Morley Chalmers wrote:
snip previous discussion
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.
- 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.
The materials do not need a provenance if individual teachers and institutions are downloading and modifying or presenting them. The provenance comes from the presenter.
It is very easy to avoid Wikiversity as a dump. Interested administrators and editors can mark and delete material much easier than people can dump it. The steady state solution can and will be quite high on average.
Hodge podge. We want a hodge podge. The field of human knowledge is very hodge podgy. There is currently less cross linking than there should be often with identical concepts and totally different vocabularies used in differing fields.
- 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.
One might argue that Wikia is already doing so. They are attempting to make the Wiki environment look attractive to small groups of academics or students by providing some editing protection and/or some group privacy. Personally I think a better approach is an individual computer but this will take some serious software development effort if one is to link to other's private computers via GNUnet or other distributed access technology.
I agree. I also prefer a no advertising model.
I agree the learning provides helpful and necessary feedback into the materials. It will be a much faster cycle if we have the feedback direct from local learners vs. second hand from instructers. Nevertheless should educators start to tailor, use and republish their own materials starting from Wikiversity material it should start to undergo an adequate evolutionary improvement process.
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.
Do not kid yourself. We have plenty of vision. What we lack is critical mass levels of internet traffic familar or interested with online self study techniques. We may be attempting to establish our own unique market as what Wikiversity offers is distinctly different from what most mean by traditionally oriented "online learning". Growing new markets is always a slow steady challenge until a pivot point is reached.
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.
Cool. How many participants does she have? Can you estimate it?
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.
Critical number of participants per course type to generate/stimulate an interesting fun environment might be a useful parameter.
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.
Excellent idea!
High Regards, mirwin