Are you sure this is actually relevant to search engines any more? I'm pretty sure Google doesn't care, for example.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=active&q=moodle+%22A+SEO+Module%22&btnG=Search
Martin Dougiamas
Posts made by Martin Dougiamas
Moodle in English -> Lounge -> What the F*** -> Re: What the F***
by Martin Dougiamas -
Simon, Moodle is Moodle. I don't think any of those Moodle sites you're talking about have modified their HTML editor.
What you're talking about is not something that can be just switched on and off from one site to another (if it could be I'd have done it years ago).
I don't even know the cause of your problem to even try to attempt solving it, since not everyone is experiencing it.
Perhaps you should just switch off your HTML editor entirely? I have done this for you in fact (you can turn it back on in your profile if you really want it). Hope that helps.
What you're talking about is not something that can be just switched on and off from one site to another (if it could be I'd have done it years ago).
I don't even know the cause of your problem to even try to attempt solving it, since not everyone is experiencing it.
Perhaps you should just switch off your HTML editor entirely? I have done this for you in fact (you can turn it back on in your profile if you really want it). Hope that helps.
Moodle in English -> Lounge -> OLPC and Constructionism -> Re: OLPC and Constructionism
by Martin Dougiamas -
The irony of course is that those people engaging in those discussions you've linked to are themselves engaging in a mode of learning that that can easily be seen as social constructionist in nature, just by the mere fact that they are all given the opportunity to be teaching each other. 
Anyway, the main thing is not to mix up your terms when talking about this stuff. It confuses the discussions about constructivism and constructionism.
ALL learning can be viewed via constructivism (even direct lecturing) because constructivism is a theory of learning INSIDE one persons head and how we develop our sense of reality. It basically just says our brains do not absorb knowledge passively, but that we BUILD new knowledge on top of existing knowledge. This is practically undeniable if you know anything about how the brain works on a physical level. If you lecture a primary school class on University mathematics it just ain't gonna stick - the synapses just will not support it.
Constructionism on the other hand is about the value of learning by doing. Actively building something is a great way to learn. I don't think many people would disagree that one learns better and more deeply about a subject by actually having to write about it and USE those ideas in practice (in various ways) than simply reading a book about it.
I agree that people "dissing" these concepts are probably ignorant of their meaning, and I would argue that they are actually doing these things anyway, whether or not they use those terms. It certainly not all about "students coming up with the facts themselves" and other such statements. Then again, just reading about this stuff is not a good way to "get it", you need to experience it and see it.
When you see yourself as a teacher that is part of a community of practice, good teaching is more complex, more challenging yet MORE important, more engaging and more rewarding than ever. You don't necessarily use a particular bank of "techniques" but you are able to approach each situation and see opportunities for learning that you may not have seen otherwise.
Anyhow, about the OLPC, there are obviously very many levels to the debate, but if you have young children learning to use computers (like I do), I think it's pretty obvious that they just need something in their hands with a little guidance to get started and plenty of time to play with it, and they'll be saving the world in no time.
Anyway, the main thing is not to mix up your terms when talking about this stuff. It confuses the discussions about constructivism and constructionism.
ALL learning can be viewed via constructivism (even direct lecturing) because constructivism is a theory of learning INSIDE one persons head and how we develop our sense of reality. It basically just says our brains do not absorb knowledge passively, but that we BUILD new knowledge on top of existing knowledge. This is practically undeniable if you know anything about how the brain works on a physical level. If you lecture a primary school class on University mathematics it just ain't gonna stick - the synapses just will not support it.
Constructionism on the other hand is about the value of learning by doing. Actively building something is a great way to learn. I don't think many people would disagree that one learns better and more deeply about a subject by actually having to write about it and USE those ideas in practice (in various ways) than simply reading a book about it.
I agree that people "dissing" these concepts are probably ignorant of their meaning, and I would argue that they are actually doing these things anyway, whether or not they use those terms. It certainly not all about "students coming up with the facts themselves" and other such statements. Then again, just reading about this stuff is not a good way to "get it", you need to experience it and see it.
When you see yourself as a teacher that is part of a community of practice, good teaching is more complex, more challenging yet MORE important, more engaging and more rewarding than ever. You don't necessarily use a particular bank of "techniques" but you are able to approach each situation and see opportunities for learning that you may not have seen otherwise.
Anyhow, about the OLPC, there are obviously very many levels to the debate, but if you have young children learning to use computers (like I do), I think it's pretty obvious that they just need something in their hands with a little guidance to get started and plenty of time to play with it, and they'll be saving the world in no time.
Moodle in English -> Lounge -> OLPC and Constructionism -> Re: OLPC and Constructionism
by Martin Dougiamas -
>Chances are that opportunities to apply constructionism to our learning and teaching situations will dwindle as a result of backlash from the OLPC project or diverse education reforms (like the one in Quebec).
Do you really believe this or are you trying to stimulate some kind of response?
Do you really believe this or are you trying to stimulate some kind of response?
Moodle in English -> General developer forum -> Documentation and Support for PEAR extensions -> Re: Documentation and Support for PEAR extensions
by Martin Dougiamas -
Our general policy is to make Moodle standalone and independent of PEAR. PEAR has not been as reliable as you might think (eg not included on cheap web hosts etc).
Where we've used PEAR extensions we've included copies in Moodle core, and gone through some trouble to allow them to be licensed as GPL to make this legal:
http://docs.moodle.org/en/Credits
Most of the PEAR libraries are accessed by some other API in /lib, and sometimes these will go to the trouble of checking and using a real separate PEAR version if it exists, and only falling back to the included version if necessary. This is the preferred way to handle these things.
Where we've used PEAR extensions we've included copies in Moodle core, and gone through some trouble to allow them to be licensed as GPL to make this legal:
http://docs.moodle.org/en/Credits
Most of the PEAR libraries are accessed by some other API in /lib, and sometimes these will go to the trouble of checking and using a real separate PEAR version if it exists, and only falling back to the included version if necessary. This is the preferred way to handle these things.