I know. I just meant... we need to work with the technology:) Why fight it? And I see the student's perspective (having been that student--they're looking for the path of least resistance. They're not going to skip it just because it's the high road. They need some other reason.
As for expectations.. There're a few things I'd like to expect from students, but I know I can't. Remembering pens and spell checking are probably pretty high on the list.
Are you kidding?? I have a masters of library and information sciences and I'm an adjunct professor. I STILL do work that way!! I look at it as working smarter, not harder. If you're going to give me an idiotic question, like are aardvark young called "kittens" or "puppies" (swear to god, got this question at my last staff meeting) and expect me to not google it, then you're stupid.
I guess it depends on what the aim of these questions are. Are you testing specific knowledge? Are the ten questions on this quiz the sum total of what you wanted students to get out of the unit? If that's the case, then you, and your students, are saving time to be spent elsewhere. If you're spot-checking knowledge they should have gotten by reading an entire unit on aardvark reproduction, then maybe you need to come up with some better questions.
They're called pups by the way
ALL sources should be cited, period, end of story.
But I think our job as teachers and librarians is to teach students how to determine the veracity of the information they find both in print and on the internet. Some sources are heavily slanted due to who they're published by, or what they're trying to do (persuade, sell something, make an argument against the other side, etc). Propiganda and misinformation are not exclusive to the web! The only difference is that it's much easier to say things without consequence on your Blogspot blog or random Wikipedia article. Those things are a place to start, but they are not authoritative in any sort of way.
It's like asking your mom how the sound of thunder is made. She may tell you a wive's tale, or she may know the very precise and detailed scientific explanation. Both sound equally good, but both are just relying on what someone told her, and what she remembered. There's very little authoritative about it (unless your mother happens to be a meteorologist). We do not teach students how to vet information, which is part of information literacy. I think this is a valuable learning experience we're losing out on because we want to stick our heads in the sand and just ban internet sources or pretend like they're all created equal.
I don't buy into that whole librarian as the gatekeeper of knowledge thing thing, and I think thats where the perception of a reference librarian's power derives. I like to help people find information, and occasionally I get a tricky one that is either not readily available on the internet (mayor of Philadelphia in 1903--and there were two, btw. It was an election year) or people who don't know where to begin with a topic.
I think our major challenge is helping people find verified information. Billie Piper was Doctor Who's companion, not an Apollo Astronaut (don't even ask--kids believe anything they read on the internet). We need to help them discern what's probably good information and what's probably NOT good information (I don't want to say that anything is hard and fast right/wrong, even in print--because it's less likely that print was updated 34 times by opposing factions the way Wikipedia articles are). I think that practically needs to be community outreach at this point.
The problem isn't with kids getting answers off the internet. I personally look at it as a shortcut, and as someone said, a place to start when I don't have a freakin' clue where to start looking. It can at least tell you whether the search term you're looking for is animal, vegetable or mineral.
The problem: Kids are not taught how to check the veracity of their internet sources. While book sources are fallable, they at least go through a more thorough screening process (in most cases) than things on, say, Wikipedia or About.com.
Kids also tend to think they're the best internet searchers in the world, when really they're the worst. They don't know how to narrow search terms, in addition to vetting their sources. If they type in a name, and a company name or sales website comes up first, they will assume that that site is the best site, because Google had it first in the search results.
I don't believe the internet helps students cheat (except for in cases when they're copying and pasting/plagiarizing, or the purpose of the assignment is to learn how to use book resources). I don't believe in wasting students' time. If we allow them to learn things efficiently, then we'll have time for them to learn more things. Also, why reinvent the wheel, or spend time searching for information across a dozen books that someone has condensed into a convenient, time-saving article on the internet? Time management is something we need to teach our young as well!
Teaching kids how to properly use the information on the internet is just part of information literacy. Of course, a lot of teachers and libraries are dropping the ball when it comes to this completely, or are just missing out on an important teaching opportunity. They either say "no internet sources" or just turn a blind eye to where the information is coming from. That is doing a disservice to young people that we are trying to teach critical thinking and problem solving skills to.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that things like Yahoo! Answers are not going away. We can either teach students how to use these tools properly, or we can continue to whine about the quality of the work they hand in. We're the instructors, we need to INSTRUCT them on the use of the resource. Otherwise we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
I know. I just meant... we need to work with the technology:) Why fight it? And I see the student's perspective (having been that student--they're looking for the path of least resistance. They're not going to skip it just because it's the high road. They need some other reason. As for expectations.. There're a few things I'd like to expect from students, but I know I can't. Remembering pens and spell checking are probably pretty high on the list.
