Megan Frazer <mfrazer@COMMSCHOOL.ORG> writes:
...
>he says that for most
>people, finding the information is not the most important part of a
>research project, synthesizing that information is. The way I see it, the
>information retrieval part should be as efficient as possible so that
>students have more time to think about and use the materials.
This assumes that Google searching is efficient. It might be on some
occasions, but for academic needs, an appropriate database will provide
better results for less effort.
>
>
>
>So, pressed for time, students can either jump on Google, or they can
>through the long, laborious steps that we have set out for them in our
>information literacy programs.
Do you still thiink about the steps in using a pencil or tieing your
shoes? Those simple steps should become internalized, meaning that you
spend less time performing them. I remember having to write out all of my
lesson plans during student teaching, Mager's Objectives and an ITIP (my
apologies to Madeline Hunter) lesson. It's the rare exception (and I'm
certain I'll hear from those of you who are) who has time to do this when
you start teaching for real. We stop the time consuming writing out of
everything because, hopefully, it's been internalized.
>Which would you choose? He’s not saying
>that the Internet offers the best information, but that it offers adequate
>information quickly.
To me, adequate is what people want out of ready reference. The word I
learned in library school for it was "satisficing."
>
:...
>the Internet
>cannot give students the high-quality scholarly information that is
>available only through subscription, license, or purchase.”
The very sort of information that should be expected of academic work.
>
>
>This is an important issue that needs to be discussed and I don’t think
>Wilder’s assertions should be dismissed out of hand. He’s not an
>outsider. He is a librarian like us. I don’t think his article was meant
>as an attack, but as a challenge. I, for one, think it is one we should
>embrace.
>
>
>- Meg
>
I agree, but the article's title is rather inflammatory and purposeful.
He and the editor wanted a reaction and now people are talking.
My take? While I don't expect everyone to develop information skills to
the extent that we have personally, what's wrong with nudging our patrons
in that direction. I don't see it to be all that different from Neil
Postman's assertion that we should help students develop "crap detectors."
Bob Koreis
Librarian
Federal Way High School
Federal Way, WA
rkoreis@fwps.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation.
LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/el-announce/
LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LM_NET
Mailing List Home