Talk:Learning development

Removal of calendar information[edit]

I made this edit because the organization in question, the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education, does not appear to be very notable. There is no Wikipedia article, instead an inline URL is given for the organization, suggesting link spam. Using embedded quotations is already deprecated (see WP:INCITE), and shouldn't be used to link to an organization's website. Moreover, that entire section has no secondary sources whatsoever (besides mere announcements), and thus the information there is of questionable relevance. Does this organization matter at all? It is not proven to matter. Finally, look at what is there: a list of their conferences. That's calendar information, very appropriate for a website but not for an encyclopedic article. It doesn't matter how many contributors there were for that section, it's unencyclopedic in at least three ways and should be cut. The article is already not-good enough. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even seen that that table included stuff like this, "Sally Brown". That's spam. Sally may be happy with the link, but we should not be. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Thanks Drmies. I am grateful for your explanation. Your point on professional's websites is particularly relevant. They are removed (I have much to learn about internet style!). To be honest, I was really surprised that so few of these people are on Wikiepdia (at least figures such as Brown, Race, Land and Barnett..) However, most are notable and at least half are distinguished professors with significant influence on national policy in higher education.

Although this article was only created some days ago, learning development is a national education movement, which I have followed for a year or two. The ALDinHE does feature heavily in the history of this practice (other editors and I have been adding the contributions of other organisations and practices, too). However, between one third and a half of all UK national universities subscribe to the ALDinHE in recognition of the importance of learning development, which is itself an object of study for scholars of education studies. I am not so close to the organsiation as to list all relevant fact, but, for example, I am also aware that at least one governmental agency (e.g. the QAA's UK Quality Code for Higher Education) has cited the work of the ALDinHE as important for quality education. Perhaps this provides further evidence toward a level of notability around the sufficient threshold.

I would appreciate any further thoughts (on appropriacy or style), recognising that there are topics of greater importance and fame... I hope this works toward some justification of the content. Best, Bamkin (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I suppose... I remain of the opinion that this is calendar information and not appropriate for inclusion. In addition, it seems to me that the whole setup of that section basically claims that the history of the concept is tied to the history of one specific organization. I don't see how that can be correct, or neutral. Note also that the section lacks secondary sources... But I won't interfere. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your charity is greatly appreciated. However, I'm sure that the editors interested in this page would welcome your experience.

Perhaps I could suggest returning after some weeks to offer a second (third?) opinion when more references will have hopefully built up. Likewise, this conversation will remain on this talk page for other contributors to ponder.

The point on neutrality is interesting since many experts may well be members of the Association. The 1,000 or so members of the free subscription mailing list LDHEN may include all people with the expertise to contribute, but will hopefully also have multiple affiliations, perspectives and interests...

Just for transparency, I am a member of LDHEN and ALDinHE but am not employed as a learning development practitioner, so I at least hope to remain neutral as an expert in education practice.

For example, in this edit, a view that mathematics support is a sub-discipline of learning development was tempered and moved to another section stating that some observers frame it as a sub-discipline but recognising its longer history and distinct body of literature of practice. This is a problematic issues with conferences: There may be conferences that I might class as learning development, but cannot really list them when the organisers do not use the term learning development (out of respect, and also possibly the unencyclopedic nature of original research).

By the way, I am over the moon with learning the term unencyclopedic. Thank you! Bamkin (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real examples of Learning Development Departments[edit]

Hello King of the LDers. Just to let you know that I removed your section listing 'good' LD provision. I found no reference to the way in which these particular Universities are notable for LD provision above others, or the methods/reasons why. Please feel free to undo my edit if a reference can be found.

Also inline external links to services are considered spam on Wikipedia. You would need to remove these.

Bamkin (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offence was intended with the list and it wasn't an attempt to advertise any of the organiations. I included a list which illustrates the range of provision available in the English Learning Development facilities but didn't have the time to make it complete. I can see how some people might be offended if their institution is omitted but the idea is that they would add it and write something about it or internally link to the detail on their own institution's Wikipedia pages.

I thought that those not familiar with the English LD system might appreciate illustrations supporting the existence of these departments rather than leaving Wikipedia and needing to use Google to find them. Best The King of the LDers (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. There may be a more encyclopedic way to achieve this. One main point is on suitability for the audience perhaps. Many of the websites cited were aimed at students, which is inappropriate for somebody searching for general information. The other concern was over how to choose which universities are listed since practically every UK university has some LD provision to a lesser or greater extent. (If all were listed, it might end up similar to the List of universities in the United Kingdom page.

I wonder whether there is a document that could be referenced giving some information on the types of provision offered by institutions... Bamkin (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Learning development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]