Weekly Reading - #4

1. What surprises you about the strategies digital age students use as they conduct research for course assignments?
The first thing that surprised me in the reading was this statement: "Almost every student in the sample turned to course readings—not Google—first for course-related research assignments. Likewise, Google and Wikipedia were the go-to sites for everyday life research for nearly every respondent". My husband refers to Google as my "boyfriend". It is always my go to. However, when I started thinking about it, it makes sense that course readings would be students first reference for course related research. That is usually where the idea for research typically comes from.

I was not surprised that librarians were underutilized. During my first college experience, librarians and the card catalog were vitally important. The World Wide Web was in it's infancy. If you wanted to know something, the best place to begin was the librarian. They would direct you to the reference and periodical sections. You had to look up old magazine articles on microfiche. To complete my "old person rant", these kids today don't know how easy they have it!

2. How accurately do the findings from this study reflect your own research strategies?
Overall, the major findings from this study accurately reflect my own research strategies. Usually, my research begins with a course-related reading. To find more information, I run to Google, which leads me to Wikipedia. I never step foot in the library, but when I'm looking for additional educational research on a topic, I go to EBSCO or ProQuest.

3. This study provides a detailed description of the parameters of research assignments typical required for academia. How does it differ from the kinds of research people do in the workplace?
Within the workplace, research is usually for a particular task. In workplace research, there is usually less place for different viewpoints or strategies. You focus on a specific research topic.

4. Do you think the recommendations to improve research process for college students will better prepare students for the world outside of school?
Students must improve their research process in order to be prepared for the world outside of school. Students must learn how to validate and find reliable information without relying on professors.

5. Find an image that relates to searching for information. Embed the image in your blog and provide proper attribution.

Image Source

 

References:

Head, A.J. & Eisenberg, M.B. (2009). LESSONS LEARNED: How College Students Seek Information in the Digital Age. Retrieved from: http://kennison.name/files/zopestore/uploads/libraries/documents/student-info-seeking-2009.pdf



Week 4 - Activity #2

My TrackStar

My TrackStar poses the question "Why is it important to integrate technology in the classroom?" So far, it includes links to Google with related search terms and "expert" opinion. I plan to include research data, also.

Week 4 - Activity #1

When I first started looking at the TrackStar projects, I was thoroughly confused - mainly because I couldn't view any of the projects in frames. After several attempts, I was able to view the accompanying frames. Then it all made sense. The TrackStar projects  have great potential for developing information literacy in school.  These projects walk students through the websites and teach them what questions should be asked when researching. I really enjoyed the Time Travel project.

Textbooks, Wikipedia and Schooling

1.How do you feel about using web-based resources instead of textbooks in school?
Web-based resources are an excellent alternative or supplement for textbooks. When I was student teaching, textbooks were used mainly for reference material - one course, desktop publishing, didn't have a textbook at all. I used web-based resources to find activities that I thought met the students' interests. I believe this helped with student engagement and gave them authenetic learning activities.

2.What opportunities for the development of information literacy skills for students if they began to learn without textbooks?
Through learning without textbooks, students have to wade through a wide variety of information as opposed to the narrowed-down, politically correct and sterile information they receive in textbooks. In the process, students would have to develop information literacy skills to help determine what was vital and accurate information.

3.How do these articles change or support your stance on using Wikipedia as learning resources in the classroom?
These articles further support my stance that Wikipedia can be used by students as a learning resource. Through Wikipedia, students are exposed to collaboration and use critical thinking skills to evaluate articles.

4.Find an image that relates to information literacy and schooling.Embed the image in your blog and provide proper attribution.

Picture source

Resources:

Ansary, Tamim (November 2004). A Textbook Example of What’s Wrong With Education. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/muddle-machine

Ruth, Geoff (February 2005). No Books, No Problem: Teaching Without a Text. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/teaching-without-text

ThinkAloud Project

ThinkAloud Project from taesmomma

For my ThinkAloud project, I found an article from Discovery News entitled "Could Arming Teachers Work?" Since the subject is an ongoing debate, I expected to find a lot of opinion pieces on the matter. In this article, the author's viewpoint was that arming teachers was not the answer. He provided studies and testimonials to support his view. The article that I used to triangulate agreed that arming teachers was not the answer. However, this article proved more information with links and gave alternative solutions to the problem of school violence.

