Wikiversity talk:Learning

The wiki user interface facilitates collaborative editing of webpages. Wikiversity needs to strive to find ways to maximize opportunities for turning collaborative editing of Wikiversity webpages into useful learning experiences. WikiMedia projects have several fundamental types of webpages (see "namespace"). For example:

1. the core project documents - these exist in the "main namespace"
2. pages for user disussion of project documents - the "talk" namespace
3. each user can make personal pages - these exist in the "user" namespace

Keeping a journal. It will be useful for Wikiversity participants to make known to the community what their learning objectives are, what their background is, and what frustrations they are experiencing as they try to attain their learning objectives. Each participant will be able to keep a personal journal that could include a fairly detailed account of their educational background, learning goals and frustrations experienced in trying to attain those goals. A natural place for user journals would be within the user namespace. However, Wikiversity should have ways of encouraging participants to take note of what is written in user journals and making use of that information to help guide users towards resources and activities that will facilitate learning objectives. How should Wikiversity be structured so as to maximize the utility of participant journals?

It seems to me that unless a way is provided to deliver only pertinent material to potential readers that journals will overwhelm participants with too much irrelevant information. Perhaps a common class/section "journal" could be established where participants could make class/maze/portal pertinent entries. Essentially a question or feedback page linked to from the main class/syllubus/project/task page. user:lazyquasar

The main namespace. What should be the content of webpages in the Wikiversity main namespace? One possibility would be that Wikiversity would adopt project goals that are similar to Wikibooks. The webpages of the main namespace at Wikibooks are usually textbook modules. If we started a textbook called "Wikiversity for Dummies" then this page could be a textbook module for that Wikibook. Similarly, Wikiversity could have main namespace webpages that are "learning materials" such as lesson plans. The participants of Wikiversity would then be expected to collaboratively author lesson plans. For example, there could be a Wikiversity lesson plan for how to teach a course using a particular Wikibook. Such lesson plans would be like "skins" for textbooks. There could be one Wikiversity lesson plan for how to use b:Consciousness studies in a university course called "Consciousness studies" being taught in a bricks-and-mortar philosophy department. There could be another Wikiversity lesson plan that might make use of b:Consciousness studies as a secondary textbook for use in a conventional university neuroscience course. A third Wikiversity lesson plan could be centered on use of the b:Consciousness studies Wikibook for a "reading group" that would bring together a group of Wikiversity participants to study that particular textbook.

I think we should begin thinking in terms of "Portal" pages or entry points. These could be linked to from a variety of indexes or catalogs both maintained by departments, counselers, instructors, and random participants. The portals could be tailored from a wide variety of templates that have been proven useful or interesting. For example. One portal might lead one through the basics of what is known about Mars, allow interactive self quizzes and restore a previous state of a Mars Simulation (available open from Mars Society) for the student. Another portal might be designed for dry stodgy research planetolists who just wnat to get up to speed on the latest Mars developments before attending a professional conference on spacesuit design. One thing is certain. Many volunteers will have specific goals and groups for which they wish to design portals or courses or curriculums. The Wikipedia's previous practice of confuse them with arbitrary definitions and policies and then allow a "regular" to pick a preferred alternative is unlikely to work in a large endeaver such as a successful wikiversity will become. user:lazyquasar

Learning groups. How would a collaboration such as a Wikiversity-based "reading group" function within Wikiversity? If a "lesson plan" for the reading group existed within the Wikiversity main namespace, then one possibility would be that the learning activity of those participating in that reading group might largely involve editing the talk page corresponding to the lesson plan. However, it is not clear that a single talk page would adequately serve the needs of a reading group. Also, the talk page for a lesson plan should really be about how to improve the lesson plan. Should a Wikiversity learning group simply interact through some sort of chat page? An alternative would be that the lesson plan for a reading group would specify certain collaborative projects that would be the focus of "learning by doing". A project called, "chat about what you read" would not be a very scholarly learning project. Useful projects for such a reading group might include:

1. find and fix errors in the b:Consciousness studies Wikibook.
2. find and discuss additional sources and references that support or contradict or expand on what is in the b:Consciousness studies Wikibook.
3. there could be a "rough spots" project in which members of the reading group identify and discuss parts of the b:Consciousness studies Wikibook that cause confusion.

