The essential challenge is to get end product into the K-12 education
channel, in a way that 1) meshes with the requirements set by state
education departments to strictly adhere to curriculum frameworks; 2)
devise effective means to inform the established K-12 education
community that #1 has been completed (on a subject by subject basis);
and, 3) establish a means to distribution of materials *in print*
that is easy to access.
Content is decidedly _not_ the problem. The real problems are
logistics and effective project management toward a goal of
completing the above,
Cheers,
Sanford
***************************************
Sanford Forte, Director
California Open Source Texbook Project
Palo Alto, CA
sforte(a)opensourcetext.org
650-321-9152 (Office)
650-888-0077 (Mobile)
On May 11, 2007, at 10:28 AM, KH wrote:
I was under the impression that wikibooks would also
include
textbooks for
k-12. Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are
still
learning to read. Later, they read to learn. So much of the
"textbook" is
really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and activities.
Actually,
a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've
read we
are not supposed to do curriculum.
Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is. Here is where I got
my info:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003069.shtml
Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:
"The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all
languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There
are several
projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks
project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the
encyclopedia, and
it will take much longer."
Curriculum, by definition, is a package. It can include textbooks but
certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning,
activities, etc.
I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in
wikibooks so
that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based
curriculum. But according to new definitions, I'm not sure
wikibooks is an
appropriate place. Under the old definition from the website
listed above,
it is.
-Kathy
-----Original Message-----
Florence Devouard wrote:
I, for one, think it is great to work on better
defining the mission
of Wikibooks. I have one question though, do you know if the
definition worked upon is generally shared with other wikibooks
people
? Are they other wikibooks that have worked on such a definition, and
where the outcome differs widely from yours ?
ant
At last count 18 people supported it and 7 people objected to it.
As others
have already said, some disagree on limiting English Wikibooks to just
textbooks, how much emphases on textbooks be be given, whether or
not it
should be a policy or guideline and some have concerns on the
clarity of the
proposal.
There is quite a difference from English Wikibooks' current version
and the
German version. Google's German to English translation of the German
Wikibooks version:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%
2Fde.wikibooks.org%2Fwiki
%2FHilfe%3AWas_Wikibooks_ist&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8
There have been previous proposals on English Wikibooks to redefine
the
current policy as well, before they were merged together:
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab
le&oldid=600961
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab
le&oldid=665481
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstab
le&oldid=665488
that AFAIK, were abandoned before ever getting to the point of
seeking input
from the community to accept or reject them.
--darklama
_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
Textbook-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
Textbook-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l