Wikipedia:Education Program/Structure proposals/RebeccaBurdette

Please list your name and/or Wikipedia username.

Rebecca Burdette, Louisiana State University

What idea(s) do you have for what the new structure for the U.S. and Canada Wikipedia Education Programs could look like?

I am not informed enough to recommend what type of business structure would be most appropriate, but I would suggest whatever form the organization takes it should do the following:

Be closely aligned with the Wikimedia Foundation (maybe it’s an arm of the Foundation or a unit within it?)
Have a defined and focused mission of ‘advancing learning in the classroom while improving the quality and quantity of open-access information via Wikipedia’
Allow for significant flexibility of WP-based assignments at the course level
Have a qualified staff able to provide high-level resources (communications to universities and national media; grant writing/management; data collection; project/relationship managment; etc.)

How would you ensure this new structure involves all key stakeholders, including academics and the Wikipedia community?

Perhaps the newly formed organization focuses on a model of institutionalization rather than independent faculty. In other words, the organization would strive to partner with strategic units at universities that focus on course design and curricula development (e.g., Faculty Development Units; Centers for Excellence in Learning and Teaching; Faculty Technology Centers). The partnership might look something like this:

The university unit would be the main link between the new WP org and the university (rather than direct contact with a faculty member)
The university unit would then work with their university faculty to develop appropriate assignments that integrate WP (because they already have established relationships and it is their job to help faculty integrate active learning projects)
The university unit would employ student workers/interns that would provide hands-on assistance to students in courses using WP (they would replace the national ambassador program)
Long term, maybe there is an application process in which these units can apply to become a ‘WP Center of Excellence’ and in turn receive a tiered resources based on their participation level (e.g., in-person training, mini-grant funds, logo merchandise for students; dedicated online ambassador)

What are potential pitfalls of this approach?

It would be hard to take this approach at universities where faculty development units are not valued; however, in these instances, maybe there is also a ‘WP Faculty Fellows’ program with a certain level of resources so that individual faculty members are still able to participate if they don’t have full institutional support.

Overall, it seems this would be a more efficient way to approach WP in Higher Ed long-term as it provides a more flexible infrastructure (rather than the current one-size-fits-all) that is able to cast a wider net (access to more faculty via the university unit) with greater stability (partnering with professional staff instead of student ambassadors).

Any other comments about your proposal?

Faculty greatly value networking with colleagues from other institutions that are doing similar things and facing similar challenges. The Foundation (or the new WP org) should continue to support an annual conference/symposium (like Boston 2011) as incentive for professors and university partners. In this same vein, faculty success—for integration of any application—relies on good assignment design. Venues like this are ideal for faculty to share those. A web-based interactive tool (e.g., syllabi toolbox) would also be a great feature (something beyond current course pages).

Faculty must have flexibility in how and to what extent they integrate WP into their course. At the end of the day, content is king and WP is a method by which students learn the content.

Similarly, while Wikipedians are fantastic folks, the mission of this program should be focused on content quality and quality, not on training students (or faculty) to be Wikipedians. Most are petrified of the complex nature of the WP community. Students and faculty alike can effectively contribute to WP via a class without having to become an advanced Wikipedian. With that said, the new org will have to take on the role of garnering more support for the program within the WP community so that there is greater acceptance and optimization of “teachable moments” when students are editing.

The previous WP Ed programs have had a lot of layers and requirements, some that seem more burdensome than necessary for both faculty and students. I would suggest a mantra of simplicity for this new org and its program structure. Complexity of program development and management is directly proportionate to expenses and participation, and ultimately success.

I see the opportunity for the new org to extend programming into K-12 long-term, but I think it needs to focus on Higher Ed initially and establish a strong structure before doing that. I would say the same is true about WP in Higher Ed beyond the US. Do one thing and do it well (at least until you've mastered it).

While I understand this is a WP project, not all communication is conducive to on-wiki format. This should be considered moving forward.

Finally, I apologize in advance for any typos or grammatical errors as I downloaded my thoughts here somewhat hastily. But thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts and experiences!