The OLD Top Shelf

Teaching Zach to Think: Evaluating Online Resources - Alan November

I caught the tail end of November’s presentation after Lee Rainie’s session ended. As I entered the room, he was very excitedly demonstrating how to make your own customized Google search engine that just searches the sites you tell it to search. Sounds like a pretty nifty idea. For more on this session and the ideas it included, see Digital Deb’s post over at Plugged In.

In this highly entertaining session, two big names in the world of instructional technology debated the pros and cons of Wikipedia, now known as the world’s largest encyclopedia. Kathy participated virtually via Skype, while Alan was there at the TLA conference. Kathy was at a little disadvantage, since Alan had control of the computer on which she appeared, but both presenters made some good points about the good and not so good aspects of Wikipedia. The back and forth banter was pretty rapid-fire, but here is a quasi-transcript of their ideas:

Moderator: What is your overall impression of Wikipedia?

KS says she has difficulty finding a way to validate information on Wikipedia. How do students determine if the information is correct? We can’t see the contributor’s name.

AN takes a conceptual approach. It is not an information tool, but a publishing tool/forum for children to use

KS agrees, but says they don’t sell themselves as that

AN gives an example of a Wikipedia entry for the Pitot House in New Orleans that was written by a 3^rd grade class researching the landmark. Says we can use the History tab to see different iterations of the article under the name of the teacher. Changes are still being made.

KS agrees that using a wiki as a publishing tool is one of the most powerful things we can do with students

AN says we don’t want to evaluate new tools using old thinking.  Role of the teacher is to help students evaluate new information.

KS doesn’t like what Wikipedia does to help its articles come to the top of a Google results list. She says Google is a popularity search engine – they use the number of times a site is linked to to determine relevancy. In some articles on Wikipedia, authors provide links to other web sites that will provide additional information on the topic, but Wikipedia hides the links to those web sites from the Google search engine, So even though another site might be more authoritative on a particular topic, the Wikipedia article on that topic is going to rise to the top of the Google results list when a Google search is done. The other resources that authors are using, are not assigned their appropriate “popularity” because those links aren’t seen by Google. She calls this a “slimy practice” by Wikipedia.

AN counters by saying that Google also looks at title of site, URL and content too when sorting and determining relevance.  Says the knowledge of the masses has validity. He believes we all have the responsibility to correct misinformation in Wikipedia.

KS says only 17 % of the world’s population is on the Internet and that the masses aren’t correcting Wikipedia. Kids believe that using one source for research is ok.

AN says that the power of Wikipedia is when students do good research using several sources then publish or correct an article.

Moderator: How do you critically evaluate an entry?

AN says that we need to read AND write on the Internet, just as we read and write on paper.  Many articles are rejected – there is academic rigor involved. What is published gets comments from all over the world. It’s hard to evaluate something you don’t know anything about. Learn about how it works. Use RSS feature to subscribe to an article and its corrections/changes.

KS still argues that the articles should have to be signed with the author’s real name and brings up the saying “On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog.” Wikipedia’s editors have no credentials. She also mentions  GoogleKnol coming as a competitor to Wikiepdia.

Moderator: quotes The World is Flat as saying that it is too easy to slander people because there is no one accountable for the information. What keeps people from slandering others?

AN cites a study that looked at number of errors in Britannica and Wikipedia and found that the average error rate in Britannica is 3, Wikipedia is 4. He also cites as an example that the Oxford English Dictionary began asking anyone to contribute the definition of a new word in 1863. He says that we can’t just rely on scholars to provide information.

KS says that since there are no citations in many articles, that there is lots of plagiarism. Top 10 things looked up indicate that the most users are young people. We need to help students look at everything critically. She recommends using it as a source consulted, but not cited.

AN says that certain controversial topic articles cannot be edited by anyone, e.g., Hilary Clinton and the campaign – authors must have clearance. Telling students not to use Wikipedia doesn’t help them learn to deal with it.

Moderator: Does Wikipedia fill a need for pop culture information?

KS says everything can be found easily which makes it popular. It is larger than any print encyclopedia. Some articles contain opinion which can influence students not ready to determine the difference from fact and opinion.