Resources:
Gorman-Smith, D. (2012, December 21). School shootings: Arming teachers isn't the answer. Time, Retrieved from http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/21/viewpoint-arming-teachers-isnt-the-answer/

Niller, E. (2013, January). "Could Arming Teachers Work?". Discovery News. Retrieved from http://news.discovery.com/human/could-arming-teachers-work-20130102.htm

Week 2 - Henry Jenkins

What is Henry Jenkins main arguments about Wikipedia?
Henry Jenkins suggests we talk to our students about wikipedia and its use value. It is a good starting place; however, it is a work in progress. Educators need to understand Wikipedia and what goes into the articles enough to offer meaningful advice.

What is "participatory culture"?

A participatory culture offers:

• low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement
• strong support for creating and sharing what you create with other
• some kind of informal mentorship
• members feel their contributions matter
• some degree of social connection between members

What is the relationship between "old literacies" and "new media literacies".
Henry Jenkins explains that "old literacies" are more focused on the individual "can I read, can I write". New literacies are social skills. New literacies address how we interact.

What are the reading and writing behaviors associated with "new media literacies".

The reading and writing behaviors associated with "new media literacies" are:

• the ability to navigate and evaluate information online
• recognize manipulations and propaganda
• assimilate ethical values.

According to Henry Jenkins why is it important to teach "new media literacies" in school?
Henry Jenkins states that teaching "new media literacies" should be taught in schools because they prepare students for their future in both school and the workplace. Through new media literacies, students have opportunities for peer collaboration, understand intellectual property, have greater cultural expression, develop valuable modern workplace skills and become empowered citizens.

What can young people learn through contributing or even consuming Wikipedia?
Through contributing to Wikipedia, students learn peer collaboration in a knowledge culture. It helps them think about their own roles as researchers and writers. They are able to pool knowledge and compare notes. They have the ability to have peers evaluate their reliability and credibility.

How do you feel about Wikipedia after reading or listening to Henry Jenkins? Do agree or disagree with his arguments? Why?
After watching Henry Jenkins' lecture, I feel that Wikipedia would be useful in a classroom. As educators, we must understand this resource in order to teach our students how to navigate and work with Wikipedia. Through using and understanding Wikipedia, students could gain valuable skills with critical thinking, writing and collaboration.

Find an online resource that supports your position on using Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school. Summarize the argument being made in the resource and explain how it supports your position.
Sleeping with the Enemy: Wikipedia in the College Classroom supports the use of Wikipedia in the college classroom. Through coursework, students were required to contribute to Wikipedia. Students learned valuable research and evaluation skills. The conclusion of the paper found:

"Fundamentally, the students came to appreciate what Wikipedia is and what is is not. Students expressed that they think Wikipedia is acceptable for a quick reference, and that the reference for the individual articles can be quite helpful, but they were quick to point out that Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of research.

 Find an image that relates to Wikipedia and schooling.Embed the image in your blog and provide proper attribution.

 

References:

Thomas, A. (2012). 21st century scholarship and wikipedia. Ariadne, (70), Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue70/thomas

Global Warming Article: Step Seven

Step Seven:
How do think Wikipedia could be integrated into classroom activities? What do you think about using Wikipedia as a source of information instead of textbooks? Has your opinion changed? How? Why?
My opinion on wikipedia has not changed; however, I am now more knowledgable about what goes into editing and maintaining the information. Wikipedia is a good starting point for student research. In the classroom, wikipedia can be used for collaboration and to give a student differing view points to consider. Additionally, it can be used to locate articles related to a subject. It is also good for related topics that students may not have considered.

Global Warming Article: Step Six

Step Six: 
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) and Enescot (talk) are heavily involved in editing the Wikipedia article on Global Warming. Click on their names to see their profiles. Then read their pages. Again. how does this information make you feel about the credibility and validity of information on Wikipedia.Justify your stance using concrete examples.

