I'm very glad to see this issue finally engaged. The way it's resolved will
have a substantial impact.
on 10/24/06 6:37 AM, Cormac Lawler at cormaggio(a)gmail.com wrote:
There is much in Morley's questions/frustrations
that I can empathise
with, but there is a lot of sense here from Michael. I'm not going to
labour over everything but I'll pick out some salient points (as I see
them).
Morley:
> Accredited universities do not have a lock,
a
> patent on the terms "teacher", "student", "instructor"
or "course". Lots of
> institutions of learning which do not give or require accreditation use
> these terms every day, world wide. There's no good reason for the
> Wikiversity to avoid commonplace terminology.
>
Michael:
Well I agreed with your position above initially. However, after
watching a few teenagers set themselves up as "Department Heads" I now
have a better appreciation of some of the nuances of anonymous internet
participation. Something most of the members of the Board of the
Wikimedia Foundation have probably been immersed in for several years in
various ways.
As I now see it the good reason to avoid common place terminology is
that it carries a lot of baggage. Most people hear teacher and think
"qualified professional compensated by the institution" not "precocious
teenager or retired project manager who can help me review
thermodynamics if I cross check and verify all facts and reasoning for
myself".
Cormaggio:
This is a thorny issue and one we definitely need to address more
head-on in the not-too-distant future. Wikiversity will definitely
have people who are there to help other people learning and there will
be other people simply there to learn (or perhaps even to "be
taught"). I don't think there is anything wrong with calling oneself a
"teacher" or "student" (in fact, some people have suggested that we
need some sort of differential login for teachers and students in
particular circumstances). However, I think the fundamental tenet of a
learning community is that anybody can be either/both simultaneously.
This is why I like the proposed Wikiversity motto: "Where the teachers
learn and the learners teach" (and its variants).
Teenagers calling themselves professors or heads of department - well,
we need to avoid being too ageist here and recognise that some of the
best contributors to Wikiversity so far have been teenagers (and the
fact that we will need to invert, to an extent, the age-old
preconceptions of who a "teacher" is - or "expert", for that
matter).
But I find personally distasteful something we've seen in the past
which is like someone "claiming" a department for themselves (simply
because they were first on the scene). This is really bad for building
and developing a learning community. What I think we need to be doing
is to list ourselves as "participants" - then, some of us will
facilitate, point etc, and some of us will ask to be guided - and we
will switch between these roles depending on our needs, knowledge etc.
Fundamentally, in my view, Wikiversity isn't about the *conferring* of
such titles as "teacher" or "professor" on people - though we
*should*
recognise the expertise someone brings to Wikiversity, including that
of being a teacher in a brick-and-mortar institution. However, we need
to adapt the "baggage" of such terms to the building of such an open
learning community/system as Wikiversity.
I'm not in the least knowledgeable on the workings of the Wikipedia, but I
suspect there's a strong likelihood some individuals over there have become
known as skilled in particular fields, and as responsible editors. I suspect
something along this line will build up at the Wikiversity as well.
It's inevitable over time certain individuals will accumulate merit and
trust. In its deeper meaning this is what a teacher (or for that matter
guru) really means. Someone who is trusted to give reliable instruction.
It's institutions which hand out the titles. Which is where ego, personal
prestige and rivalry then enters in. Inevitably.
I agree with the concept the Wikiversity should start from scratch, that it
shouldn't restrict or control who teaches or gives instruction. Let the
merit accumulate. A marketplace solution.
Having said that, it's also inevitable, over time, there will be a need for
a thumbnail identification of individuals with merit. Don't know what or how
that might unfold, but this too is inevitable.
>> Morley:
>> By stating up front this is NOT an accredited learning situation that whole
>> issue really ought to be put aside and simply get on with it. To ban courses
>> or to try to invent some other word, to ban teachers or try to invent some
>> other word, you're making the institution look foolish.
>>
> Michael:
> Actually I am not responsible. The "institution" can only look foolish
> if the terms and the name Wikiversity are activating preconceptions in
> the listener. Thus demonstrating what others have called "the wisdom
> of the Board" in asking that we avoid these terms to reduce confusion to
> newcomers.
I should interrupt here to say that as a newcomer here I interpreted various
postings and personal messages as making a hard line defence of the Board
and appeared to be galloping as far away from "teaching" and
"teachers" and
"courses" as possible. This caused me much consternation. That can't be
right, that can't stand.
Which is exactly why I believe this discussion here is so very useful.
