Thursday, July 07, 2005
Academic Journal features special issue on Terror Wars
CR: The New Centennial Review 5.1 (Spring 2005) is a special feature on the topic of "Terror Wars." It caught my eye because terrorism and related topics has become a popular topic in some of the freshman composition classes for argumentative research papers. In fact, I have even prepared a couple of pathfinders on the topic in response to the need. The journal may be of interest to students, but I think more to faculty looking for approaches to discussion as well as to learn about the rhetoric of the wars on terror. My library gets the journal through Project Muse, so if your library has Project Muse, they may already get this journal. I think of particular interest may be Yaseen Noorani's article "The Rhetoric of Security" that provides an analysis of the discourse of security used by the United States, and the Stam and Shohat article on anti-Americanism "Variations on an Anti-American Theme;" however, the other articles may be of interest also as resources for a student that may be looking at issues such as the language of the war, the rhetoric of terrorism, propaganda, and similar issues.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Teaching how to choose and evaluate sources: some thoughts
Barbara Fister provides some food for thought in her article "Choosing Sources in the Library of Babel." The article was featured in the LOEX Quarterly (vol. 31, number 4). The article opens with the description of the Library of Babel, title library from Jorge Luis Borges's 1941 short story. It is actually one of my favorite Borges stories, so the reference to Borges definitely caught my attention. Also, summer is a bit slower in terms of instruction (it means I don't teach as much), so for me this is a good time to reflect on my teaching practices, study, reflect, read, and thus add to my repertoire for the Fall. Reading this article served to give me some validation to some of my pracitces, but it also gave me some reminders of things to keep in mind as I teach as well as food for thought. Ms. Fister uses the description to show us that libraries actually have a lot in common with the internet. She makes some excellent points that I think any librarian who does instruction will find interesting and valuable. I would like to post some of her statements with some comments on my part.
On the common elements share by libraries and the internet, she writes that "both hold a vast amount of material, much of it contradictory, of poor quality, and out of date. Both also require researchers to make constant choices as they examine their options" (6).
If the weeding I have been working on at my library is any indication, the first part of that statement is certainly true, at least the part of out of date material. If you work at a large research library that tends to keep a lot of stuff, that issue is multiplied. I see weeding as tending to my part of the knowledge garden; you have to remove some things for the garden to flourish. In our own situation, we do have a space issue, so I have a bit of an additional incentive, but I am sure many librarians view the need to weed as the balance to the need to collect and add. In terms of adding, I am sure that all librarians strive to acquire excellent materials. However, anyone who relies on reviews knows that the occasional not-so-good book slips "under the radar" once in a while. Even if a certain book had excellent reviews, it does not mean it was a great book. It just illustrates the fact that we are not infallible, so we should not expect our students to be infallible in evaluating sources. The idea is to teach them how to evaluate what they find, be it online, in print, or in some other format. Keep reading.
The issue of convenience. Fister connects this idea with Ranganathan's Law of Save the Reader's Time. She points out that students find the internet convenient and familiar. This is a familiarity that students bring with them to college. In contrast, they have little or no familiarity with an academic library or how it operates. Fister writes:
I can attest to this both from the reference desk and from the classroom. Tell a student that they may have to seek and photocopy an article from a periodical, and you might as well be telling them that they have to go on a quest through the forest of darkness past the river of eternity while defying the dragon of fire. And if the article is on microfiche, you might as well be condemning them to meditate truths on the Tree of Woe (and if you happen to be a "younger" librarian who never had to touch a microfiche reader, it may feel like woe to you too. Yes, some people go through library school without ever touching one. I had to touch them for my Gov. Docs. class for one, and boy, am I glad). Remote storage? Let's just say the voyage of the Event Horizon will look like a stroll in the park by comparison. I work at a small library; we are located in one story of a building. Readers can then imagine the feelings increasing if periodical stacks are on separate floors, or even a separate building. I am not completely pessimistic. In my experience, I can usually reassure students that the process is achievable, and I can often walk with them to the stacks, which helps to demistify the process a bit. And of course, there are things like J-Stor, which make slaying that fire dragon just a little easier. This issue does reflect some of the comments and observations I have been seeing on the blogosphere and the literature about how libraries need to improve their access points and be more like search engines (a search on a good library science database will likely yield many articles on this, or search for what librarians say on their blogs on a tool like Technorati). Regardless of where readers stand, it is something to think about. I only know the answer is not putting everything online nor discouraging use of online sources. It comes down to balance and education; it also comes down to giving students credit for their abilities. Fister seems to agree with this, which I think is common sense for any teacher.
