the school library if not brought back on time.

Introduction to engineering students need a junk pile to get started. But the goal is to design first and then find material that fits the design. So a transition has to occur. This maturation can not happen unless the junk pile is only sufficient to force identification of material that needs to be acquired. This creates the opportunity to order materials and starts the materials double bind because someone has to answer this question: "what do I do while waiting?"

All engineering students need to experience this double blind because of the immature need for "hands-on" experiences. Students cope with this by Instructors have to watch for and respond to these behaviors by: Ultimately this is handled by an Engineering Lab Policy Manual.
 * Can not do project with out materials, tools, space.
 * Without materials, tools, space, cannot design.
 * Can not order materials, tools, space without a design.
 * Project will not get done.
 * Doing nothing and justifying this behavior by claiming the lack of materials
 * Breaking something and waiting replacement
 * Trivializing design process and ordering wrong materials
 * Destroying inventory of glue, batteries, wood
 * Damaging equipment ... dulling sharp edges, violating safety regulations, etc.
 * Mix broken, working, used, unknown in the same box
 * Chanting, engineers work with no money, duct tape, bubble gum, coat hangers, WD-40, cardboard, glue gun, needle and thread, paper, .. etc.
 * Why did it break? Why aren't you trying to fix it? How are you testing working/failure? What was the failure mode?
 * How does the design match the requirements? Where did this measurement come from? How did you count? What suppliers did you compare?
 * Throttle access to consumables
 * Have lab aids that protect equipment and enforce safe behavior
 * Keep a stash of new/known that is given out only to certain students that have exhibited mature behavior

Implement
The grading system should be set up so that a student that shows up to every class, participates in every group meeting, attempts to write in their notebook but contributes nothing gets a C. Here is a 2000 point grade system:
 * 100 class attendance
 * 400 seminar
 * 400 assignments
 * 250 weekly
 * 250 notebook
 * 200 presentations
 * 400 projects

Assignments are graded by instructors after the due dates. Weekly memos are graded outside of class time at the beginning of each week before the first class. Notebooks are graded once a week, at any time, upon the initiative of the student during class. Experiments will begin fall 2014 with students grading presentations through clickers and cell phone apps. Projects are graded by instructors looking at proposed project documentation at three or four intervals during the semester.

An engineering seminar is where all engineers on campus gather once a week in a big auditorium. The goals of the engineering seminar are:
 * cohort building activities
 * presentation opportunities (see presentations below)
 * speakers from the community

The presentations have the following benefits:
 * Decreased focus on mechanical, electrical, chemical, civil because students can see that all projects involve lots of different engineering disciplines
 * See a variety of project activities (testing, marketing, coding, building, writing)
 * Learn something: Build one's personal scaffolding

Outside of the seminar, students are encouraged to build their social network. Social networks are built by encouraging and rewarding students that participate in SWE, NSBE, AIAA, IEEE and other student chapters of engineering societies. Social networks are built by encouraging and rewarding students that participate in hacker space and museum activities, go on tours, find internships, etc.

The 400 points are typically split up into: The social networking points are built up by reporting on what happened to the class (not seminar) in a short presentation.
 * 200 Attendance
 * 200 Social Network Building

Assignments are unique to the college, scaffolding, projects and mandates of institutions transferring to and/or upper division class prerequisites.

Instructors grade weekly individual memos at the beginning of the week. Instructors look for a narrative that describes what the assigned task was and what actually happened written from the "I" perspective. They look for words, pictures and videos that can be cut and pasted onto the projects page.

The goals of individual weekly memos are:
 * documenting projects as one works on them
 * reward constant, sustained, reasonable amount of work each week rather than burst at end of semester
 * focus on individual work, team documentation rather than looking over another's shoulder doing nothing
 * create an opportunity for the discussion "Is this good enough to get into the team documentation?"

Grading individual weekly memos outside of class is fun. It sets the stage for conversations with in the classroom for the entire week. The grading rubric is form/task/push.

Form means using user space of the instructor and themselves appropriately, linking documents appropriately, using wiki mark up, uploading pictures to wiki commons and video to youtube. A student that merely writes "I did nothing" receives 10 points .. as long as they write in the right place before the due date.

