Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Wikijunior:KinderCalculus

Wikijunior:KinderCalculus
The whole idea of teaching elementary school kids calculus is absurd. All kids will do while reading this with an adult is probably, um, yeah, I understand, and then by the age of 10 they'll be hating maths more than anything else. Not to mention that clothes-peeling simile, which is just a big load of poppycock. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki Wikiversity. "KinderCalculus is an experimental K-6 math program" --Panic (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So what? Lots of books here are "experiments". Wikibooks itself is a big experiment. --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But I agree that the word "program" is inappropriate. Maybe "approach" would be better. --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I wondered about transwiki on the grounds that it might be interpreted as OR. It's not the only book at Wikijunior to take an unusual approach, though.  It seemed to me that the problems with the metaphor/simile/whatever needed to be taken care of as the top priority in the best interests of the book, its author, its prospective readers, and whatever project the book ends up in, so I figured to address that first and then the question of possible transwiki could be considered in an all-around more comfortable atmosphere.  Right now it feels a bit like shoving our problems off on our sister project.  Other than that discomfort, though, I have no actual objection to a transwiki.


 * By the way, although I'm not convinced this particular strategy (assuming it's divorced from the problem metaphor) will succeed, the idea of teaching calculus to elementary students is not inherently absurd. If I remember rightly, it was alluded to in Beyond This Horizon; I think it was something about a child being only on basic calculus, and not nearly old enough for anything as dry as arithmetic.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki to Wikiversity per Panic. I-20 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep While I agree that the subject is probably too advanced for most under twelves, there could be some home-educated kids for whom it would be suitable. An unusual style of presentation of established mathematical concepts does not necessarily make it original research. If concerns relating to inappropriate metaphors were addressed, I think it could find a home in Wikijunior. Recent Runes (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki to Wikiversity. The definition of new terms does make it original research, I guess. Recent Runes (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Teaching elementary school kids calculus is not absurd. Books have been written about teaching elementary school kids calculus, e.g. http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Young-People-Ages-Yes/dp/096216741X . Kayau: if you have any references that back up your personal opinion, let us know. --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it will probably end up creating maladjusted children by linking nudity to perversion... a disturbing way to teach anything, let alone mathematics, in my opinion. QU TalkQu 22:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment a Wikiversity Transwiki won't hurt, though that does not justify the simile. In any case I don't deem this suitable for Wikibooks as it is a Wikibook that 'deviates from the norm'. BTW this article might be of interest. if this book is for homeschooled children that would be worse: it's advocating illegal activities... there was a couple who went to prison because they refused to let their son attend school. [[User:Kayau|Kayau] ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 06:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep or Transwiki from the author:


 * Thank you all for your concerns.


 * A little background: I made up this curriculum for my family, and we've been working through it for about 2 hours/week for the past 6 years.  This is a substantive amount of time, but it's half the time kids spend on math in the classroom and (with humility) I've achieve nearly twice as much by teaching 12th-grade mathematics to a 5th-grader.


 * specific responses:
 * Kayau -- by my observation, most kids already hate standard maths at age 10. Furthermore, have you taken a look at Non-Standard Calculus?  It simplifies the subject's foundations enormously.  Simply including a single number, like we include pi or the imaginary number "i", much of Calculus effectively reduces to algebra.
 * QU -- there have been some discussion on the metaphors and I have made a retraction and suggested a compromise.
 * Martin Krause -- I will change "program" to "approach"


 * On a more general note: while we sit and hypothesize about the merits of the approach and whether or not it would work, unless there's data specific to this or similar approaches, their success or failure, then any conclusions we draw is baseless.  Does anyone have data on the success or failures of similar approaches?  I myself only have 1.5 data points against 2 children of age 7 & 10.  The data takes 7 years to come by because it takes 7 years to complete the curriculum.  The experiment has just begun, and as I understand it, Wikibooks is an appropriate venue for experimental work.  I am also perfectly happy to have the book in either of Wikibooks, Wikijunior, or Wikiversity.  In the book's preface, I could make a disclosure to the effect that "this approach seems to be working in my family, perhaps it will work in yours". Numiri (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit-clear.svg Cleanup and Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki. Wikibooks is not an appropriate venue for experimental works as per WB:WIW, to quote what I feel is the relevant passage "Examples of things not allowed on Wikibooks include proposing new theories and solutions, presenting original ideas, defining new terms, and coining new words."  New terms and words abound abound in the text as do original ideas.  As these things are allowed at wikiversity, it would be a more appropriate there.  I agree with comments (made by Pi Zero in the reading room I think) that it is not a good idea to traswiki immediately but wait until offensive terms have been removed.


 * As a comment to Kayau and the Numiri. I have done some non-trivial work at the Non-standard calculus pages at wikipedia, and it is my professional opinion that the comment that Non-standard Calculus "simplifies the subject's foundations enormously" is simply false (indeed you cannot just introduce a single number!), but I would be happy to discuss this further at my talk page if anyone is interested. Thenub314 (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you Thenub314. This is the clearest justification I've heard so far for moving it.  However, I think Recent Runes above disagree with you about its merits for wikiversity for original ideas.  Of course, I did not invent any new mathematics, I gave it a new set of kid-friendly vocabulary (ok, minus 1 or 2 controversial terms), new notations (right & left divide), and stressed some similarities between multiply & exponentiation.


 * There is already a discussion of the terminology there and once those issues are resolve, I will move the book (Wikijunior_talk:KinderCalculus) But where?


