Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryzhou (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 12 January 2015 (→‎Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

WikiProject iconEducation Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Academia?

Please see here: Talk:Academia#WikiProject Academia?. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hole in the Wall

If relevant or of interest to anyone (education in "developing" regions - India and Africa in this case), the Hole in the Wall (example of Minimally invasive education) inspired the Digital Doorway project. Both projects (and other similar might warrant separate pages. I came across this link with a note on the Hole in the Wall which might be useful. --K (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship and Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation

Dear education experts: I worked on the first of these two pages for some time before I realized that there was an associated topic under a different name. I'm not sure what is the best thing to do here. Should all of the content about the fellowships be merged into a section in the article about the foundation? Should the draft be made into an article, and a "main article" hatnote be added to the Foundation page, since the foundation appears to have other activities besides these particular fellowships? The draft is better referenced, but these refs could be moved with the content. Any opinions? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Postdoctoral research and Alumnus

Starting this as a RfC, education experts needed. Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear education experts: Your help is needed, particularly with providing your expertise as to whether you consider Post-Doctoral Fellows to be Alumni of a University or not? And in either slant why, ideally if there is a reference, including that would be great? Your help will help inform Wikipedia and be most appreciated. Thank you in advance for any assistance. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... is there some sort of dispute somewhere? Postdocs would not normally be seen as alumni, no. They're staff positions, possibly faculty depending on the length. Again, not sure what the end is for this, but if you're looking to use it in an article, we need reliable sources that say so (rather than a poll). czar ⨹ 21:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar, yes, there is a dispute at Talk:John F. Kennedy School of Government and thus the question. Agreed we need reliable sources that say so, however if someone is a Dean or President of a University and is willing to say that, I think that might help. User:Drmies Wisely suggested getting more editors involved given their expertise here. Googling for whether they are or are not does not seem to turn up too many results? Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/policy-22/what-is-a-postdoc lists the Postdocs Community as Graduate Students.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdoctoral_research#United_States references students twice.
http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/research-team/postdoctoral-students references them as students
http://postdocs.stanford.edu/handbook/status.html references them as students.
These links are the top 4 hits on Google if you type in "are postdocs students". Recognizing they blur the lines between faculty and students, the bigger question with the dispute is should they be listed as alumni if we're including as a alumni individuals who attended the School but did not graduate? I would submit they are researching under the mentoring of a senior Faculty Advisor. Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's going to be a definitive answer to this since schools treat them differently. Not sure that search was configured properly because it's going to pick up the sources that consider postdocs students. The real question is whether postdocs are alumni: UCSF includes postdocs (broadly conceived) in their graduate alumni, while Yale has clearly said that they are not considered alumni. This is totally going to be based on the nature of the appointment/fellowship and to what degree they are there to study under someone or to do their own research, and consequently, whether the school has an institution of postdocs considered student or staff work. I imagine certain schools, such as Harvard, reserving "alumni" status for the graduates of its degree programs, and perhaps less prestigious schools being looser with their inclusion criteria (bigger pool of donators). Stanford requires alumni to have been seeking degrees (your Stanford link above says those postdocs are classified as students mainly for the deferment of student loans). Didn't see any such restriction at UCSF. For your purposes, Harvard does not consider postdocs alumni, as they do not receive a degree. czar ⨹ 14:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Czar, this RfC was my idea. I wonder now, given your varied search results, if this needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Six or seven years on Wikipedia, editing hundreds or thousands of such articles, and this has never come up. There's a first time for everything. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That and the definition changes with the state of higher ed. Case by case sounds fine, though I'd urge to default to Harvard's criteria ("alumni" = finished degree program), which I believe reflects the common understanding and usage czar ⨹ 15:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect Czar, it is not a closed case, else there would not exist List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni. Even Alumni in Wikipedia mentioned they do not always include those who just graduated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University#Notable_alumni includes Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburg as notable alumni of Harvard University so there seem to be some alternative views as to what constitutes an alumni. I am not a native English speaker so I am open to other references if there are some? Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you understand how thin that case is. Those two are known for attending Harvard and specifically not graduating, and are clearly noted as "non-graduates" because they don't fit the definition of alumni. (Note that most schools' non-graduate alumni are not notable enough as a group to warrant distinction.) "Non-graduate alumni" is a bit of an oxymoron, but what better term is there? It's clear that "alumni" without the "non-graduate" refers to people who have graduated, the default definition for alumni. I agree with the consensus at Talk:John F. Kennedy School of Government and don't see how any further discussion of this will be fruitful. My recommendation is to use the school's definition wherever possible and to otherwise default to "those who finished degree programs". czar ⨹ 16:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't think that your recommendation to default to a definition of "those who finished degree programs" is aligned with how the term is usually used by most colleges and universities and is thus a bad recommendation. I agree that is probably how many people outside of higher ed define the term and it's how I think the term should be defined. However, institutions are eager to associate themselves with anyone who can provide evidence that the institution is successful or may be willing to donate money so folks who work in alumni relations and fund raising have usurped and expanded this term. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand—you're saying that my definition of alumni is both commonly accepted and shouldn't be used as the fallback (i.e., only when the university doesn't have its own clear definition)? What should be the fallback then, if any? czar ⨹ 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case by case seems OK to me, but why do we have Notable alumni sections at all? That person P graduated from university U tells us something about P, but not a lot about U. These sections seems to me to be cruft, with their purpose mostly to promote the university (look at all the famous clever people who studied here!) --Stfg (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat off-topic, but I can sympathize. Another way of looking at it is as a precursor to a summary style spin-off into its own list. These sections are always nicer in prose, listing the best examples, than a cruft-collecting list of five local celebrities. czar ⨹ 16:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please start a separate discussion; this is an interesting question but it's different from the one currently on the table. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bit rude, actually, to say "go and talk about it somewhere else". I'd have thought there is little point discussing who to include in these sections without an agreed understanding of what if anything these sections are for. One usually decides whether before one decides how. By all means scope your own comments as you wish. I'll scope mine to what I think relevant to the present question. If the current discussion is merely about whether post-docs are alumni, why would Wikipedia care? It's academic (<sigh> how else does one say it?). If the question is whether post-docs should be included in Wikipedia's lists of alumni, then I believe my question is relevant to this discussion. --Stfg (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The direction of the discussion above - there is no universal definition and this will probably have to approached on a case-by-case basis - seems correct to me. It's an interesting question, though, because I imagine that it's one that probably hasn't occurred to many who work in higher ed. Although we try to be very accommodating to post docs and provide them significant support since they are very junior in their field, my sense is that many of us consider them staff or perhaps even faculty in many ways but not students. They're rarely enrolled in courses.
Another way to explore this question may be to look at what happens to post docs in union negotiations and what those have to say about the status of post docs, especially if there are institutions where post docs have formed their own union or collective bargaining agreement. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ElKevbo, that's very helpful. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if this discussion has ended, but I would like to add a few comments. Post Doctoral (students) in the United States generally list their Post Doc time in their curriculum vita within their education section. An example of this can be seen in the template guidance from UCSF - http://career.ucsf.edu/grad-students-postdocs/career-planning/academic-jobs/applying/academic-samples. The field generally views post doc status as a continuation of education and thus an effort of study which has no explicit program. Post Doc status is not considered long term employment and is temporary (eg not on the tenure track). Fields in the life sciences rely heavily on Post Docs to produce research in a labor pool like structure. But this does not imply this isn't a structured learning opportunity.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Randomeditor1000 the discussion is only two days old, so your insights and those of anyone else are very much appreciated. Would you consider Post Doctoral individuals to be Students? 96.241.68.71 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who have shared insight. I tried searching in the English version of Wikipedia for the term non-graduate alumni and got 100+ hits. Of note:
  • Comment - Because it looks like no one has directly commented on the substantive merit of the four "sources" Benutzernamen provided.
The first, clearly draws a distinction between the two, hence the two headings on the sidebar, "graduate students" and "postdocs" and the postdoc tab is full of information about retirement, maternity leave and salary - these are the trappings of a job.
The second, the wiki article nowhere states that they are students. There is a mention of "doctoral students as well as postdocs" which unambiguously demonstrates they are separate categories, and there is a separate tangent about PhD students in general but ZERO mention of "Postdocs are graduate students".
The third link, with a name like "web guru" would get immediately slapped with a [dubious – discuss] tag, because it in no way resembles a bona fide resource. They couldn't even spell a simple plural or create a verb phrase correctly, e.g. "Ph.D.'s" and "perceived of as a prerequisite", plus, it in general looks like a homemade website. A distinct geocities vibe. Worthless source as far as I can tell.
The fourth one, the Stanford one, says that they all postdocs to declare a student status solely for student-loan deferment financial reasons. One, in addition to this being very nice of Stanford and well in tune with the pecuniary realities of higher education in the US, if it were not the case that post docs and students were by default the same thing, would they have to mention this at all?
It seems like every time a postdoc is treated as a student it is at that university's discretion (and presumably for a specific (legal or tax) reason) and therefore should be considered an exception, so the default should always be to treat them not as students, and therefore not as alumni either. JesseRafe (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JesseRafe, the "web guru" resource that you say [dubious – discuss] tag, because you think it in no way resembles a bona fide resource, has an "About" page that says: Web-GURU project was originally funded by the National Science Foundation Division of Undergraduate Education's Educational Materials Development Program under award DUE-0341080. It currently enjoys funding provided by The Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Inc. http://www.webguru.neu.edu/about-webguru Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first link has, for http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/graduate-students-29 Join the NPA! Graduate Student Membership Information. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't get it, do you just refuse to read? Your own sources substantiate my claim, not yours. Think about context don't just lazily Ctrl+F for "students" and claim you're right. Who needs info on choosing a college? High schoolers. Who needs info on choosing a grad school? Undergrads. Who needs info on "Finding the Perfect Postdoc Position. Guidance on considerations when choosing the best postdoc position for yourself."? Grad students. That's why it's on that tab, because that's for them. That's not info for postdocs, it's too late for them. Unless you also claim high schoolers are already in college and college students are in grad school. Might as well extend that to the unemployed having jobs if you're basing your knowledge of the world on people getting advice on fora before major life changes. Your sources, other than the nonsense web guru one, all make the point that post docs are in general not considered students, i.e. your research undoes your own argument. Except in the rare event that they are for procedural reasons only (Stanford), and even then the source goes out of its way to explain why it is the exception. I don't care if I even remembered if I went to the About page of the webguru site but just because it has a lot of words on it does not necessarily make it a solid resource. As I said above it's barely in English and it looks like the days of browsing on Netscape. Where did you get the idea that they were students, anyway? Instead of finding sources, please just make an argument as to how in your eyes a paid researcher who draws a salary and can get fired and has a pension and gets paid sick days off is similar to someone who takes tests and pays tuition and maybe can fail, but if not they receive a diploma? It's like you're asking everyone else in the world to prove that red is green and you're finding sources that say, "red, blue, and green are colors" and you go "Eureka, they said "red" and "green" in the same sentence so they must be equivalent!" JesseRafe (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments being made are based on employment status and not on educational status. Most Ph.d students are also employed as teaching assistants, research assistants, fellows, or visiting/temporary/adjunct instructors. They are both a student and an employee. Why should the Post Doctoral position be any different?