Tasking means three things:
 * 1) filling out negotiated task before it is done on instructors wikiversity user page
 * 2) doing what was negotiated or explaining why something else was chosen in the weekly memo
 * 3) proposed next steps that could become the next task
 * 4) maintaining transparency, putting stuff away, following safety rules, checking stuff in and out of inventory with the instructor, etc.

Task points come from doing (or justifying why not) what was negotiated the previous week. This is judged by reading the weekly memo. It is not influenced by clarifying conversations in class afterwards. Task points range from 0 to 25. 5 points are given if the task negotiated up front was "doing nothing".

This means that a student doing nothing can earn up to 225=(10+5)*15 points during a 15 week semester. Getting 25 tasking points per week means the instructor and student have negotiated tasks without hardly any conversation and the project is being pushed forward. It usually takes half the semester to get this going with some students.

Students have been trained to think "Teams" working on projects do everything together and thus start of with one task for everyone. They will automatically try to negotiate meeting times outside of class where they all get together. Invariably this kind of team work involves one person working, and everyone else watching. Students don't understand that most of the time, engineers work by themselves. Meetings only occur when there is a very clear need.

Individual tasks should be negotiated with the instructor. Ideally these meetings are very short. Ideally the team meets before the instructor and figures out what their tasks are going to be, and then tells the instructor. The instructor ideally accepts these tasks and moves onto the next team.

This falls apart when the teams come up with "we" tasks. It fails apart when students do nothing, trivialize the task or try to spam the process by cut and pasting into the weekly memo from the internet.

The tasking grading rubric has to parts: before and after. The before part of the rubric is: The after part of the rubric is: Some students will confuse the task itself with negotiating the task and merely turn in a written version of the task negotiation. Other students will just list off new task ideas rather than do anything. Not doing a negotiated task will result in no task points.
 * time to negotiate (smaller amount of time, higher the score)
 * instructor brainstorming (less required higher the score)
 * team consensus (more consensus, higher the score)
 * realistic (higher score)
 * eight hours of work (higher score)
 * task actually attempted in non-trivial way
 * acknowledge that the task was changed, the change rationalized and then work performed
 * proposal of new tasks and/or continuation of current task

Ideally students can take equipment home and work on tasks individually. Tasks can also be completed in an engineering lab open for working on projects outside of class time. Students working together should be a last resort. Students working together should be a exception rather than the rule. Students working one on oone with a lab aid, instructor or mentor from outside the school should be encouraged.

Push Weekly push is the subjective part of project grading. Describing this as "Work" creates the expectation that "hard work" even though unsuccessful, will be rewarded. In fact engineers are rewarded for success that can result from a flash of inspiration or years of perspiration. Describing this as "project work" isn't focused enough. Push points can be associated with documentation and links to deliverables.

Typically the deliverables start with pictures, videos, software, and drawings. Push points are not given for fruitless work such as driving to every hardware store in the area searching for a part. Push points are not given for spending 8 hours learning how to edit video ... unless a youtube playlist is created that defines "need to know" for this project, or shoot a video of the spots where they got stuck while learning. Push points are not given unless the students learning curve is turned into a problem of the world that is fixed.

Push points are not given for a weekly narrative that is a litany of what happened. A description of what worked and what didn't work results in no push points. Push points are given for the following reasons:
 * From what video, pictures and words, another student could repeat the success or failure.
 * Clear starting point, ending point, next steps.
 * Cut and paste ready into team documentation
 * Is within the project problem description context, scope and requirements
 * The project has moved forwards towards completion

Push points typically start of 0. They can be bunched up. Three weeks of push can be earned in one week. 5 points means you are on the right track. 10 points means there may be something valuable. 20 points means there is something worth putting in the team documentation. A 30 point weekly average is needed to get close to the 400 project grading points. At 40 points, the push should be obvious to any engineer. Above 50 points, the success should cause a re-evaluation of the project's problem statement and requirements.

250 weekly grading points can be accumulated way before the end of class. This is to be celebrated. It signifies is that the student has matured to the point that conversations with the instructor about tasks are all that are necessary to produce good engineering activity. This does not mean engineering activity stops. It merely means the instructor can stop grading weekly memos.