Fister also writes about student exposure to the Internet and the need to be sceptical. She does so in the context of the many articles available about how students rely too much on tools like Google. She writes:
In my experience, I have noticed that information literacy programs tend to assume that students simply take the Internet as it comes with no critical thinking or evaluation. Students are knowledgeable when it comes to using the Internet, so this is not a good assumption to make. Having said that, there are the students who do grab the first five results off Google without even thinking. As a former composition teacher, I graded my share of papers where that was the case. Overall though, to be blunt, students are not as clueless as librarians think they are (insert news flash neon lights here). It is necessary to note that this assumption is often reinforced by the students' professors. For instance, I often get the request from professors to "show them how to evaluate the Internet." I wonder to myself, "just the Internet, huh?" I never vocalize it though. I have some materials I use for such requests, but I also try to show them examples of websites. I find that asking students to find flaws with some websites is a good exercise. True, I get a share of blank stares, but I also get excellent answers. So I know they know how to look at a website, even if they have to put a bit of effort into it. I have discovered that what students often need is some reinforcement and refining. Show them some good tools, give them a good checklist maybe, then let them practice and rise to the ocassion.
On print sources, I agree with Fister that students need to know more about evaluating books and magazines. Fister uses this illustration: "Though we can give them checklists of what makes a journal article 'scholarly,' we don't always mention that a shabby piece of trivial research published in a third tier journal may be less valuable than a rigorously researched and imaginative article in Harper's. The fact that a text has been 'edited' or 'has gone through the peer review process' doesn't make it true" (7). Indeed. This is a challenge that I often face when I teach, and it was there when I was a professor. I find that demistifying (there goes that word again) the process works well. I bring samples of journals and magazines to my classes; I have students look at them. When I can, I have them do quick assessments of some of the content. My idea is to teach them, or rather show them, how to question everything. The idea at the end of the day is to show them how to think for themselves and to do so in an informed and intelligent way. I have my work cut out for me, but I would not have it any other way.
Fister concludes the article by listing traits of successful student researchers. She writes:
This is quite an undertaking, but it is by no means impossible. As experts on information, librarians stand in a good position to assist students with their research. We can help them with our expertise on sources to help them make the best possible sources. We can serve as sounding boards now and then. We can strive to model and show them ways to engage in the conversations that make new knowledge. I am thinking that rather than gatekeepers, we are more like guides, and eventually, they will take the pebble from our hand. At least, as an educator, I like to think so.
On the common elements share by libraries and the internet, she writes that "both hold a vast amount of material, much of it contradictory, of poor quality, and out of date. Both also require researchers to make constant choices as they examine their options" (6).
If the weeding I have been working on at my library is any indication, the first part of that statement is certainly true, at least the part of out of date material. If you work at a large research library that tends to keep a lot of stuff, that issue is multiplied. I see weeding as tending to my part of the knowledge garden; you have to remove some things for the garden to flourish. In our own situation, we do have a space issue, so I have a bit of an additional incentive, but I am sure many librarians view the need to weed as the balance to the need to collect and add. In terms of adding, I am sure that all librarians strive to acquire excellent materials. However, anyone who relies on reviews knows that the occasional not-so-good book slips "under the radar" once in a while. Even if a certain book had excellent reviews, it does not mean it was a great book. It just illustrates the fact that we are not infallible, so we should not expect our students to be infallible in evaluating sources. The idea is to teach them how to evaluate what they find, be it online, in print, or in some other format. Keep reading.