AN references Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Wikipedia can tell you what people think about things, not necessarily what the facts are. Collaboration is expected in 21^st century – a wiki is a tool for collaboration.

No solutions were found, but both sides gave the audience much to think about regarding Wikipedia and its place in the Web 2.0 world.

Beyond Books and Bytes: The Role of Libraries in a Networked World
Presenter: Lee Rainie

Lee Rainie is the director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. This organization does original research to determine how the Internet impacts people in their daily lives. His presentation was fast-moving and full of research findings about how information and communication are changing and the role that libraries can play in the digital age.

When Rainie first started this research in 1999, he was surprised to find that librarians were some of the most avid consumers of Internet content. Since that time, however, librarians have been identified as the #1 stakeholder in the work of the Project. His latest studies have found that with the advent of Web 2.0 (the “social” web), there has been a major shift in the social lives of Americans today that has big implications for libraries and they way that they serve their communities.

Rainie discussed 8 hallmarks of the Internet today:
1. Media and gadgets - Everyone uses media and has technology gadgets.  97% of computer users use the Internet. The web itself has become a storage device that allows people to access the information they want via whatever device they have access to.

2. Broadband access - More than ½ the population now have broadband Internet access at home. The web has become the central information center and the first place people go for answers to questions.

3. Wireless connectivity - allows access anywhere. This connectivity has changed the way we have to think about the digital divide and the importance of e-mail.

4. Content creation - Ordinary people are now publishers and creators of their own content. These new content creators post photos, create social networking profiles, blog (either on a blog site or on their social networking profile), create their own web sites and help others create sites, take other online content and use it to make something new (mashup), and create avatars, or online identities. 

5. Many different audiences - All of these new content creators have some sort of audience that uses video sharing sites, reads blogs, uses wiki sites for information, downloads podcasts, etc.

6. Sharing knowledge and feelings - People are using these new web tools to share what they know and what they feel. By doing this they are creating online conversations and communities. There are many services that allow users to rate people, products or services and communicate their feelings about them. Other users tag online content or make comments on videos, photos, blog posts.

7. Customization of the web - People are customizing their Internet experience with web 2.0 tools, e.g., iGoogle and myYahoo pages.  Others use RSS feeds to get the news/information they want.

8. Different people use technology in different ways. Rainie’s findings have identified three tiers of Internet users:

High tier users

• OMNIVORES have the most info gadgets and participate voraciously in content creation
• CONNECTORS are more into e-mail cell phones and the social networking aspect of the Internet
• LACKLUSTER VETERANS are frequent internet users of the Internet, but don’t really love it
• PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCERS are positive about technology and the way it helps them do their jobs

Middle tier users

• MOBILE CENTRICS – embrace the cell phone and its capabilities; includes a high share of African-Americans and Latinos
• CONNECTED BUT HASSLED - have a lot of technology but don’t like how it intrudes into their lives

Low tier users:

• INEXPERIENCED EXPERIMENTERS – occasionally take advantage of online connectivity and can use it if they are shown how to do it
• LIGHT BUT SATISFIED – use technology but it does not play a central role in their lives. These are the people you have to call and say “Did you get my e-mail?”
• INDIFFERENTS – have some technology, but don’t like it
• OFF THE NETWORK – do not have cell phones or use the Internet at all. These people tend to be older or without the resources to buy technology

All this connectivity changes our relationship to information and to each other. We are living life in a “continuous state of partial attention.” The validating of information becomes more social.

Libraries need to plug into people’s social networks as a source of information. People perceive the Internet as a “node” on their social network to fill in gaps when friends can’t help them solve a problem.  Libraries should be one of the sources that they can turn to easily.

Libraries should also help teach new literacies. Rainie ended his presentation with a reference to a post by Pam Berger in her InfoSearcher blog. In her post, Pam identifies the new literacies required by the digital age:

graphic literacy - the language of the screen

navigation literacy - the transition to nonlinear formats

context literacy - the importance of seeing connections

focus - the value of reflection

skepticism - the capacity to evaluate

ethical behavior - the will to be responsible

Overall, an excellent presentation that was worth getting up for the 8:00 start time!