The "learn by doing" activities of the reading group would then center on project pages that would be scholarly efforts relevant to the b:Consciousness studies Wikibook. This suggests the possibility that the webpages of the Wikiversity main namespace should be "learning project" pages. The main activity of Wikiversity participants would be the creation and editing of Wikiversity learning projects. Wikiversity would facilitate learning by helping participants to find existing projects and form new ones that match the learning goals of Wikiversity participants.
--JWSurf 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

We may need some kind of "flow control" over and above account login. For example, I have a bit of a wikification hit and run style that simply infuriates some people who would like to constrain everyone to a focused approach on a predefined subject. This might actually work with me after we attract a large enough population to have some space technology specific applied courses or projects. However, there will always be new emerging fields and innovators in search of birds of a feather or possibly useful other birds willing to flock together briefly. So ... how do we control the traffic a section or team or group receives by some standard programmable criteria such that we keep trolling, allegations of trolling, and other adverse interactions to a managable roar rather than all out chaos? Obviously I am talking about interference created by inappropriate mixing of participants not simply personality conflicts.

Types of Flow

• Asynchronous seminar ... anybody anytime. We have this now for free. The wiki way! 8)
• Specific traditional section. We gather x participants who have agreed to a schedule and format and proceed. No one external to this group allowed into team space or materials unless invited until it is complete ... obviously this will need some kind of clean up phase after team is done even if just flipping an attribute bit so team assets become fully public access.
• The above may be a specific case of the virtual organizations that the computer grid researchers talk about. Perhaps our Grid Engineering and Management group can find some applicable technologies in the near future.
• Obviously at the moment each entry portal creates or tailors their own flow control and by documenting appropriately can allow responsible participants to weave their way around "closed" or inappropriate places.
• Perequisite driven. What to do if neophytes will not seek recommended fundamentals before insisting on interacting with advanced participant processes inappropriately? Neither flaming, labeling and lynching, or ignoring seem to work well. What to do when Linus Pauling wanders into our "underwater basketweaving via teleoperated submarines on Europa" and insists that he has useful insight on scuba diving offworld? Educate him? Direct him to a newly established Lunar Scuba Diving portal and hope he stays there or wanders elsewhere? Whine loudly on the Wikiversity-L mailing list that Linus is at it again and must be lynched? user:lazyquasar

There are many possible patterns of participant interaction that could take place in the Wikiverity community. Many of these are suggested by patterns of interaction that happen in conventional schools. However, conventional patterns of interaction, such as a fixed group of participants meeting together for a specified period of time, do not respect the mechanics of the wiki user interface. Wikiversity should center on the editing of project documents by "anybody anytime". Yes, there needs to be "flow control". If the main type of Wikiversity document is a "learning project", each main namespace page would naturally have an introduction section that describes what type of "learning project" exists at that page. Many learning projects would have "prerequisites". A description of the prerequisites could guide Wikiversity participants to sources of information that are useful for participation in that particular "learning project". The five world experts on "basket weaving via teleoperated submarines" might feel that they would make faster progress on a particular "teleoperated submarine-related learning project" if they could exclude from participation all basket weaving neophytes. However, the experts should not simply put up a sign saying "keep out unless you have a sound understanding of basket weaving". As participants in Wikiversity, part of their task should be to help the neophyte basket weavers. At the very least, the prerequisites section of an advanced "basket weaving via teleoperated submarines" learning project should have links to the introductory learning project Basket Weaving 101. If neophytes try to participate in an advanced "learning project", it is likely that their contributions will be removed. The experts will have to gently direct the neophytes to some other learning project that is more appropriate. A system of portal pages should grow to direct Wikiversity participants to "learning projects" that are suitable for their level of exprience. However, some basket weaving neophyte may have the goal of becoming the sixth world expert basket weaving via teleoperated submarines. Such a Wikiversity participant might want to learn basket weaving as an "apprentice" to one of the currently existing five world experts. If there is only one student in the whole world who wants to learn basket weaving, rather than create Basket Weaving 101, it might make sense to let this basket weaving neophyte learn about basket weaving by being a helper for the advanced "teleoperated submarine-related learning project" The neophyte could be given simple tasks related to the advanced project, such as cataloging the "classic" source texts for basket weaving. This would provide the neophyte with a chance to learn basket weaving under the direction of experts and the neophyte could actually be helping to construc what would evntually serve as the Basket Weaving 101 learning project page for the (hopefully) growing Wikiversity school of basket weaving. Maybe 5 years after Wikiversity opens, Wikiversity will be recognized around the world as a great place to learn basket weaving and thousands of people will participate in Basket Weaving 101 every year. At that point, it may make sense to take groups of 20 participants into "sections" of Basket Weaving 101 so that a group of learners with similar interests could interact for a specified period of time. However, the mechanics of such is a "traditional section" is an issue to be faced in the future. At the launch of Wikiversity what is needed is a flexible system that will faciitate the creation of Wikiversity content. This means attracting peopl who will participate in "learning projects" as wiki editors who add content to Wikiversity. --JWSurf 14:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

