Re: [Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

KH wrote:
> I was under the impression that wikibooks would also include textbooks for
> k-12.  Normally, k-3 don't have traditional texts because many are still
> learning to read.  Later, they read to learn.  So much of the "textbook" is
> really worksheets, pictures, and planned lectures and activities.  Actually,
> a better word to use for k-3 is curriculum, not textbooks. But I've read we
> are not supposed to do curriculum.
>
> Soooo, I'm not sure what wikibooks really is.  Here is where I got my info:
>
> http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003069.shtml
>
> Although dated 8/05, it seems Mr. Wales had a definite vision:
>
> "The second thing that will be free is a complete curriculum (in all
> languages) from Kindergarten through the University level. There are several
> projects underway to make this a reality, including our own Wikibooks
> project, but of course this is a much bigger job than the encyclopedia, and
> it will take much longer."
>
> Curriculum, by definition, is a package.  It can include textbooks but
> certain goes beyond that to worksheets, teacher planning, activities, etc.
> I would love to redo the SRA Direct Instruction curriculum in wikibooks so
> that parents AND teachers have an option for scientificially based
> curriculum.  But according to new definitions, I'm not sure wikibooks is an
> appropriate place.  Under the old definition from the website listed above,
> it is.
>  
>
> -Kathy
>   
I'm not sure where you got the idea that we can't put together a 
curriculum package for a K-3 instructional environment on Wikibooks.  I 
am sorry that you have felt that such a concept is something that is 
heavily discouraged on Wikibooks, and this is precisely why I feel that 
a "textbook only" philosophy is so heavily flawed... even if you try to 
stick with an educational content basis to Wikibooks content.

The main issue I have about this heavy emphasis on textbooks is that it 
gets rid of the concept that "Wikibooks is not paper".  There are some 
very interesting things that can be done using an electronic interface 
even on a wiki that can be very productive and not necessarily look like 
a "textbook" but can clearly be educationally oriented.  Indeed, some 
very interesting things along these lines have been going on with 
Wikiversity, which is where most of the creative energy seems to have 
gone from Wikibooks.  Administrators and participants on Wikiversity 
don't seem to be so worried about format standards and appearance so 
much as trying to provide educational experiences.

Perhaps this is something that needs to be defined in terms of where the 
distinction between these two project (Wikibooks and Wikiversity) ought 
to be made.  There were many individuals who objected to Wikiversity 
getting "kicked off" of Wikibooks in the first place precisely because 
this would set up an arbitrary distinction of content that was 
"traditional" and "non-traditional" kinds of books.  Wikibooks like 
"Aarvard the Arrdvark" also introduced some interesting ideas in terms 
of what can or should be done for the K-3 audience, although what it 
mainly accomplished was the idea that Wikibooks should be non-fiction 
only and not include fictional content.  This does make it difficult in 
terms of making a 1st grade reading primer where there is a tradition of 
using fictional content as a methodology for introducing language concepts.

I certainly would encourage the development of such a 1st grade reading 
primer on Wikibooks, and I think it would be a very useful addition.  
The main point is that the development emphasis would have to be on the 
primer and reaching explicit goals for language introduction and not 
trying to be creative with your writing.  I would also have to say that 
for this age group, a larger coordinated educational package including 
suggested lesson plans, activities, informational resources (including 
recommended Wikipedia articles for further reading) and worksheets is 
something that perhaps should be used as well.  The only reason I see 
for the distinction of "no quizes" or other non-textbook material is 
mainly to give a mission to Wikiversity instead.  But to scatter a 
curriculum development package between the two projects doesn't make any 
sense either.

I would hope that others would support experimentation on the 
development of such a curriculum package on Wikibooks, and do keep in 
mind that if there is resistance to such a project on Wikibooks, there 
are many on Wikiversity that would be willing to see such content at 
least be found somewhere on a Wikimedia sister project.