Ok, here is what I will do. My various projects with people (math clubs, the family multiplication study, "My young apprentice" and such) are starting this and next week. We did make a resolution to do more community outreach with some of the people and projects. So, I will offer dictionary making and illustrating as an activity to everybody, which I will coordinate. The "Examples" part can be the divergent part I am talking about. I will describe the design of dictionary activities as we engage in them, so that other groups and individuals can do them, too.
Leigh, I poked around the Wikibooks site you linked for a few minutes and could not find anything particularly useful for this project. Well, nowhere near the level of usefulness of math resources I would actually use, like "Ask Dr. Math" from the Math Forum, Jeany Eather's Maths Dictionary, Wolfram's Math World and Wikipedia. I could not see anything I would copy and paste if people allowed me - everything would require major re-writes. I also did not like the format of things I saw, at least not for a dictionary. I bet I am missing something. What did you have in mind? Gladys, who are other people and entities developing the dictionary, deciding the layout and ultimately using it - the "we" you mention? You gave a link to the project at some point, but it led to a big list of wiki projects, not to your particular one. Cheers, MariaD On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Gladys Gahona <gladysgah...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Maria, > > The current math glossary we are developing has been concibed to be a > resource addressing to secondary and terciary > level (13 to 18 yr) students. > > In this stage of developing, We have already defined the layout, > consisting of : > > - Definition (s) > - Supplementary definition (wikipedia) > - Examples > - External Links > > As the amount of defined terms grow, we easily will be able to cross- > refence them. > > We have just started to fill in some definitions and extending > invitations to the WE community to join the project. > Anyone can add their favorite definitons, this means we may have > several definitions for each item. > > So far the glossary contains mostly plain text. I agree Well-designed > animations (better if interactive) may help students learn faster and > easier. The good news are we can put all kind of media for > exemplificating each term. e.g. still images, animated gifs, flash > animations, interactive flash animations, collaborative videos > (kaltura), audio, etc. > > The limit is our imagination and the availability of free media we can > cater from the web or from the creativity of volunteer graphic/flash > designers. I am certain You have and idea on how expensive a simple > pedagogical animation could be for each term definition (money & > time). For example, please see > http://www.wikieducator.org/MathGloss/A/Algebra. > I authored the still image, and I easily could convert it to an > animated gif, or even more... make a flash animation (not > interactive). But it would take time and we are talking about only for > one picture. > > We still don't have a math glossary for grades (K-6). Maybe you can > lead the WE project, which will have its appropiate layout. I gladly > could assist you if you decide to take the initiative. Don't worry > about colors, we can make a colorfull and interactive resource for the > kids. The divergent part of your vision of math glossary, fits > perfectly with the wiki platform. > > In any case, we will need a growing collection of media (I love flash > interactive animations), and a huge band of WikiEducators commited > with the projects. They absolutely will give added value to any > resource we develop for WE. > > We also count with a "geek team" in WE, who can solve all the > technical issues we may face on the way to develop a well > diferenciated and pedagogical resource for both levels. (a new > glossary for kids and the existing one). > > Leigh has linked the math books collection alocated in Wikibooks. I > personally like the Wikibook site, I am linking many glossary terms > to a wikibook page. I think we can take advantage of the already > developed contents in order to not being redundant. Wiktionary offers > its own definitions but from a different scope, so I think a Math > Glossary is still a > good and helpfull resource for WE. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Gladys Gahona > http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Chela5808 > > Note: I apologize in advance for any english grammar mistake. I am on > my way to improve my english :-). > > On 5 ene, 18:00, "Maria Droujkova" <droujk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can we mass-populate this from an existing math dictionary? If we are > > creating it from scratch, what are we doing that distinguishes it from > all > > other math dictionaries created until now? If it's just the format, we > can > > get a robot to re-format stuff for us, I bet. Failing that, kids ::evil > > grin:: > > > > We played a game with kids called "definition war" devoted to creating > > definitions. Kids take turns creating definitions and then objecting > (they > > love yelling "Objection!" like Ace Attorney) and then fixing definitions, > > etc. It takes about half an hour to make a good definition. > > > > For my part, I am yet to see a good definition of multiplication in any > > dictionary. By "good" I mean both pedagogically sound and mathematically > > rigorous, and including enough models of multiplication at least to cover > > all major number types. "Repeated addition" kinda fails for Pi*e > > > > For "Angle", I rather like this dictionary's definition: > http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/jeather/maths/dictionary.html > > It has an applet, a chart, and a bright frame around it all. How can we > > improve on it? We can use this idea of angles in nature and culture - a > > collection, open for people's additions... That's beyond a plain > > "dictionary" though! > > > > I can imagine a format with a convergent and a divergent part. The > > convergent part is a short definition people can refine and improve. The > > divergent part, potentially infinite, is where everybody adds their > > pictures, poetry, movies and what not, illustrating the definition. > > Something like my MultArt, for each topic. A good model for that, which > is a > > lot of fun, is a wiki called TV Tropes: > http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePageIt has a trope > > description, and then an open collection of examples. > > > > What do you think? > > > > MariaD > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