Ideally students write their weekly memos in their own user space. The instructor creates a "section" or "course" page in their own user space that points to the individual student's weekly memos. The instructor gives feed back on the student's weekly memo and encourages students to look at this part of each other's feedback. This is pure fun from an instructors point of view. It sets the stage for the discussions in class in the team context.

Class time prioritizes team meetings, presentations and wiki documentation. Actual work on projects should only occur if there is time left. Instructors should also work at pushing projects forward in class. Students that begin idle, non-engineering talk should be focused first by example and then by re-tasking if they can not always find something to push a project forward.

Grade notebooks in class once a week.

The rubric is to give points for following the format, drawings and GoingToDo, Doing, Rant triplets.

Again, the grade is open ended so grading has to be done by points.

Write the rubric, (form, drawing, project) on even pages, total the number, record in your gradebook, date and sign.

 * Form is if they are writing in the notebook in the correct format. This is a chance to converse with the student about their notebook organization. 10 points maximum for form.

 * Drawing has to be rewarded independently. A GoingToDo triplet has to set up the drawing. The drawing has to be isometric or othographic and have arrows pointing to features describing functions. It has to have a name and number.

Graphics grading starts off counting the number of arrows connecting descriptions to the drawings. Repeated drawing of the same thing reduces the count. Only differences increase the count. Notebook drawings should never be a substitute for drawing with software.

 * Doing The normal way students write is "Going to Do, Doing, Rant." This is called project writing. Statistics show that students produce on average about 3 triplets per hour. A page is usually about 3 triplets and represents an hours worth of work. These are the issues to look out for when grading doing triplets:

 * If one triplet covers an entire page, counsel student to break into smaller triplets.
 * If each of the three is one line, then student is punishing themselves in order to get points. This is not engineering. Don't give them any points.
 * If they seem to be working hard, but not writing much, tell them to write while they are working, not after the fact.
 * If the writing is too polished, if there is no chaos, if they are only describing successes and not the fog of failure, frustration, etc. then they are using the notebook as a reporting tool and are not going to learn engineering.
 * If the triplets are repetitive, trivial, obvious or common sense then don't give them any points.

Triplets are graded by counting rants and then multiplying by three. Initiate notebook grading at any time. But leave it the responsibility of students to get their notebook graded. If students don't get their notebook graded, they loose form points only, not drawing or triplet project points.

If nothing is done, no notebook points are awarded. If a student completes one triplet, it is 13 points. This can be done in class. If notebooks are required for entrance into the classroom, then it is easy for students to get 16 points a week. 15 weeks *16 = 240 points. So for basically participating the entire semester, this point category can be maxed out.

The better students are going to max out their notebook points well before the end of the course. It is expected that the notebook will continue to be used, even though it is not graded.

Any project should willing, able and want to present at any time.

Presentations longer than 5 minutes should be penalized.

Presentations should be practiced in the classrooms. Instructors may even give the presentation.

Presentations should not be limited to the specific project working on, but could be project proposals or engineering experiences encountered out in the community.

Presentation opportunities are not limited to the engineering seminar and projects day but to presentations around campus during engineering week, during celebrations such as Ada Lovelace Day, World Toilet Day, π Day, etc. Unique presentations to internal organizations such as buildings and grounds or the college board of directors may be rewarded. External presentations to organizations in the form of papers at engineering conferences, project customers, etc. can also be rewarded.

Rubric: These are something an instructor can capture that aren't subjective: These are subjective items that an audience could be asked .. through clickers, cell phone texting or smart phone apps
 * startup ... use presentation stored in cloud that is linked to wikiversity pages
 * short ... between 5 and 10 minutes
 * team work ... everyone speak in turn, obvious planning of who talks about what, when and in which order, introduction of team members
 * no distractions ... no fancy graphics, colors, video or jokes that detract from a focus on the project
 * demonstration ... backup video at a minimum
 * Audience awareness
 * repeating something already presented
 * too much detail
 * trying to educate rather than set expectations
 * memorable sound bites

 * Speaking
 * mispronouncing words
 * reading slides
 * reading script
 * speaking to the slides