NewsandEventsGuy's user profile led me back to the talk page; however, from reading over it, the user seems really knowledgable about wikipedia and follows the guidelines. He encourages contributors to work through problems in a rational manner. In "Tricks for consensus in a heated environment", they encourage people to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument neutrally as possible. Enescot provides a lot of information on wikipedia and getting help. From their page, they seem very knowledgeable.   The fact that both editors are knowledgable in their field and actively participate adds to their credibility.

Global Warming Article: Step 5

Step Five:
What did you learn about issues related to global warming? How does Does reading this section influence you perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school? Justify your stance using concrete examples.
There are varying opinions and studies about global warming. I like that different opinions and research are shown and discussed. I think this would be good in a classroom setting. Students would have a starting point to research more information to reach their own conclusions. This provides critical thinking skills also.

Additionally, if offers students a view of how to work collaboratively and how people can work through problems to find common ground. In the section, the person questioning a section presents a revise section edit for comment.

Global Warming Article: Step Four

Step Four:
Choose one of the questions and read the answer. Verify the answer using another online source.
Q8: Isn't global warming "just a theory"?

A8: That the temperature is rising is an observation (more specifically, the summary of many observations). The explanation for this observation is a scientific theory. This is different from the common use of "theory" to mean a guess or supposition. A scientific theory is a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with the known observations, that allows predictions to be made, and that has a number of other properties (see the above linked article). A theory that makes verifiable predictions that turn out to be correct gains credibility. Strictly speaking, science does not prove anything. A theory is the best it can provide.

VERIFYING
Name of page: "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
Address/URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page?
Google
DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.com
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
It is a commercial site which adds some credibility to it.
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified?
Tia Ghose and LiveScience
Is the author of the page an individual?
Both
If no individual author is identified, is the corporation, institution, organization or group responsible for the web site clearly identified?
Scientific American is responsible for the site.
 
If the author is an individual:
Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group?
Yes, LiveScience
If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author?
Yes.
Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified?
No.
Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject?
Don't know.
Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting?
No.
Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)?
Is "grammar nazi" a bias?
Is the author the original creator of the information presented?
Yes.
Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)?
No.
In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page?
No.
INTENT
Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?
Yes.

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?
To inform people of the proper definitions of words.

Does the page contain advertisements?  Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page?  Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?
Yes, it contains advertising. They are science related, but not distracting.
INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
General population looking for information on global warming.
Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs?
Yes

CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated?
April 2, 2013
Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?
Yes.
Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?
Properly maintained.

RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
There is a comments section.
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources?
No.
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?
This does not seem a reliable source, but it does explain the vocabulary.

Global Warming article: Step Three

Step Three:
What does it mean that this article and its editors are subject to General Sanctions?

The Arbitration Committee may impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area, usually following a request for arbitation. This means there may be consequences for editors who are making disruptive or inaccurate edits. Restrictions may be placed on accounts and individuals may be banned from editing related articles.

Global Warming Article: Step Two

Step Two:
Chose a claim to verify. Using Google, find two websites - one supporting, one disputing. Use the Website Evaluation Checklist.
CLAIM:
Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide.

SUPPORTING
Name of page: How we know human activity is causing warming
Address/URL: http://www.edf.org/climate/human-activity-causes-warming
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? Google

DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.org
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
This page is provided by the Environmental Defense Fund. Since they are organized to save the environment, they would be biased toward global warming.

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified?
No
Is the author of the page an individual? (ex. John Jones as the author of his own website)
The author of the page is not identified.
If no individual author is identified, is the corporation, institution, organization or group responsible for the web site clearly identified?
The page is clearly identified as the Environmental Defense Fund. 
If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group:
Does the organization have a reputation for credibility?
The organization has a reputation for being knowledgable about environmental concerns. The website lists the panel of experts that contribute to the site.
Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles?
The organization includes its mission statement and history on their website.
Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants?
The organization has a plethora of information, including history, contact information, offices, annual reports and financial information.
 Does the organization provide contact information (phone, address, or at least an e-mail address)?
Yes.
Does the organization appear to filter the information appearing under its name?   
It appears to.      
Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias?
The organization is dedicated to the defense of the environment. Therefore, they will be biased toward global warming and the effects of humans on the environment.
In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page?
With the list of experts and history, I believe that this webisite is qualified to present the information found on its web page.