The issue of convenience. Fister connects this idea with Ranganathan's Law of Save the Reader's Time. She points out that students find the internet convenient and familiar. This is a familiarity that students bring with them to college. In contrast, they have little or no familiarity with an academic library or how it operates. Fister writes:
"But students usually find the web more convenient to use than libraries, and far simpler in its organization. After all, through one simple interface you can find newspaper articles, government reports, recipes, and recycled term papers, and send them straight to the printer without leaving your computer. When we try to tell them that it's not all on the Internet, they aren't impressed. They don't want it all--they simply want enough to get the job done. And they'd often rather scan through fifty pages of Google results to find what they want than search unfamiliar databases, check holdings, chase down books, and photocopy articles" (6).
I can attest to this both from the reference desk and from the classroom. Tell a student that they may have to seek and photocopy an article from a periodical, and you might as well be telling them that they have to go on a quest through the forest of darkness past the river of eternity while defying the dragon of fire. And if the article is on microfiche, you might as well be condemning them to meditate truths on the Tree of Woe (and if you happen to be a "younger" librarian who never had to touch a microfiche reader, it may feel like woe to you too. Yes, some people go through library school without ever touching one. I had to touch them for my Gov. Docs. class for one, and boy, am I glad). Remote storage? Let's just say the voyage of the Event Horizon will look like a stroll in the park by comparison. I work at a small library; we are located in one story of a building. Readers can then imagine the feelings increasing if periodical stacks are on separate floors, or even a separate building. I am not completely pessimistic. In my experience, I can usually reassure students that the process is achievable, and I can often walk with them to the stacks, which helps to demistify the process a bit. And of course, there are things like J-Stor, which make slaying that fire dragon just a little easier. This issue does reflect some of the comments and observations I have been seeing on the blogosphere and the literature about how libraries need to improve their access points and be more like search engines (a search on a good library science database will likely yield many articles on this, or search for what librarians say on their blogs on a tool like Technorati). Regardless of where readers stand, it is something to think about. I only know the answer is not putting everything online nor discouraging use of online sources. It comes down to balance and education; it also comes down to giving students credit for their abilities. Fister seems to agree with this, which I think is common sense for any teacher.
Fister also writes about student exposure to the Internet and the need to be sceptical. She does so in the context of the many articles available about how students rely too much on tools like Google. She writes:
"The irony is that students are far more likely to have been exposed, at some level, to the need for skepticism when reading a website. They are essentially much more likely to have authored a website than to have published their writing in a traditional form. They have a grasp of where websites come from" (6).
In my experience, I have noticed that information literacy programs tend to assume that students simply take the Internet as it comes with no critical thinking or evaluation. Students are knowledgeable when it comes to using the Internet, so this is not a good assumption to make. Having said that, there are the students who do grab the first five results off Google without even thinking. As a former composition teacher, I graded my share of papers where that was the case. Overall though, to be blunt, students are not as clueless as librarians think they are (insert news flash neon lights here). It is necessary to note that this assumption is often reinforced by the students' professors. For instance, I often get the request from professors to "show them how to evaluate the Internet." I wonder to myself, "just the Internet, huh?" I never vocalize it though. I have some materials I use for such requests, but I also try to show them examples of websites. I find that asking students to find flaws with some websites is a good exercise. True, I get a share of blank stares, but I also get excellent answers. So I know they know how to look at a website, even if they have to put a bit of effort into it. I have discovered that what students often need is some reinforcement and refining. Show them some good tools, give them a good checklist maybe, then let them practice and rise to the ocassion.
On print sources, I agree with Fister that students need to know more about evaluating books and magazines. Fister uses this illustration: "Though we can give them checklists of what makes a journal article 'scholarly,' we don't always mention that a shabby piece of trivial research published in a third tier journal may be less valuable than a rigorously researched and imaginative article in Harper's. The fact that a text has been 'edited' or 'has gone through the peer review process' doesn't make it true" (7). Indeed. This is a challenge that I often face when I teach, and it was there when I was a professor. I find that demistifying (there goes that word again) the process works well. I bring samples of journals and magazines to my classes; I have students look at them. When I can, I have them do quick assessments of some of the content. My idea is to teach them, or rather show them, how to question everything. The idea at the end of the day is to show them how to think for themselves and to do so in an informed and intelligent way. I have my work cut out for me, but I would not have it any other way.
