Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (0)

A School Library Take on the Britannica Debate (continued from the last post)
June 14, 2007

So what’s my personal school library take on the Gorman/Britannica Web 2.0 argument?  

Like Gorman, I cherish the scholar, the creator of knowledge.  Like Carr, I believe that many of us are aware of our information tradeoffs. 

It is the specific information need that should drive our mode of consumption.  When I need to deeply investigate American Idol, Wikipedia is my starting point. When I study an obscure long-tail type programming language, Wikipedia rescues me.  When I research for academic publication, when I need seriously-considered medical opinion, it’s another story.  I know my needs; I know my options.  My students know theirs too. 

Gorman notes that humans learn two ways--from experience and from people who know more than they do-- from teachers or gurus or through interaction with the human record, and

that vast assemblage of texts, images, and symbolic representations that have come to us from the past and is being added to in the present . . . is under threat in the realm of digital resources.

Gorman contends that the conditions necessary for learning from a text include: a certainty that the text was created by "named" writers, that those authors have credentials or expertise, that the learner can discern a date of publication, that the learner has skills sufficient to interact with complex text, and that the text has context or sources.

For me, the threat Gorman describes is an educational challenge I am eager to address. We teach in beautiful information chaos.  Information choices no longer fit in little boxes.  Decisions are greyer and fuzzier than ever before.

We can model critical decision-making strategies with young learners.  We have opportunities to teach new essential literacies, as well as the traditional skills necessary to interact with complex text.  We can teach strategies for assessing credibility in new landscapes.  This is curriculum for the 21st century.

For instance, blogs require new types of examination.  Some questions learners might ask as they evaluate blogs:

• Who is the blogger? With so many blogs offering spotty “about” pages, this may be a clue in itself.  
• What sorts of materials is the blogger reading/citing? 
• Does this blogger have influence?  Who and how many people link to the blog? Who is commenting?
• Does this blog appear to be part of a community? What type of community?
• Is this content covered in depth, with authority? 
• How sophisticated is the language? 
• Is this blog alive?  It there a substantial archive? How current are the posts?
• At what point in a story’s lifetime did a post appear?
• Is the site upfront about its bias?  Does it recognize/discuss other points of view? (For certain information tasks--an essay or debate--bias may be especially useful.  Students need to recognize it.) 
• If the blogger is not a traditional “expert,” is this a first-hand view that would also be valuable for research?

Wikipedia forces us to examine the dynamic nature of information and to explore how knowledge is built.  Whom do we trust and when do we trust them?  Its content is heavily accessed; its articles appear on nearly every result list. Its democratic editing process provokes questions relating to the wisdom of crowds and the value of experts.

If a project has to do with breaking news, a hot topic, technology, or popular culture, if students need to scan background and vocabulary and links, Wikipedia may be a good place to start.  But academics, concerned with tenure and promotion, generally find other avenues for publication. Students need to know that teachers and professors will expect them to reach beyond Wikipedia. 

I want my students to succeed in any academic setting. I want them to find the best possible sources for their specific needs. In some circumstances Wikipedia, or any traditional encyclopedia will be embarrassing to cite.  In some cases Wikipedia will be wrong.  Web 2.0 requires us to think, to discern.

As students evaluate wikis of all sorts, they might ask questions:

• What is the purpose of the collaborative project and who began it?
• How many people appear to be involved in editing the wiki?  Does it seem that the information collected is improved by having a variety of participants?  How heavily edited were the pages you plan to use?
• How rich is the wiki?  How many pages does it contain?
• Does the project appear to be alive?  Are folks continuing to edit it?
• Does the information appear accurate? Can I validate it in other sources?

The scholarly and the casual can both live and flourish. Web 2.0 sharing can also enhance scholarly work. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen scholars collaborating on papers and books over wikis.  I’ve seen professors (with names) share their lectures and syllabi and readings over iTunesU and the OER Commons. I believe we can value the “tradition of individualism in scholarship” while we appreciate our ability to build on each other’s wisdom.

I have faith that we can quide learners to discern quality. 

My students use Wikipedia.  They also use and rely on our nearly 50 databases. When I added JSTOR to our database collection this April, they celebrated.  They described this database as they describe a favorite rock star.   They are learning scholarly behaviors.

They are learning new literacies.  They are learning to tolerate and manage ambiguity, to seek divergent opinions, to collaborate. They are learning to respect the human record Gorman describes, as they learn how to live as thoughtful digital citizens in complex emerging information landscapes.

See my learners blog.  See them research and think and analyze and evaluate and communicate. See them build knowledge; see them learn. 

I think the human record is safe.

Posted by Joyce Valenza on June 14, 2007 | Comments (0)