INTENT
Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?
The pages purpose is clearly stated.
"As far as scientists are concerned, it's case closed: human activity is causing the Earth to get warmer, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution from deforestation. All other scientific explanations for why the Earth is getting warmer have been eliminated."

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?
This pages explains why they believe human activity is the cause of global warming and attempts to persuade readers of the same.
Does the page contain advertisements?  Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page?  Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?
There is only one ad on the page and it is for donations to the site. 

INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
The site appears to be intended for people looking for information about global warming.

Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs?
While the site contains some "big words", it does a good job explaining using layman terms.

CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated?
The site appears current, but I couldn't locate a creation date.
Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?
Not on this page, but other articles include dates.
Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?
The page is update and contains no broken links.

RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
They have a panel of experts on various environmental issues. They include sources from other sources, but no peer-review.
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources?
Yes.
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?
While biased toward global warming, this appears to be a reliable resource.

CONCLUSIONS
Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need?
Yes
Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research?
Yes
What reservations, if any, do you have about the source?
My only reservation is the site's obvious bias.

OPPOSING
Name of page: Is global warming caused by human activity?
Address/URL: http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.pdf
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? Google

DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.net
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
I think the domain type lessens the page's credibility.

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified?
Yes. Paul Drallos, Ph. D (Physics)
Is the author of the page an individual? (ex. John Jones as the author of his own website)
Yes

If the author is an individual:
Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group?
I do not see any corporation or institute the author is affiliated with.
If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author?
Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified?
The author has a PhD in Physics.
Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject?
Professional, but not in the field of environmental science.
Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting?
The author presents evidence and graphs.
Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)?
The author is obviously biased stating "only irrational logic could support such a choice" when referring to global warming.
Is the author the original creator of the information presented?
Yes.
If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting?
The author offers references for his supporting data.
Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)?
No.
In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page?
No.

INTENT
Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?
The pages purpose is stated. However, I'm not sure if he is pointing out that global warming is a falsehood or the science behind it is faulty.
What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?
The purpose of the page is to present an opposing view of global warming.
Does the page contain advertisements?  Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page?  Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?
No ads.

INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
The site appears to be intended for people who oppose global warming.
Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs?
The site contains simple words.

CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated?
July 9, 2008/Updated October 24, 2009
Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?
Yes.
Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?
The PDF version of the page is ok; however, the site is full of broken links and missing images.

RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
No.
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources?
No
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?
I wouldn't consider this a reliable source.

CONCLUSIONS
Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need?
No
Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research?
No
What reservations, if any, do you have about the source?
It is obviously biased and doesn't contain enough expertise or evidence.

Global Warming Article: Step One

Step One:
Does the Wikipedia article appear to be biased in any way or does it maintain neutrality?

Bias is when a statement reflects partiality, preference, or prejudice for or against a person, object or idea. The Wikipedia article on Global Warming is biased toward the global warming. The language within the article appeals to emotion calling for man to take action.

• What facts has the author omitted?
The author of this article omits information about differing viewpoints. While there is a section called "Global warming controversy", it mainly addresses the fact that there is a controversy. It didn't give differing opinions and states that "No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organisations have non-committal positions."

• What additional information is necessary?
Additional information on the Earth's natural temperature cycle would be important. The article mainly focuses on temperatures since the Industrial age and the 20th Century. How long have temperature records been kept? Has the Earth experienced Global warming before?

• What words create positive or negative impressions?
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal..." Unequivocal means definite, clear, leaving no doubt. Use of this word points to no other alternates. Other words and phrases used in the article to create a negative impression of global warming include: threat and dangerous anthrogenic. Additionally, I noticed that the article referred to "expert judgement". Who are these experts?

• What impression would I have if different words had been used?
Had a word other than "unequivocal" been used, global warming may not be considered of dire importance. Had the "experts" been named, more or less credability may have been given to their opnions and research.