Cormaggio:
I don't think we are about banning teachers - or even courses. As far
as defining Wikiversity goes, I'm not a hardline radical (even though
I would like us to become something radical).
I think we have considerable flexibility in our proposal - and this
includes constructing materials in the format of a course that someone
can follow themselves - with links to pages where activities,
discussions take place between people in the role of teachers/facilitators
and some people in the role of learners/students.
Exactly how I would like to see the Wikiversity unfold.
Specifically how this works hasn't been fully
explained (or 'discovered') -
this is one of the primary things that we are trying to learn about as we
experiment.
So, I would urge you, Morley, to be experimental, and not see this is
as a stumbling block. And if you/we find that there is a particular
element to our processes that are particularly brilliant or
problematic, we can start to develop guidelines help pages, and maybe
policies around these elements. But really, to a large extent, we are
more knowledgeable than the board in this respect - part of the
original rejection and subsequent furore around the "exclude online
courses" recommendation was because there was a lack of clarity in the
original proposal. What we have now does not - as far as i see it -
prevent anyone from following a "traditional" route as their preferred
mode of pedagogy. However, for better or worse, I am going to revive
his discussion soon - probably on the Foundation-l mailing list - to
try to get some clarity on why the original proposal was rejected and
place it within the context of recent discussions.
>> Morley:
>> A Wikiversity with teaching materials but no support for online teaching
>> would be a major piece of foolishness. And to obsess over this issue is
>> simply alienating.
>>
> Michael:
> ?? Forgive me but I think you are completely wrong above. If
> Wikiversity accomplishes nothing but becoming a large online free
> repository of useful GPL'ed teaching/studying/learning materials
> covering wide sections of human knowledge then it will be an outstanding
> accomplishment rivaling the invention of the printing press.
A policy of learning materials that cannot be put into service online (at
least not on the Wikiversity) would have two effects.
1. The materials would have no provenance. Nothing to indicate how good or
bad, how practical in a teaching situation. They might be accurate but how
practical? With no visitor guidance on this issue the Wikiversity has no
ability to build up its representation as a worthy resource. The reverse
could well develop the Wikiversity as a dump, as a hodge podge.
2. With no online activity someone will fork the Wikiversity into an
alternate site that actively supports online learning. In other words, take
it commercial. This will happen anyway and is probably harmless. But in my
view if the Wikiversity can do it itself in a no-advertising manner it will
have much greater appeal to the public and likely gain grants from various
bodies.
Overall, a repository of learning materials, while worthy and useful, is
only half the equation. By having active online learning as Cormaggio
envisions above there will inevitably be cross fertilization from the online
learning back to the course materials themselves. That's exactly the pattern
in conventional learning institutions. One feeds the other.
In my mind online learning as Cormaggio describes is very doable, even
inevitable. Exactly how to do it remains for discussions such as this one.
> Personally I think we can establish support for
online learning and have
> been continually amazed that no professional instituation or government
> has tackled this for the shear economic benefits to society ..... the
> ever present fear of layoff I suppose. Perhaps amateurs and
> professionals working together at Wikiversity can accomplish this
> obvious benefit of interactive learning computer technology. If not,
> then just the repository of GPL'ed information will still be of great
> value to every society which chooses to allow its free use.
Lack of vision is the probable explanation. Most of us navigate by looking
through the rear view mirror.
Cormaggio:
I fully agree with Michael here. In fact, a "free repository of
resources" was one of the original proposals for wikiversity - and one
which i thought we were being forced into following the board's
original rejection. Since then, however, we have sculpted a proposal
which promotes the developing of learning communities - so we
explicitly also allow for teaching and learning - however successful
or not this experiment will actually turn out to be.
I have the feedback from one "instructor" (a course on the Third Reich)
saying he/she's very well pleased with how it's going.
For the purpose of my current Wikiversity Newcomers page expansion it's my
intention to survey other "course" leaders and discover how they're doing
it, how well it's going and from that provide pointers to other would-be
"leaders" on how it can be done. This is down the road a bit but was/is part
of my original vision for a proper newcomers page.
I also plan a similar section for would-be learners as well. In other words,
learn from the participants both whether and how it works.
There are other points that I'd like to address,
but I think I've
sketched my general take on this for now. Fundamentally though, I'd
like to thank you Morley for your keen interest and dedicated and
patient work on-wiki. I'll be seeing you around. And, also, good to
hear from you again, Michael :-)
Kind regards,
Morley Chalmers
--
Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They are where they
should be. Now put the foundations under them. -- Henry David Thoreau