 * Questions
 * question solicitation obvious and ugly
 * completely covered everything
 * didn't understand enough to ask question
 * numerous conversation starting points offered

 * Flow
 * Interrupting each other to correct, clarify, re-tell in better words
 * Too staged
 * Uneven transitions from one speaker to the next
 * Passed quickly, never boring

 * Enthusiasm
 * Can not remember anything that was just presented
 * I learned something
 * Very interesting
 * I want on this project

 * Opinions
 * Repeating point of view with no justification
 * Random opinion, I can think of something else
 * Justified, harmonized within the team
 * Opinions turned into numbers

 * Numbers
 * Numbers subjective to interpetation
 * Numbers made independent of personality
 * Number collection method very clear
 * Numbers statistically analyzed

Presentations in the seminar and on projects day should have the rubric applied. Presentations should be a reward for good work. Not every team or every person should expect the opportunity to present. If two 100 point presentations are give and 5-10 point presentations are allowed in class, then it should be easy for most students to obtain the maximum of 200 presentation points.

Good attendance, participation and support of those on the team, along with minimal weekly memos, minimal notebook work and no project push should result in a C.

Project grading is what separates B and A students. If students max out all other point categories, they can get a B without pushing a project forward ever.

Every individual on a team gets the same project grade. However, this project grade is a percentage of their weekly push points. If the team gets a project grade of 100%, each individual's weekly push points are added to their project grade which has a maximum of 400 points. If the team gets 50%, then half of the individual's weekly push points are added to the project grade.

The teams project percentage grade starts off with checking to see if all the push point information makes into the project documentation. Here is the negative rubric. To see the positive, look at the syllabus.

 * Table of contents bloated, more than one level, doesn't contain next steps, a 5 minute presentation
 * Sequence of formal presentations and dates made lost
 * Not all push point work found in weekly memos made it into the team documentation
 * Time or Dated material such as week 1, week 2, week 3 context leaks into the weekly memo
 * Places such as my house, this college is mentioned
 * People's names, pictures, appear in the documentation
 * Bloated paragraphs have to be shrunk to a sound bye within a collapse template.
 * I and We statements have to be edited out
 * No integration within the previous documents structure/narrative, just tacked onto the end
 * No integration with other team mates work, different individuals merely dump into the project documentation
 * Not making use of gallery tags to show lots of pictures
 * Not selectively deleting pictures, just dumping everything taken into the documentation
 * Not giving pictures labels (descriptions) that encourage readers to click on the pictures and make them bigger
 * Broken links, links to documents that are private, not public
 * Screen shots have to be edited by instructor to remove company logos
 * Forcing the instructor to spend more than 10 minutes editing what the team has done
 * Creating fill that originates from logical thought and an outline rather than push points

Operate
Engineering projects are never finished. It is wrong to assume that projects start, go through some process and are finished, then documented. Documentation has to happen continuously. Presentations have to be done with only a 2 minute notice.

There are always unrealistic expectations. Part of engineering is breaking the unknown into starting points and doable chunks. Hopefully it pushes the project forward. One may be merely documenting what is impossible. Expectations are constantly being renegotiated during tasking. Unknown requirements creep into the tasking and then make their way into the problem statement through the back door.

The point is that success is not "finishing" a project. Success is presenting. Success is presenting something new, wonderful, world changing, world improving at a moments notice. Get noticed. Get a job. Get in front of the public and wow them.

CDIO is described in the wikibook associated with this course. Project pages should be dominated by an accumulated history of all work on the project (even by other teams from past semesters). This is the outline:
 * PROBLEM ... client, customer, expectations, short paragraph
 * CONCEIVE ... answer questions why, where, what, scope, scale, customer, price, cost, materials, requirements
 * DESIGN ... paper, computer, simulation, drawing, planned assembly, testing, modeling
 * IMPLEMENT ... physical world, doing stuff, getting to work
 * OPERATE ... keeping it working, selling, servicing, support, manuals, life cycle, shipping
 * DEMO ... video of demo, presentation of the project at it's current state, list of materials needed to demo
 * NEXT STEPS ... what would engineers would do if more time/material/money were put into the project which is never finished

The first and the last are the most interesting. The details of what happened are usually found in the middle.

