You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘kayaks’ tag.
What has been clear in the results in my first and to an extent my second questionnaire (sorry, I have not coded my third yet) is that the learners in this activity have, as Rowlands et al (in Gordon, 2010) have observed in their study, attempted to engage with the core business of this competition by “get[ting] by with Google” (p. iv). This is evidenced through statements in Questionnaire 1 that report that when using Google “[s]ometimes i [sic] find it difficult [sic] to find exactly what im [sic] looking for and it doesnt [sic] matter what i [sic] type in, but sometimes it just works” (Alison, Questionnaire 1). Rowlands et al (in Gordon, 2008) have linked this deeply embedded, knee jerk response of making Google the first and only stop for conducting searches to low academic performance/outcomes. This correlates to my observations of student learning behaviour and work product so far in this learning activity. The students, in particular Alison, struggled with the demands of this task when resorting purely to simple search engine queries using Google. My subjective opinion is the breadth and quality of their research queries improved just on introducing the students to the use of the advanced search function in Google as well as the use of Google Scholar. In addition the students’ research was further advanced by exposure to meta search engines (such as Yippy, and Dogpile) and invisible web (aka the deep web) search engines (INCYWINCY and Completeplanet). Searching with anything other than Google was completely alien to them prior to this task.
This leads me to my next observation which is in line with further findings in Rowlands et. al. (in Gordon 2008) who point to the glaring fact that most students start research projects by accessing online information before engaging in alternative forms (what once was considered primary forms) of searching such as accessing a library or librarian. Each of the students participating started researching the topic by looking online rather than accessing the resources that had been compiled in the library for them. The librarians were made aware of this project and took the time to put together a resource section in the library to aid the students in locating physical resources – to date the librarians have told me that none of the resources has been checked out and that not one of the students has approached them for assistance.
As part of this competition the students are asked to follow correct APA referencing conventions. As such, to help them avoid the trap that we all fall into at some point or another, I asked them to record each and every site that they visited, and if possible save a copy of it (I introduced them to Read it later as a solution to limited internet access and to make saving the pages less painful). What I observed as we had lunch time tutorial session was that the students, using some new and refined search techniques that I demonstrated to them, were finding gold. Site after site, online journal after online journal of what appeared to be highly relevant information on the topic. The trouble is, as I saw it anyway, was not the finding of information, it was the reading of the information – reading that just never happened. Again, going back to Rowlands et. al. (in Gordon 2008), there is empirical evidence to support this trend in the “Google Generation” information users – finding and storing every available text of evidence but not being able or willing to wade through the almost overwhelming mountain to get to the core of the search.
In my reading for this course, as well as for Learning Hubs, I have encountered a number of articles that detail, more or less, how the current generation of students are adapting their learning and reading to the presence of the internet and the availability of information. It goes as said that the way these students read, access texts, has changed. Is it for the better or for the worse. It is too early to tell. In an interesting argument by Wolf (2010), it is pointed out that Socrates once put up the argument that the finality of the printed word would lead to intellectual ruin – no longer would students be able to recall and examine their choice of words – they would be able to go back and look at them again and tricking them into thinking they understand rather than just read what was said – a key difference to Socrates. In any case an extended metaphor that I came across, and one that appeals to me in light of the nature of this course is presented as follows:
GEORGE DYSON
Science Historian; Author, Darwin Among the MachinesKAYAKS vs CANOES
In the North Pacific ocean, there were two approaches to boatbuilding. The Aleuts (and their kayak-building relatives) lived on barren, treeless islands and built their vessels by piecing together skeletal frameworks from fragments of beach-combed wood. The Tlingit (and their dugout canoe-building relatives) built their vessels by selecting entire trees out of the rainforest and removing wood until there was nothing left but a canoe.
The Aleut and the Tlingit achieved similar results — maximum boat / minimum material — by opposite means. The flood of information unleashed by the Internet has produced a similar cultural split. We used to be kayak builders, collecting all available fragments of information to assemble the framework that kept us afloat. Now, we have to learn to become dugout-canoe builders, discarding unnecessary [sic] information to reveal the shape of knowledge hidden within.
I was a hardened kayak builder, trained to collect every available stick. I resent having to learn the new skills. But those who don’t will be left paddling logs, not canoes.
Gordon, Carol. (2010). Inquiry in the school library: a 21st century solution? School Libraries Worldwide, 16(1). Retrieved from:
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/217752171?accountid=13380
Wolf, Maryanne. (2010). Our “deep reading” brain: its digital evolution poses questions. Retrieved from http://nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102396/Our-Deep-Reading-Brain-Its-Digital-Evolution–Poses-Questions.aspx
colinkwright 