For the first time ever, I decided to allow my students to work on a Wikibook project. Normally, my tech comm seniors (Univ. of Minnesota) have to do a community service project. In the past, they have prepared manuals and materials for "Dress for Success," "Helping Hands," and "The Immigration Project" among other non-profits. Service learning as part of tech comm reflects a general philosophy within the UofM that students should do 20 hours of community participation.
So, when a student asked if a Wikibook would count, I had no answer. Then, I pondered what a particular professor at St. Cloud Sate has done. Why, of course! Yes, a Wikibook is a great idea, I decided. The audience is clearly defined, the public good is served, and the students were enthusiastic.
Things are working well. I just wanted to publicly thank Matt for his inspiration.
here is another wikibook
Not as illustrious as a certain wikibook on rhetoric and composition, but nevertheless a product of an undergraduate class:
Visual Rhetoric
Note that the chapter "Examples and Analysis of Visual Literature" was an unsolicited contribution made well after my class that created the rest of the text was over, my unknown author. My students and I were thrilled than someone had taken the time to read and add to their work.
Needless to say, further additions and changes are welcome.
pz
Wow, what a great idea! I
Wow, what a great idea! I hope your wikibook project goes well. I was just talking last week to an astronomy professor who wants to setup a wikibook about astrobiology. I'm really pleased to hear it.
Of course I got scooped at the 4Cs workshop when it came to my "bright idea" for grads to setup a wikibook to help them plan, track, and prepare for job interviews and searches. It had already been done! Yikes.
Someone at the Creighton symposium had a great idea, too. Set up a wiki-based annotation system to consolidate research on primary works. He wanted to work with the Odyssey, I believe, but someone else mentioned Whitman.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Check out Barton's gaming blog at Armchair Arcade.
Matt, I am considering
Matt,
I am considering having students write another wikibook this summer, for the online technology and writing class. i think I want to set it up as an "updateable" mini academic journal or something like this, where they will write "articles" during the semester, which then can be organized into a "publication." Then, later classes will read and add to it, etc., etc., etc. Any ideas or suggestions or how to set this up are most definitely welcome.
Link is giving me an access
Link is giving me an access denied error. :(
I would like to know more about your idea. It's sometimes hard to do argumentative pieces in a wiki. If someone disagrees he or she might start an editing war (doubtful, but you never know). If it's more of a guidebook, synthesis, exploratory type stuff, might work well.
You might want to opt for a more google docs type thing, with designated authors and editors. What do you think?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Check out Barton's gaming blog at Armchair Arcade.
Matt, I have changed access rule
So you should be able to see the content on the site. Thanks for the idea about Google docs or such. I am not sure how I want to set this up yet...
Wikibooks = Reference Works?
I definitely think of Wikibooks as a place for reference works. My students are tackling a user manual for programming tools used in K-12 classrooms. I can't imagine tackling anything too controversial -- since I teach technical writing.
If I were teaching philosophy or even rhetoric (again), I realize that almost any post would lead to edit upon edit. We see this with Wiki pages on political issues right now, making for some minute-by-minute updates.
Is it best to stick to reference works? I have to monitor threads on our Blackboard system as it is when students get a bit animated over topics.
I have to say I disagree
I am not sure whether the medium (Wikibooks) dictates the kinds of writing done in it. After all, if memory serves, the explicit difference in the editorial policies of Wikipedia and Wikibooks is that the former discourages "argument" since it is an encyclopedia, while the latter allows a "point of view." My pinion has been that "argument" does not have to mean "controversy," but can be a "point of view," which, for sure, is present in technical texts. Am I over-simplifying?
Yes, I agree, the wikibook =
Yes, I agree, the wikibook = reference is a simplification. It really depends on the community you've built and whether the topic is going to inspire the strawmen to come burn it down. :)
If you made a wikibook, for instance, that argued that scientology was a cult instead of a legitimate religion, for instance--you'd be asking for it. But I'd wonder if a wiki could handle any topic where people with opposing views would feel obligated (or tempted, even) to start editing in their favor. I know I would if I stumbled upon a rhet/comp wiki that seemed too current-traditionalist, for instance.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Check out Barton's gaming blog at Armchair Arcade.