Here are some thoughts and areas I am struggling with.
1. The participatory part of Web 2.0 may increase engagement. However, is it engagement with ideas associated with education? Anecdotes: 1) students spend more time with the glitzy features of PowerPOint or Imovie, and their final product doesn't show a great level of understanding or application of the concepts. 2) Allowing students access to online materials opens up their ability to do anything else but the required task. They check facebook through channels they know that get around the network blocker and browse for cars and prom dresses.
2. Much of the internet is still about information. So you can find the information, does this make you competent in using it? For example, I consider locally produced food very desirable. All the information I can find on line is not going to give me the feel I have for when a crop is ready, when I have to implement a pest control strategy, how long I can go without watering my plants. A certain level of education is about being able to do something, and I am not sure many of the Web 2.0 offerings actually help you do something. Do want to have surgery performed by a web trained doctor? How about car repair from a person who only blogs about it. Or consider, as one of the the class people commented on her web page, she can do somethings by phone much faster than doing something by text.
3. I completely don't get the author's idea of dealing with too much information by creating more. Anyone have thoughts on this?
4. I disagreed with the author's comments that participation makes selection better. The idea was of only buying things from Amazon with favorable user reviews. I think the author mistakes the need for and value of knowing something about the person making the comment. Even the stylish "was this review helpful to you?" doesn't tell me much. I have purchased some DVD for my classes based upon Amazon comments, and I was greatly disappointed with the product. For example, one teacher review of a movie on Trash said how much she learned from it and how engaged her students were in watching it. When I got it, with more personal background with the topic, I found the information about 15 years old, large sections would have put my students to sleep, and I needed much more explanation of what was happening. At least reviews from the librarians give you some information about the reviewer.
As science educators, we have a history of science based upon peer review at risk of being damaged or destroyed by participation by the masses. Just because a large number of people believe something doesn't make it true. We have to help students understand the difference between peer review or at least review based upon qualifications and what often passes for review online. In addition, many students don't understand how vested interests can manipulate google search results, or that favorable comments can be made as many times you might like, just like on American Idol a person can vote as often as he or she may like.
You are right that we need to teach students about the differences in expertise available on-line. For example, when I have my students do research, I often require them to use resources that are only from .org or .gov. Otherwise it's very difficult to know how accurate the information is. In his book Blogs, Wikis and Podcasts, Will Richardson notes that experts in various fields said 80 percent of the information on Wikipedia is accurate. Does that mean we should not allow students to use it? Or does it mean we should teach students to take the information contained with reservations?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with online reviews is that you don't know who wrote them. If you were trying to sell something, you may write your own review of it and make it sound fabulous. I think this happens often online.
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteMy take on the making more info to deal with overload would be perghaps that creating a webpage on a topic (powerpoint, report, etc...) forces you to have some involvement in depth with the information. This doesn't always hold true. We can share examples of horrible powerpoints and reports with little demonstration of depth of understanding. But in a last semester when I had to do a Powerpoint -- it would take 20+ hours, more than an equivalent paper ever would, because of how much synthesis and analysis went into my slide designs.
Wikipedia- I recently read that "most" content on wikipedia is at worst just as accurate as traditional encyclopedias. The mature posts are very accurate as they have gone through multiple peer revisions. I like that most entries include multiple citations so that you can go to the original source - unlike a traditional encyclopedia.
ReplyDeleteAs for using it in student research, think of it as an encyclopedia. It may be appropriate to use occasionally as an information source, but not the basis for your research!
Hi, I certainly agree that a well designed power point shows thought. This is why I like to use them. However, I have been unsuccessful in the large part in getting students to use them as a part of the entire presentation. I try to give guidelines like no more than 30 words and be able to talk about the pictures, but still the presentations fall short. My current thinking is that 1) the students need to see models of comprehensive powerpoints. I need to either show them other work and/or develop my own. I actually don't like to make them and most that come from publishers aren't much better than a set of overheads.
ReplyDelete2) I think students need much more guidance, instruction, and practice in making oral presentations. We probably don't do this enough in school. Long long ago, when I was in 8th grade we had a semester of speech where we needed to deliver something like 5 speeches in the term.
Wikipedia I for the most part don't have a problem with because I don't find that many errors. I see more challenge with open ended reviews of information or products.
ReplyDelete