Additionally, listing a person as an Alumni does not necessarily imply that they were a student. The current American use of the word alumni can include contributors, employees or persons who were a part of specific group.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alumni
Alumnus noun.

  1. 1: a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university
  2. 2: a person who is a former member, employee, contributor, or inmate

Some other various references to look through if you are really interested:

Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post docs are different from graduate students because (a) grad students are enrolled in courses, almost always leading to a graduate degree, and (b) virtually everyone in the academy agrees that grad students' primary identity is "student" with their coursework and relevant scholarship their first priority (e.g., we let one of our grad students take off work all of last week while she was taking final exams because those are more important than her work in our center that can be made up later). Post docs, on the other hand, aren't typically enrolled in courses and their primary responsibilities are focused almost exclusively on research and maybe a bit of teaching so they're universally considered staff (or maybe faculty if they're teaching courses). They are treated differently, however, in that we're all keenly aware that post docs are almost always very junior scholars in temporary positions where they are hoping to gain some useful skills and experience to better position themselves on the job market as they look for long-term employment either as researchers or faculty. This is a very long-winded of saying that there is no controversy about whether post docs are considered students or grad students; they're not.
Whether they're often considered alumni is a much more difficult question because we're come to define the term as broadly as possible to ensure we can associate our institutions with as many successful, interesting, and (hopefully) rich people as possible. Although post docs aren't students enrolled in courses, their role is more along the lines of an apprentice so most institutions could lay some legitimate claim to playing a role in the education of many of their post docs because their job explicitly included significant training and mentorship. I don't know whether that claim is actually made either by universities or by individual departments.
In the end, I'm not sure why this is a significant issue requiring us to devote this much time to it. Our typical approach - follow the lead of the reliable sources describing the topic at hand - should work here, too. In other words, include post docs in alumni lists if the institution or other reliable sources include them and leave them out if the reliable sources leave them out. That seems to be pretty easy and straight-forward to me so I'd like to know what I'm overlooking or underestimating. ElKevbo (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevboI agree with your way of handling it. But it's obvious you were never a Post Doc in Canada, where the categorical issue affects taxes, pension, social welfare and benefits. It's a contradiction to say academy does not teach post docs(students) training and mentorship. Attending formal coursework is not universally the sign of a student. As a matter of the different worldwide approaches in other countries the doctorate does not require any coursework, only valid contribution to research in a field. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I've never been shy about letting everyone know that the focus of my experience and education is limited to the U.S. and had not been on other countries or comparative studies. So I welcome and appreciate contributions from editors who can provide context and information about other countries.
Second, either I was unclear in my post or you misread it. Institutions do provide post docs with training and mentorship; that is one of the primary purposes of a post doc experience.
Third, from an institutional standpoint, enrollment in some sort of course or program is indeed the formal definition of a student. Many institutions support community outreach programs and informal education opportunities but we have to draw a line somewhere to identify those individuals to whom we owe particular privileges, services, protections, etc. For example, some of our laws about privacy and data protection, especially FERPA, only apply to students so it's critical that we have a bright-line definition; this is most visibly playing our right now in MOOCs where institutions are struggling to determine if MOOC participants - people who haven't applied to or matriculated at the institution, usually haven't paid any fees, usually aren't enrolled in a program of study or seeking a credential, etc. - are students covered by our privacy and data protection laws and practices. And note that "enrollment in some sort of course or program" does not necessarily mean enrollment in one or more courses. Doctoral students, for example, often spend a few years in a "sustaining" status while writing their dissertation and this occurs after they've completed their coursework. However, they are still considered students and often are required to "enroll" in a sustaining or research "course" in part so our data systems classify them as students.
Finally, it may be helpful to this discussion to review a report that was just released by the National Academy of Sciences. The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited touches on some of the issues under discussion here, especially on pages 20 and 21 where the authors review some of most commonly used definitions of postdoctoral researchers (and note that the report commonly uses the phrase "postdoctoral researcher" to describe the primary subjects of this report). None of the definitions include "student" although they do mention training or mentorship. However, the authors of this report don't include those in their listing of basic aspects where the extant definitions converge; they include (a) prior completion of a doctoral degree, (b) a primary focus on advanced research, and (c) a fixed term of appointment. It's also worth noting that this report appears to focus primarily or exclusively on postdocs in the physical sciences so its findings may not be generalizable to the broader population of postdocs in the U.S. It's also solely focused on the U.S. context. ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "alumnus" refers in general to any student or former student of an institution. Post-doctoral fellows who are actively engaged as "students" are, indeed, alumni. From personal knowledge, many (most) such fellows do take courses in their areas of interest, and such are absolutely alumni. Further, many such fellows are engaged in seeking additional degrees or specialized degrees in their field, so, while some may not be alumni, it would be inapt to deny that many are alumni of an institution. FWIW, the singular form is "alumnus". Collect (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni sections

... why do we have Notable alumni sections at all? That person P graduated from university U tells us something about P, but not a lot about U. These sections seems to me to be cruft, with their purpose mostly to promote the university (look at all the famous clever people who studied here!) --Stfg (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Breaking this discussion out into its own section. Searches for a previous discussion on their exclusion mostly turned up discussions of inclusion criteria, e.g.,