Demo
Typical /Syllabus/

Next Steps

 * Increase number of schools/instructors using this
 * Get this published through NSEE
 * NSF Grants to spread this documentation format
 * Leverage to build projects in all engineering classes
 * Promote use by PLTW
 * Propose as high school/college freshman best practice to ABET and CDIO
 * Promote to wikiversity editors as best practice project documentation


text:
Servetus

See Michael Servetus

Life
While many histories of Servetus have been published claiming that his true name was Michael Servetus (Miguel Serveto) and that he was born at Villanueva de Sijena, Aragon, recent discoveries suggest that Servetus true name could have been Michael De Villeneuve (Miguel De Villanueva) and may have been born at Tudela of Navarre. We will cover this in the /De Villeneuve-Servetus Name&Birth controversy/ seminar."

Well known works
(Only the dates of the first editions)

1531 “''On the Errors of the Trinity. De Trinitatis Erroribus''” (Hageunau ,Setzer). Signed as Michael Servetus.

1532 “ Dialogs on the Trinity.Diaologorum de Trinitaty” (Hageunau ,Setzer). Signed as Michael Servetus

1535 “''Geography of Claudius Ptolemy. Claudii Ptolemaeii Alexandrinii Geographicae.''” Lyon, Trechsel. Signed as Michel De Villeneuve

1536 “''The Apology against Leonard Fuchs. In Leonardum Fucsium Apologia.''“Lyon, printed by Gilles Hugetan, with parisian prologue. Signed as Michel De Villeneuve

1537 “''Universal explanation of the syrups. Syruporum universia ratio''.” Paris, edited by Simon des Colines. Signed as Michael De Villeneuve

1538 “''Apologetic discourse of Michel De Villeneuve in favour of astrology and against a certain physician. Michaelis Villanovani in quedam medicum apologetica disceptatio pro Astrologia.''” Which brought about his first death sentence by the University of Paris. The sentence was commuted to the withdrawal of this edition. From this year the name of Michel De Villeneuve will never appear on the cover of a first edition.

1542 “''Sacred Bible according to the translation of Santes Pagnini. Biblia sacra ex Santes Pagnini tralation, hebraist.''” Lyon, edited by Delaporte and printed by Trechsel. The name Michel De Villeneuve appears in the prologue, the last time this name would appear in any of his works.

1542 "Biblia sacra ex postremis doctorum". Vienne in Dauphiné, edited by Delaporte and printed by Trechsel. Anonymous. Generally acepted atributed work to Michael Servetus.

1553 "The Restoration of Christianity .Cristianismi Restitutio". Vienne in Dauphiné, printed by Baltasar Arnoullet. Signed as Michael Servetus.

===New Works communicated and accepted by the International Society of History of Medicine ISHM===

The Biblia Sacra Ex Postremis Doctorum  has been attributed to Servetus based on the protocols  of Michel De Villeneuve with his printers and editors (Treschel,Frellon) and matching these with anonymous works of the  same period of time in data, mention of characters, the locations and use of words, and contract requirements. Applying the same methods the researcher and scholar on Michael Servetus, Francisco Javier González Echeverría has  attributed him  five  previously unknown medical works (1538, 1543, 1543, 1548–1551,1554 posthumous), a commented bible(1545), a biblical work(1540), and four grammatical translation works(1540, 1543, 1543, 1549). According to González Echeverría, Michael Servetus/De Villeneuve, who published almost annually for more than a decade from 1531 to 1542 did not stop publishing. He did publish, but anonymously.

González Echeverría found these works through contracts Michael De Villeneuve made with the Company of Booksellers in Lyon in 1540. Company of Booksellers gathered many editors and printers, particularly the Trechsel. These works include the never found Ghost Bible of 1545 and the Opera Omnia of Galen, both thought not to exist, though the contracts existed. González Echeverría also found De Villeneuve's Spanish work of translation through the connection with the brothers Trechsel and the brothers Frellon. It was Jean Frellon who affirmed in the Judgement of Vienne in Dauphiné against Michel de Villeneuve that “ Michel De Villeneuve had translated at his printing work from Latin various grammatical treatises from Latin to Spanish and had made a Spanish summary of St Thomas Aquinas."

