On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Guerillero Wikipedia <
guerillero.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That is the issue world wide. Here are some of the
issues that I see.
(a) We need to have the guts to say no sometimes. At least in the states,
I feel that we would get better results if we tried to get more small
liberal arts schools who have class sizes that range from 10-30. One
hundred plus person classes do not work well with our model.
(b) We need to shoot for upper level classes. PSY 100 or ENG 101 should
not be our target class. The students do not know yet how to write
effectively in their subject area, for the most part, and have yet to do
real research. 200 or 300 level classes would be easier to work with.
I'd argue the opposite. We should be shooting for English 101 classes,
where the emphasis for the course can be put not on content development,
but on learning the writing process, learning the assessment process, and
where greater freedom is allowable for students to edit in content areas
they feel comfortable in.
The problem with say a 300/400/500 level psychology course is Wikipedia has
its own sets of processes. You cannot necessarily demonstrate domain level
knowledge on Wikipedia to a professor. If there is any requirement for
students to submit DYKs and GAs, the instructional objectives then need to
be changed from learning content to learning the process. The easiest way
to get 300/400/500 level classes to do valuable work on Wikipedia will not
be content creation and submitting articles for assessment but rather,
teaching the students HOW TO ASSESS content and having them participate in
the assessment process as subject area experts. Otherwise, student work
can and will be failed at DYK, at GA, will possibly be AfDed. Will they
fail there because they do not understand the content? No, but because
they fail to understand how to navigate Wikipedia's writing policies,
content policies and behaviorial policies.
--
twitter: purplepopple
blog:
ozziesport.com