[Foundation-l] Wikiversity - courses

[Ray Saintonge]

Cormac Lawler wrote:

>On 12/17/05, xkernigh at netscape.net <xkernigh at 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