Are you kidding?? I have a masters of library and information sciences and I'm an adjunct professor. I STILL do work that way!! I look at it as working smarter, not harder. If you're going to give me an idiotic question, like are aardvark young called "kittens" or "puppies" (swear to god, got this question at my last staff meeting) and expect me to not google it, then you're stupid. I guess it depends on what the aim of these questions are. Are you testing specific knowledge? Are the ten questions on this quiz the sum total of what you wanted students to get out of the unit? If that's the case, then you, and your students, are saving time to be spent elsewhere. If you're spot-checking knowledge they should have gotten by reading an entire unit on aardvark reproduction, then maybe you need to come up with some better questions. They're called pups by the way
ALL sources should be cited, period, end of story. But I think our job as teachers and librarians is to teach students how to determine the veracity of the information they find both in print and on the internet. Some sources are heavily slanted due to who they're published by, or what they're trying to do (persuade, sell something, make an argument against the other side, etc). Propiganda and misinformation are not exclusive to the web! The only difference is that it's much easier to say things without consequence on your Blogspot blog or random Wikipedia article. Those things are a place to start, but they are not authoritative in any sort of way. It's like asking your mom how the sound of thunder is made. She may tell you a wive's tale, or she may know the very precise and detailed scientific explanation. Both sound equally good, but both are just relying on what someone told her, and what she remembered. There's very little authoritative about it (unless your mother happens to be a meteorologist). We do not teach students how to vet information, which is part of information literacy. I think this is a valuable learning experience we're losing out on because we want to stick our heads in the sand and just ban internet sources or pretend like they're all created equal.
I don't buy into that whole librarian as the gatekeeper of knowledge thing thing, and I think thats where the perception of a reference librarian's power derives. I like to help people find information, and occasionally I get a tricky one that is either not readily available on the internet (mayor of Philadelphia in 1903--and there were two, btw. It was an election year) or people who don't know where to begin with a topic. I think our major challenge is helping people find verified information. Billie Piper was Doctor Who's companion, not an Apollo Astronaut (don't even ask--kids believe anything they read on the internet). We need to help them discern what's probably good information and what's probably NOT good information (I don't want to say that anything is hard and fast right/wrong, even in print--because it's less likely that print was updated 34 times by opposing factions the way Wikipedia articles are). I think that practically needs to be community outreach at this point.
The problem isn't with kids getting answers off the internet. I personally look at it as a shortcut, and as someone said, a place to start when I don't have a freakin' clue where to start looking. It can at least tell you whether the search term you're looking for is animal, vegetable or mineral. The problem: Kids are not taught how to check the veracity of their internet sources. While book sources are fallable, they at least go through a more thorough screening process (in most cases) than things on, say, Wikipedia or About.com. Kids also tend to think they're the best internet searchers in the world, when really they're the worst. They don't know how to narrow search terms, in addition to vetting their sources. If they type in a name, and a company name or sales website comes up first, they will assume that that site is the best site, because Google had it first in the search results. I don't believe the internet helps students cheat (except for in cases when they're copying and pasting/plagiarizing, or the purpose of the assignment is to learn how to use book resources). I don't believe in wasting students' time. If we allow them to learn things efficiently, then we'll have time for them to learn more things. Also, why reinvent the wheel, or spend time searching for information across a dozen books that someone has condensed into a convenient, time-saving article on the internet? Time management is something we need to teach our young as well! Teaching kids how to properly use the information on the internet is just part of information literacy. Of course, a lot of teachers and libraries are dropping the ball when it comes to this completely, or are just missing out on an important teaching opportunity. They either say "no internet sources" or just turn a blind eye to where the information is coming from. That is doing a disservice to young people that we are trying to teach critical thinking and problem solving skills to. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that things like Yahoo! Answers are not going away. We can either teach students how to use these tools properly, or we can continue to whine about the quality of the work they hand in. We're the instructors, we need to INSTRUCT them on the use of the resource. Otherwise we have no one but ourselves to blame.