Many of these books were reprinted by other editors and printers such as Payen, Gabiano, Rovilio, Giunta.. The books were reprinted not only in Lyon, but also in Venice by such printers as Valgrisio, Lilio or the Nucio at Antwerp.

Biblical Works
1545 "Biblia Sacra cum Glossis. Sacred Bible with comment." Lyon, printed by Trechsel and Vicent. According to González Echeverría this book is the so-called “Lost Bible” or “Ghost Bible” by some Servetus scholars.There is an anonymous work from this year that was edited in accordance with the contract Miguel De Villeneuve made with the Company of Booksellers in 1540. That contract specified the addition of comments by Erasmus and Etienne, and those comments have been added to the work. The work consists of 7 volumes (6 volumes and an index) illustrated by Hans Holbein. Copy at the city council of Tudela de Navarre.

Medical Works
1538 "Manuscript of the Complutense University of Madrid." Paris(c.1538). On a Dioscorides of Ruel of 1537 printed by Simon des Colines. González Echeverría ordered a comparative grapho-cryptic expert report on the manuscript with the Manuscript of Paris. It was carred out by paleographists of Sevilla who concluded that the Hundreds of hand-written notes were written in Servetus's hand.

1543 "Dioscorides "1st edition Lyon, Frellon. Medical comments and notes on Vienne in Dauphiné, Montpelier and the Doctor Rondelet. Various subsequent editions.

1543   "Dispensarium or Enquiridium". Lyon, Frellon. Complementary of the previous Dioscorides of the same year, with 224 original recipes and others by Lespleigney and Chappuis. Varios subsequent editions.

1548-1551 "Opera Omnia of Galenus". Lyon, Frellon. Five tomes altogether. (Four tomes and an index). With original comments. It is not just that Michael De Villeneuve admired Galenus, but that he was the best Galenist known according to his teachers. (Ref: Andernach El amor a la verdad 194-204) Copy checked at the University of Salamanca, section of old books.

1554 "Dioscorides of Mattioli and Servetus". Designated by González Echeverría tribute edition of the printers. Lyon, edited by Frellon, Rovilio and Vicent and Arnoullet, and printed by Arnoullet. Only edition after the death of Michael De Villeneuve. Contains commenst by both Mattioli and Servetus. Mattioli's comments are signed, Servetus's are not. His comments match perfectly with those found in the Dioscorides of 1543.

Professor John M. Riddle, the foremost expert on Dioscorides, from North Carolina State University, described both works as anonymous. After examining the work of González Echeverría, Riddle has accepted the authorship of Michael Servetus of the two Dioscorides.

Ilustrated Biblical works
1540 "Las ymagines de las historias del Viejo Testamento.The images of the stories of the Old Gospel." Antwerp, printed by Steelso. Spanish translation from Latin with 92 illustrations by Hans Holbein.Also from the Treschel editors and printers. There is a previous Frellon edition which contains a prologue signed by him. It was also printed by Trechsell.The translation features the same choice of Spanish terms and Galicisms found in  later De Villeneuve/Servetus' grammatical treatises.[12]

1543 "Retratos o tablas de la historia del Viejo Testamento.Portraits or printing boards of the story of the Old Gospel." Lyon, 2nd edition of 1549. Novenas and 94 quintillas with 94 illustrations by Hans Holbein. ( The “spanish sumary” of the contract with Jean Frellon who mentions it in the Judgement of Vienne in Dauphiné) with native words of Navarra and Aragón ( aragonesisms and navarrisms) of the river Ebro valley.

Four Gramatical non-illustrated works
(Contracts with Frellon for the translation of Spanish-Latin works with many resemblances to the chosen Spanish terminology on the translation. Except in the case of La Andriana they are aimed at young readers.)

1543 "Disticha de moribus nomine Catonis." ( Moral disticus of Caton) Lyon, Frellon.

