Comments on: Google Burn-out as Occupational Hazard http://cac.ophony.org/2008/07/22/google-burn-out-as-occupational-hazard/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:30:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Luke http://cac.ophony.org/2008/07/22/google-burn-out-as-occupational-hazard/#comment-35237 Luke Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:53:43 +0000 http://cac.ophony.org/?p=458#comment-35237 Fantastic post, Hillary. I feel, quite strongly, that a 1st Year Research Methods and Analysis course should be part of every college's foundational general education... such a course would cover the issues you raise, encourage students to be critical consumers of information, and give them purposeful introduction to the resources of the college. They could even get their very own <a href="http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu" rel="nofollow">blog</a>, which they could customize and carry forward through their college career. Of course, there are all sorts of institutional impediments to these things happening in a single course; instead, they're dispersed across the undergraduate experience, and lose much of the punch they could potentially have if collected in one experience. On the Wikipedia question, I always find student citations of online materials a good teaching moment... how is scholarship produced and dissemenated, what is the meaning of "corabaration," etc. There are certain things Wikipedia does well-- easily providing access to names, dates, and brief descriptions of events, for instance -- and things it doesn't do well. (<a href="http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42" rel="nofollow">here's an article</a> the late Roy Rosenzweig wrote a few years ago assessing its usefulness as a tool for doing history). Ultimately, assignment design that require students to both research and analyze are key in getting them to move beyond simple information grab and transfer. We need constantly to remind students (and ourselves) that if you think using technology makes teaching and learning easier, you're missing the point. I also agree with your final point that faculty should adjust to the new information literacy that our students bring to college. Good teaching, like good communicating, requires listening to your audience and adapting. This doesn't mean relinquishing standards or intellectual rigor-- in fact, it requires more of both. Fantastic post, Hillary. I feel, quite strongly, that a 1st Year Research Methods and Analysis course should be part of every college’s foundational general education… such a course would cover the issues you raise, encourage students to be critical consumers of information, and give them purposeful introduction to the resources of the college. They could even get their very own blog, which they could customize and carry forward through their college career. Of course, there are all sorts of institutional impediments to these things happening in a single course; instead, they’re dispersed across the undergraduate experience, and lose much of the punch they could potentially have if collected in one experience.

On the Wikipedia question, I always find student citations of online materials a good teaching moment… how is scholarship produced and dissemenated, what is the meaning of “corabaration,” etc. There are certain things Wikipedia does well– easily providing access to names, dates, and brief descriptions of events, for instance — and things it doesn’t do well. (here’s an article the late Roy Rosenzweig wrote a few years ago assessing its usefulness as a tool for doing history). Ultimately, assignment design that require students to both research and analyze are key in getting them to move beyond simple information grab and transfer. We need constantly to remind students (and ourselves) that if you think using technology makes teaching and learning easier, you’re missing the point.

I also agree with your final point that faculty should adjust to the new information literacy that our students bring to college. Good teaching, like good communicating, requires listening to your audience and adapting. This doesn’t mean relinquishing standards or intellectual rigor– in fact, it requires more of both.

Reply to Luke

]]>