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
I'm not sure where you got the idea that we can't put together a curriculum package for a K-3 instructional environment on Wikibooks. I am sorry that you have felt that such a concept is something that is heavily discouraged on Wikibooks, and this is precisely why I feel that a "textbook only" philosophy is so heavily flawed... even if you try to stick with an educational content basis to Wikibooks content.
The main issue I have about this heavy emphasis on textbooks is that it gets rid of the concept that "Wikibooks is not paper". There are some very interesting things that can be done using an electronic interface even on a wiki that can be very productive and not necessarily look like a "textbook" but can clearly be educationally oriented. Indeed, some very interesting things along these lines have been going on with Wikiversity, which is where most of the creative energy seems to have gone from Wikibooks. Administrators and participants on Wikiversity don't seem to be so worried about format standards and appearance so much as trying to provide educational experiences.
Perhaps this is something that needs to be defined in terms of where the distinction between these two project (Wikibooks and Wikiversity) ought to be made. There were many individuals who objected to Wikiversity getting "kicked off" of Wikibooks in the first place precisely because this would set up an arbitrary distinction of content that was "traditional" and "non-traditional" kinds of books. Wikibooks like "Aarvard the Arrdvark" also introduced some interesting ideas in terms of what can or should be done for the K-3 audience, although what it mainly accomplished was the idea that Wikibooks should be non-fiction only and not include fictional content. This does make it difficult in terms of making a 1st grade reading primer where there is a tradition of using fictional content as a methodology for introducing language concepts.
I certainly would encourage the development of such a 1st grade reading primer on Wikibooks, and I think it would be a very useful addition. The main point is that the development emphasis would have to be on the primer and reaching explicit goals for language introduction and not trying to be creative with your writing. I would also have to say that for this age group, a larger coordinated educational package including suggested lesson plans, activities, informational resources (including recommended Wikipedia articles for further reading) and worksheets is something that perhaps should be used as well. The only reason I see for the distinction of "no quizes" or other non-textbook material is mainly to give a mission to Wikiversity instead. But to scatter a curriculum development package between the two projects doesn't make any sense either.
I would hope that others would support experimentation on the development of such a curriculum package on Wikibooks, and do keep in mind that if there is resistance to such a project on Wikibooks, there are many on Wikiversity that would be willing to see such content at least be found somewhere on a Wikimedia sister project.