1549 "Commentarius puerorum de Latinae Linguae Elegantia. Children's book of notes on the elegance and variety of the latin language". Lovaina, Sasseno/ widow of De Byrckmann). In 1551 edition at Lyon by Frellon.

1549 " Andria. La Andriana."( Lovaina, Sasseno/ widow of De Byrckmann). It is a work that appears at the same time as the previous one. Last known edition to date. It uses terminology similar to the previous mentioned work. There is an editorial relationship for spreading Spanish works between Byrckmann and Frellon. González Echeverría affirms: “ Unfortunately, since there is not a previous nor subsequent edition by Frellon to date, very possibly it is a work by De Villeneuve/Servetus but we can not be sure of it.”
 * (Very possible but not certain authorship of Michael De Villeneuve/Servetus according to González Echeverría research)

1549 "De octo orationis partium constructione libellus. Litle work on the construction of the eight parts of the prayer."Lyon, Frellon.

Social justice defender
Michael Servetus was  aware of the social reality around him, and denounced its unfair aspects. For example according to González Echeverría: ''“Servet sided with the German peasants  against  Luther. He defended them, comparing their miserable life conditions to those of slave when he described Germany in  Geography of Ptolomeus. Likewise, when he talks of Spain, Servet comments that the inquisitors  cruelly bash the heretics, Muslims and crypto-Jews. The Spanish words for referring to crypto-Jews was marrano, which comes from the Arab word for  pig, understood as  filthy and forbidden by the jews and muslims. These statements echo the message of Jesus about being on the side of the poor, the weak and forgotten  and those persecuted by the society”''

title: Servetus


text:
User:PAIRdoc/sig1

— PAIRdoc •talk•

title: User:PAIRdoc/sig1


text:
User:PAIRdoc

Initial Entry
Initial page creation — PAIRdoc •talk• 21:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

title: User:PAIRdoc


text:
User talk:PAIRdoc

Initial Entry
Initial page creation — PAIRdoc •talk• 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PAIRdoc


text:
Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Header

This is a free and open online book which focuses on using psychological knowledge about motivation and emotion to help humans improve their lives.

For more info, see:
 * 1) Topic selection
 * 2) Book guidelines
 * 3) Marking criteria
 * 4) 2010 textbook
 * 5) Unselected topics: 2010, 2011

Overview

 * 1) This emerging academic-authored free and open book is being written as a learning and assessment exercise. Third-year year psychology students will mostly be the authors, although others are also welcome to write, contribute, and provide feedback.
 * 2) Participants are currently signing up for topics of choice. (First in, best dressed). Then we will develop chapter plans, chapter drafts, interactive learning features, and an accompanying 5 min. video.
 * 3) Authors should consult book chapter guidelines and marking criteria.

Emphasis for 2011

 * 1) Chapters should aim to appeal to a broad audience interested in how insights from psychological science can be used to understand and improve their motivational and emotional lives
 * 2) Combination of theoretical, research and practical ("how to - in the real world")
 * 3) Shorter, punchier chapters than 2010 (which had unlimited word count)
 * 4) Target: Intelligent lay audience, i.e., written in a user-friendly, accessible way, based on, and referencing, best available psychological science.
 * 5) In 2011, we are aiming for the best-seller section of popular psychology-based self-help books. (In 2010, the target was an undergrad academic textbook audience.)
 * 6) The 2011 assessment for the wiki chapter includes 10% for social contribution (i.e., contributions to the book which go beyond one's primary chapter)

Possible topics

 * 1) Choose from the growing list of topics below or suggest your own topic (which will be subject to further discussion and refinement).
 * 2) Choice of topic can and should reflect the author's personal interests, but should also target a motivation and emotion topic of practical use to a broad public audience.

title: Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Header


title: User:Bwest9


text:
User talk:Bwest9

 Hello Bwest9, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk - c 22:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

 Woof! My name is Jack Russell. I am a dog and a Wikiversity mascot. I am pretty new around Wikiversity. Perhaps we can learn together! Tail wag...

Welcome to Motivation and emotion
Hi. Welcome to the unit and to Wikiversity! I look forward to learning with you and I hope that you find the topic and the unit rewarding. Please feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions or would like help at any point along the way. Sincerely, James Neill, -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bwest9