[Foundation-l] Wikiversity - courses

Wed Dec 21 01:55:52 UTC 2005

Cormac Lawler wrote:

>On 12/20/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>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 think 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.
>>    
>>
>Well, I think peer review would grow out of having research hosted on
>Wikiversity. But until the research is peer reviewed, it shouldn't be
>considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia/books. I personally
>think the Wikimedia community is hampered by not having recourse to
>publishing research somewhere within Wikimedia (even though we all do
>- in Wikibooks!)
>
To make myself perfectly clear, I have never believed that "No Original 
Research" should be a rule in an ideal wiki.  It became a real issue 
when one individual sought to publish his offbeat theories in physics.  
The issue is really a matter of when, not whether.

>>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.
>>    
>>
>I agree that top-down course development shouldn't be where we're
>going, but I just meant that learning communities generally have to
>have some sort of goal (ie writing a good article, exploring the pros
>and cons of advertising, etc.) - that's all.
>
Yes, content will eventually escape from the process, but it must not 
drive the process.  To quote McLuhan, "The medium is the message."

>>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."
>>    
>>
>Absolutely - the wiki-format is entirely geared towards active,
>critical learning. Learning by doing - experiential learning. That's
>the kind of learning that I'm personally talking about when I talk
>about wikiversity - not the acquisition and repetition of facts.
>
Great!  I think that we need to keep that ruthlessly in mind as this 
thing develops.

>>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.
>>    
>>
>Sounds good (I had already thought of this). Would you be willing to
>help out? (I am..)
>
Gingerly, yes.  I must however remain modest about what I can do.
What, currently is the best place to develop this idea?

Ec