czar ⨹ 01:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the point of including alumni based on fact rather than interpretation of that fact. Perhaps a better method would be simply force all Notable Alumni sections to be their own separate article.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomeditor1000: "based on fact rather than interpretation of that fact": I don't quite understand that. Could you elaborate please? --Stfg (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fact that Barack Obama attended law school at Harvard University. How you interpret that piece of information is up to you. However, an encyclopedia entry on Harvard University could be more informative by mentioning that the 44th President of the United States attended law school there. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand, but while being a fact is good, it isn't sufficient. If we included the fact that Barack Obama attended law school at Harvard University in the article on, say, William Shakespeare, that would still be factual, but it would be plain silly, wouldn't it? And even if Obama played the part of Romeo in the school play when he was 12, that wouldn't be relevant to the article on Shakespeare, would it? Facts still need to be relevant to the subject of the article you put them in, and they need to not clutter it with trivial factoids. And this is my general point: it's good to include the fact that Barack Obama attended law school at Harvard University in the article about Barack Obama, but it tells us too little about Harvard University to merit inclusion in its article.
And Obama is right at the top end of notability. I believe this RFC arose because of a squabble about John F. Kennedy School of Government#Notable HKS alumni. Take a look at it, all 17 acres of it, giving every Joe Bloggs and his dog their mention. How does that benefit Wikipedia? It's cruft, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go that far. I think the lists of alumni, the split-out full lists, have reader interest and are useful when accompanied and confirmed by footnotes. The problem I see you raising is the smaller articles that do not have enough "notable alumni" to split out, and instead become a brag list. I would sooner see these as a small section of prose than these kinds of small lists that collect unsourced cruft. Reminds me of the old "trivia" sections that used to be at the bottom of almost every article. czar ⨹ 16:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes, that puts it much better. The split-out lists do no harm, since people needn't see them if they don't want to. Those "brag lists" (nice term!) do harm, because they make it look as if people feel the need to brag. Prose is better than plain lists, if only because it forces the inserter to think whether there really is anything worth saying. (The cruft can be cruft even when it's sourced.) --Stfg (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's a good question that reaches way beyond one specific article. As I understand it, the question on the table is "What, if any, information does it provide readers about [institution x] to name, list, or describe former students?" I think it's a very astute question but quite frankly I think it's a bit of a hopeless one because there is widespread (but poorly considered) support for the general idea that a list of alumni can tell people interesting and useful things about their alma mater. That belief ignores many important issues and factors but it's so prevalent that we'd be hard pressed to dispute it only in this encyclopedia. Like it or not, our job here is to reflect and summarize prevailing views and current understandings and not impose our own even when we're right and nearly everyone else is wrong. ElKevbo (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If split-out lists are preferred, then has Kennedy School of Government reached the point that its notable alumni list needs to be split out into a new article? Went through are cleaned-up a version of its list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benutzernamen188_66_8_4#Notable_HKS_alumni Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heutagogy, Andragogy, and all that.

Recently, issues were raised with the article Heutagogy on WP:COIN, because the person who coined the term, based on their user name, was editing the article. After dealing with the conflict of interest problem, the question remained: what to do with the article? Heutagogy seems to be defined as self determined or directed learning for children. For adults, that's apparently called andragogy. This isn't a new concept, and there are other articles about it on Wikipedia. Self-directed learning is redirected to Autodidactism, which probably isn't quite right. Related topics include distance learning, Waldorf school, Montessori school, and Massive Open Online Course. (There's "Education 3.0", too, which is somehow related.[1]) We need some help with educational taxonomy here. There probably needs to be a general article on self-directed/determined learning, as a parent article for all this, if there isn't one already. Is there one already? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-directed learning is so vague as to constitute nothing, so I don't contest the decision to redirect it into autodidactism. On heutagogy, it's a fairly recent neologism picked up by a small number of academic articles—nearly nothing on JSTOR and a few hits on Academia.edu (without looking into whether the journals are credible). All in all, I don't see more than a sentence or two needed to describe heutagogy anywhere in the encyclopedia, especially as it's similarly vague. I've skimmed through a few articles and still have no idea what it's supposed to constitute apart from a minor academic theory. For this matter, andragogy and heutagogy can both be explained in the last section of autodidactism (potentially with this source). Andragogy has a firmer standing, at least in relation to Knowles, its originator, and we can look at its sourcing if necessary. (The education theory subsection of the encyclopedia is hands down the worst I've encountered—needlessly convoluted and incomprehensible, sufficient to keep the articles up and insufficient for anyone to spend the time cleaning them up. Worsened by academic COIs, and so on. czar ⨹ 19:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem "Self directed learning" is vague; it includes do-it-yourself learning, plus all the various educational schemes to let the student have more control. Wikipedia's definition of autodidacticism (is that even a word?) begins "Autodidacticism (also autodidactism) or self-education is the act of teaching oneself about a subject or subjects in which one has had little to no formal education. Autodidactism is often complemented by learning in classrooms and other social settings." Those two statements contradict each other. I think there's a practical need for a split between true do-it-yourself unsupervised education, and education under supervision. What terminology is appropriate? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think it — the education theory subsection of the encyclopedia — is a fairly accurate representation of the current state of the field. It's beyond our power to sort out many things in this area because it's lacking in internal and historical consistency and hasn't been sorted or well-policed by the experts. ElKevbo (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of issues in K-12 education in the United States

List of issues in K-12 education in the United States is up for deletion. One solution that was proposed in that AfD was to "move without redirect to the WikiProject Education namespace." I'm leaving this note here to try to get input from people in this WikiProject to see if this is a viable option and to get your opinion about this list in general. Thanks, Tavix |  Talk  22:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested article

I think it's necessary to create an article "Comparison of academic (scholar) years by country" which will contain a table with dates of academic year begin and end, and number and duration of vacations, and more... --92.115.106.250 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education&oldid=642192253"