You are very persuasive JW. I feel confident your methods will help us grow our extraterrestrial basket weaving capability as they begin to permeate our wikiversity community. I guess your real world experience as a university professor is applicable to at least our wikiversity starting point. Thanks for your efforts on our behalf! *) Lazyquasar 18:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

a couple of thoughts: 1. the idea of making alot of the "work" that the wikiversitarians do, into wiki-inspired collaborative "papers" "essays' and other kinds of interpretative texts is very intriguing as it places "students" immediately in the process of doing organized writing/critical thinking in tandem/dialogue with others. i'm not exactly sure how that would play out in terms of assignments for a particular project, but i guess we'll find out. such a practice would also instill "students' with the wikipedian etiquette of civility and an attempt at intellectual neutrality -- which is very difficult for most people, I would say. most Americans at least don't really know how to debate issues calmly and with respect for the other discussant(s), so i see this use of the collaborative as very crucial pedagogically to what the wikiversity might be about.

2. there's a fair amount of theoretical and critical work beginning to circulate in academics about pedagogy in the humanities and on the college level in general, and heavy-duty philosopher types like Martha Nussbaum of U of Chicago have weighed in on the question of pedagogy, as have more radical folks like the african american intellectual bell hooks, and before her the Latin American thinker, Paulo Freire. so i don't know as we want to limit our understanding of the issues to "teaching and teaching styles" although these are certainly important. do we maybe want a pedagogical theory/ies section or sub-section? --Smithgrrl 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some stuff should either be moved into there, or out of there

I think it might be useful if Wikiversity had some form of discussion software connected with it. Here's my idea of how it would work:

1. On the Template:Learning project boilerplate page, have a link to a Discussion Groups page in the new, magic, discussion groups namespace. I'll use the "Introduction to Basket Weaving project" (this is a fictional 13-lesson program, designed to be conducted over 13 weeks).
2. On the Discussion Groups:Introduction to Basket Weaving, there is a list of discussion groups associated with this Learning Project, their number of participants, and the like (ie. possibly when they started, or the last time the group was emptied). This list magically auto-updates
3. Each of the discussion groups is actually just a plain old mailing list with archives. The list could be cleared out at the end of each semester, so that old students wouldn't receive the messages from the new group, and so that the group starting date would be updated.
4. We could even make queues, so that when the mailing list is cleared, the new group goes in automatically

Of course, this would require extension of the MediaWiki software. Point 1 could be done without extension. Point 2 might require some sort of modified "Category:" to be turned into the discussion group. Points 3 and 4 would be totally new.

• We could require that people use the e-mail address associated with their Wikiversity username, so that we could match things up in the archives.

Thoughts, anyone?

TimNelson 13:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think because learning in wikiversity is practically Self-Learning, i think there should be some information about it in learning page. Srinivasasha 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to edit the page. The ultimate hope is that there will be communities of learners so that individuals are not on their own. --JWSchmidt 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply