Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 12/17/05, xkernigh(a)netscape.net
<xkernigh(a)netscape.net> wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
The 'safe' proposal until now has been to
make wikiversity a
repository of learning materials. This, I presume, would include
lesson plans/curricula as well as actual resources like
reading/listening comprehension exercises, flash cards, discursive
questions on particular advertisements, etc.
...
*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity_%28overview%29
*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
This proposal is not 'safe'. Look at the Wikiversity (overview) page
linked here, then follow any of the six links from "Cell Biology" to
"Media literacy". They all read like textbooks or introductions to
textbooks. The C programming course contains "lectures" and
"quizzes",
which together function as a textbook. The pages also contain lists of
students (instead of authors), but in short, most of the current
Wikiversity consists of textbooks which must stay at Wikibooks, and not
become a separate wiki.
I would argue that the reason so much of Wikiversity looks like stuff
that should be on Wikibooks is because it has been developed (and
still resides) on Wikibooks! I wrote the outline on the media literacy
course (which I repeat is a mere outline) and I certainly don't
envision this to be a book-like resource/course.
If all that Wikversity ends up doing is producing textbooks, course
outlines and other tangible materials it might as well stay where it is.
In fact, there
is currently no consensus for what Wikiversity means.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward wrote:
Wikiversity currently means different things to
different people.
See for example
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moving_Wikiversity_forward#living_boo
ks where a user actually proposes that Wikiversity should develop
textbooks!
That misrepresents what John was saying. Nobody is proposing that
Wikiversity is for developing textbooks for itself - though it could
and should be about developing resources in all Wikimedia projects.
There may be some overlap between the projects but Wikiversity doesn't
really fully belong on any one project (eg Wikibooks) and thus
deserves its own. How it delineates itself from other projects remains
to be seen, but I would argue that it should focus on those three
things 1) developing multilingual learning materials; 2) growing
learning communities attached to specific tasks (ie finding sources);
and 3) prompting and hosting research (including but not limited to
Wikimedia projects). This final "object" would already give it a clear
distinction from all other Wikimedia projects. After this, the main
outstanding issue is whether the project should be called
"Wikiversity", given the general consensus (from what I see) that
materials should be available for all learner levels/ages.
I think that the key thing that would distinguish Wikiversity from the
other projects is that it is about process while the others are about
product.
In considering your suggested three foci I thinkl that as long as we
can't get past the first one Wikiversity is just as well in Wikibooks.
The third is very far ahead of where we are. It would be absolutely
forbidden in Wikipedia under the No Original Research rule. Making
that a part of Wikiversity before Wikiversity is ready for it could be
an invitation to all kinds of nutcase research that defies peer review.
Peer reviewers would need to be in place before original research could
take place.
Your second focus is key to Wikiversity.but I would leave it simply at
"growing learning communities" without reference to specific tasks.
Getting tangled up in specific tasks and courses leaves too much room
for Wikiversity to repeat the educational model established by
traditional universities. The top down development of a course by a
"teacher" imposes a range of requirements on what's being done. It does
nothing about revolutionizing the entire learning process. "Courses"
are about the teacher rather than the learner.
The name "Wikiversity" is just fine *because* it is about all learners
at all levels and all ages. That's what universality is all about.
It's about life-long learning from kindergarten to post-graduate. It's
about those who know a little bit more helping (not teaching) those who
know a little bit less. I think that it's very encouraging that kids
can go into seniors' homes to teach about computers. A book that I
recently acquired "What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and
Literacy" by James Paul Gee. He analyzes video game playing in terms of
36 "Learning principles". The first of these is the "Active, Critical
Learning Principle" - "All aspects of the learning environment
(including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and
presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive,
learning."
Perhaps the first "course" to be offered in the Wikiversity should be
about learning, and how it happens. If it is to have any such thing as
a core curriculum maybe that should be on it.
Ec