 * In the exercises section 1.5 of Keisler's work Elementary Calculus, the calculation of limits (the foundation of the derivative) is given mostly as exercises in algebraic manipulation of the new number rather than delta-epsilon arguments. (ok, 2 new classes of numbers infinity & infinitesimal, much like the equivalent class of 1/2 is treated as the number 1/2).  I am very interested in discussing Non-Standard Calculus with you -- is this discussion the appropriate venue? 67.181.48.20 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you decide to move the book you can go to the page v:Wikiversity:Import and add a list of pages you would like them to bring over there. The administrators there can bring the pages, together with the full edit history over there, and you can just carry on editing the material.  They would have a better idea over there about which namespace/school/etc the pages belong in.  The software is the same, everything is basically the same, it is just a different part of the WikiMedia family with a different set of goals.  We can continue the discussion of Non-standard calculus at my talk page. I will copy your comments there and reply to them.  You can just edit that page and leave new comments, etc. Thenub314 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC) ( PS. Don't for get to log in :) )


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - probably a bit difficult for most elementary school kids, but presenting math with this kind of uniform conceptual framework is probably useful, certainly interesting, not really original research (so long as it produces the same results as conventional math), and thus should be more fully developed. If it can do good, and does no harm, it should remain. dml (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I think I should explain why I think this is original research despite the fact that the book aims to cover known facts. The point is that while the end mathematical facts are known the methods taken to get there are new.  There are many journals (for example College Mathematics Journal) that accept papers about new ways to explain known theorems in calculus.  These journals are peer reviewed serious journals, and many colleges tenure review committees acknowledge papers published in them as research activity.  When reading this page and I reach ideas like describing exponentiation as a fractal like graph (or snowflake) I think to myself this is original, and I am immediately lead to several questions for further investigation (why is rotation the right symmetry to look at?  What about cases when exponentiation is commutative such as 24 and 42, is this reflected in a symmetry of the diagram? etc) While the quote above about "coining new terms, ..." still applies, I don't think it gets at the heart of why this is original research.  To me the real answer is that if I wanted to read more about my simple questions about snowflakes there are not any references to turn to.  And I suspect if more of the work was posted we would see many more excellent and creative ideas that just don't appear elsewhere.  Let me emphasize I think it is good work.  And I hope that Numiri don't get discouraged by criticism.  It has a place in the wikimedia family, and I look forward to reading through it when it is fully available.  But I do think that wikiversity is a better project for it. Thenub314 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems a very cogent case that it's OR. I gather Numiri is now thinking transwiki on the grounds that the book is a tool that should be wielded by educators, which also sounds right.  (And I share your hope that Numiri isn't discouraged by criticism.)  --Pi zero (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Pi zero & TheNub314. I am glad that you mention the potential sensitivity towards criticism.  Truth to tell, I have been personally vested in this approach for years so it does take effort to divorced myself from the criticism personally.  But like Pi zero said earlier, it is in the best interest of the audience and the material and I will try to remember that and take it in the spirit of community contribution.  I am glad we are moving it away from wikijunior because I do see the potential for backlash.


 * Also, I will include one of the alternative metaphors discussed above so that the teacher can have a choice as to which metaphor and vocabulary to use.


 * I don't know what the protocol is for concluding a discussion, but unless someone says "do not transwiki" in the next 2 days, I will make a request for the transfer at that time. Numiri (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I think "new ways of doing old things" isn't as clear cut as that. I think some schools leave how best to teach a subject up to a teacher's discretion, as long as students gain required knowledge and skills that live up to the school's standards. I think Original research tries to take into consideration this issue, even though that is still only a draft proposal. I think the focus should be on whether a book is teaching new and novel knowledge and skills or not. Wikibooks allowed books about constructed languages (conlangs) when the vocabulary and rules of the language is well documented elsewhere by some trusted source, even if a means of teaching the language is not as well documented. I think even non-constructed languages can be taught in new and novel ways which could be more appropriate for the target audience, which should be allowed to exist on Wikibooks.
 * I'm not as certain whether such books should be given a free pass or be subjected to some scrutiny. I think this particular book might be a reasonably subject of some scrutiny because the new way to teach a subject may seem inappropriate for the target audience by some people. Yet this problem may also be something that could be easily fixed and addressed, which is usually enough of a reason to keep and let book contributors fix it. --dark lama  11:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - The idea of teaching calculus to Elementary school children is far from absurd. When you consider that the youngest person in the world to gain a first class honors degree in mathematics is something like 9 years old, it doesn't seem so silly.


 * I have come across children with abilities far in advance of what you would expect from ones who should be at Elementary school, and I consider as someone who works with children for upwards of 55 hours a week, that you should nurture any talent they have while you can. This kind of material is perfect for that.


 * If you can have kids recognizing words and reading by the age of 2 or 3 at the level of a 3rd grader (see Robert Titzer), this shouldn't be much different. Grow what you can while you can, cause you may not get another opportunity. BarkingFish (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While I understand that many schools allow teachers leeway, that doesn't necessarily mean that every explanation given in an elementary school isn't OR. My point of mentioning the fractal like graphs used to explain exponentiation is exactly that is is "new and novel".  If the methods used here were well documented elsewhere in some trusted source (as with conlangs) I would not suggest it was OR.  But it was exactly my point that there are not any trusted sources to turn to if you wish to veryify facts about this book. (It is a serious question to ask why is rotating the graphs the right way to look at commutativity, it seems to me it shouldn't be the correct symmetry, but I could be wrong.  I would like to verify that this idea is correct and if it isn't then I would like to correct it.  But there is no reference I can turn to.) Thenub314 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)