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.