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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