This was the day we had been working towards since last May. We were in charge of coordinating the Strong Libraries-Strong Scores mini-conference for school administrators and trustees. This mini-conference has become an annual event held in conjunction with TLA. Administrators are nominated to attend by librarians. This year for the first time, the librarians attended the morning portion with their administrators. The goal was to allow librarians and administrators to learn together what the research says about how strong school library programs can impact student achievement and discuss how to strengthen the programs on their campuses. Many good things have happened as a result of this conference, so we were happy to have a hand in it. There have been some great stories of administrators in various districts that have increased library budgets, added certified librarians, added clerks, etc.

We had fabulous attendance - 180+ administrators and their librarians participated in the morning session. We were especially excited to have several administrators from our district there: our new Administrative Officer for Library Services, the AO for Curriculum, the AO for Instructional Technology and the Superintendent were all in attendance!

The day started with a welcome from TEA’s Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Anita Givens. Ms. Givens recognizes the impact that libraries and librarians can make in the learning that happens in a school. After welcoming the group, she stayed to hear what the other presenters had to say.

Dr. Keith Curry Lance was next on the agenda. He shared the results of multiple studies that he has done that show a correlation between good test scores and schools where the library program is part of the instructional program. Lance’s research can be found in detail on his web site, Library Research Service Impact Studies and a copy of his PowerPoint presentation can be found here.

Right before lunch, Dr. David Loertscher talked about what research projects should look like in a 21st century library. He cited the need for students to do much more higher-level thinking and shared a couple of his models for reaching that level of thinking during student research projects. Dr. Loertscher’s website can be found here.

After lunch, the librarians returned to the DCC and the main TLA conference, while administrators returned to hear Dr. Gary Hartzell. The topic of his presentation was Reconceptualizing School Libraries as Instruments of School Improvement. His handouts can be found here and and his presentation can be downloaded here.

Closing the day, we heard from Dr. Marla McGhee, co-author of The Principal’s Guide to a Powerful Library Media Program. As a former Texas principal, Dr. McGhee shared her experiences in learning about the library program and gave administrators strategies for doing more learning on their own. Her PowerPoint presentation can be found here. Dr. McGhee also shared three Word documents for administrators to use in evaluating their library programs: a form for evaluating the library schedule, a continuum showing activities on which librarians should be spending more and less time, and a form for reflection and next steps.

Things went very smoothly thanks to the fantastic Library Services staff. Everyone helped copy materials, stuff packets and pack up everything to be sent to the conference location, then BB and GR came down to help get everyone registered that morning. Of course, Digital Deb took care of all things technology-related. It was truly a team effort and they all did a fantastic job! Thank you, thank you!!!

After Strong Libraries, we made a quick visit to the Exhibit Hall. With hundreds of vendor exhibits, it was difficult to see them all, but we made an effort.

Next on the agenda was the Book Cart Drill Team competition. What fun that was! If you’ve never seen a book cart drill team before - you have been missing out! This year’s winner was Austin Public Library’s Bibliofiles, but my favorite was Denton ISD’s group of Super Librarians.

In the evening, we visited a couple of vendor sponsored hospitality events, then crashed into our beds. It was a very full day!!

What a hectic day! After checking into the hotel, Digital Deb and I had to rush  to the Convention Center to do our volunteer work.  We grabbed a sandwich and chips from the hotel restaurant and tried to eat while waiting for the shuttle. I say “tried” because the wind tunnel we were in made eating a little difficult. Deb’s chips became dangerous projectiles!

Once we arrived at the DCC, we were the envy of everyone there because we actually had food to eat. There weren’t any food vendors open that we saw, so there were lots of hungry and thirsty librarians wandering around.

Our volunteer duty was in the Internet Room from 1-5pm(!). We basically had to help people find computers to use, keep paper in the printers, etc. Pretty easy stuff. Since we were right there in the open close to the Registration desk and the free Maximum Ride books, we got to see and visit with lots of people that we knew.

That evening we attended a lovely dinner at the YO Ranch Steakhouse hosted by Gale. The food was delicious and the conversation lively. It was a very enjoyable evening.