Talk:Collaborative method

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello. I realized that we can be more efficient in writing this article, if we listed and agreed upon some group values. Please do contribute.

1. Freedom of Information

Signed, 146.145.210.126 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be editing

Fair play, you are making a decent job of this page. Just be careful not to inject original research or novel synthesis that might form part of your thesis but would be against policy but besides that mild suggestion - great job! --Fredrick day 09:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why methodologies? Wouldnt Collaborative method mean the same thing? MidgleyDJ 09:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. :-). MidgleyDJ 09:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this time there are sixteen individual lists. Please help convert the non-essential lists into prose! —Parhamr 18:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some fixes but none were really outright rewrites as prose; it is currently 'ok' but not optimal —Parhamr 01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The percentages given for the proportions of different leaner types (e.g., auditory, visual and kin) in the population are directly contradicted in the linked article on Kineasthetic learners. This article gives percentiles of 40, 30 and 30 percent respectively: the other gives values of 10, 60 and 30 percent. Clearly, one set of values is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.222.5 (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source for this article states she derived her info from "

guideline of reliable sources would lead me to believe this article's source is correct. Thank you for asking this question! —Parhamr 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just arrived to this article and I have no idea what this is about. Someone please add an introduction... —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]