Fister concludes the article by listing traits of successful student researchers. She writes:
"How do undergraduates who succeed at research evaluate their sources? First, they start with an understanding of the rhetorical power of using well-chosen references. They know that the goal is to marshal evidence to support their argument, and they realize that strong evidence is more persuasive than weak or second-hand evidence. . .Second, they look for patterns and connections among the sources they examine. . .They don't need to research the authors' backgrounds to find out if they are credentialed. Instead, they look at how the authors are situated within the literature they are examining. And finally, they read their sources to see if the ones on which they rely offer a well-framed argument supported by evidence" (7,5).
This is quite an undertaking, but it is by no means impossible. As experts on information, librarians stand in a good position to assist students with their research. We can help them with our expertise on sources to help them make the best possible sources. We can serve as sounding boards now and then. We can strive to model and show them ways to engage in the conversations that make new knowledge. I am thinking that rather than gatekeepers, we are more like guides, and eventually, they will take the pebble from our hand. At least, as an educator, I like to think so.
Term of the day: Continuous Partial Attention.
This is just too good not to make a note of it here. Library Stuff links to an article from The Boston Globe defining this term. The definition is as follows:
So now we finally have a name for that state of multitasking and being "in the zone." Hmm. . .or something like it. Note that it is NOT a reflective state.
"Continuous partial attention is that state most of us enter when we're in front of a computer screen, or trying to check out at the grocery store with a cellphone pressed to an ear -- or blogging the proceedings of a conference while it's underway. We're aware of several things at once, shifting our attention to whatever's most urgent -- perhaps the chime of incoming e-mail, or the beep that indicates the cellphone is low on juice. It's not a reflective state."
So now we finally have a name for that state of multitasking and being "in the zone." Hmm. . .or something like it. Note that it is NOT a reflective state.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Booknote: _Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina (Star Wars)_
I finished the third and final installment of the Star Wars Tales books, Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina. Like the others, this book makes good light entertainment. This one featured a good variety of tales, much like Tales from Jabba's Palace. "Nightlily: The Lover's Tale," written by Barbara Hambly, has a nice twist at the end for readers who enjoy a little surprise here and there. "Doctor Death: The Tale of Dr. Evazan and Ponda Baba" is interesting because the events take place after events in the Star Wars film (Episode 4, or the very first one); it provides a creative extension to the cantina scene where Dr. Evazan and Ponda pick a fight with Luke Skywalker only to find themselves at the end of Obi Wan Kenobi's lightsaber. Most of the tales in these books usually take place within the first Star Wars trilogy, and I have mentioned before, readers often get to see a particular scene from various points of view. In this book, the scene we get to see again and again is the scene in the first film where Luke Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi go to the cantina to find a pilot. Fans who enjoyed the cantina scene will likely enjoy reading about some of the cantina's denizens. Readers who enjoyed the other two books will enjoy this one. The books do not have to be read in any particular order, and readers do not need to have read other Star Wars books in order to pick these up. Actually, since they are short fiction, they may be better for casual readers looking for a light read and little exposure to the Star Wars universe. The books feature a good blend overall with a variety of pretty well known writers; some readers may recognize names from other works outside the Star Wars universe. For instance, A.C. Crispin has also written books for the Star Trek novels as well as novels in collaboration with Andre Norton. Overall, I recommend the books. They were published by Bantam Spectra, and they can still be found in bookstores (new and used). I found my copies in a used bookstore; however, a public library with a good science fiction and/or fantasy collection may feature them as well.
Booknote: _The Ten Commandments of Professionalism for Teachers_
Vickie Gill's little book, The Ten Commandments of Professionalism for Teachers (Corwin Press, 2005), should be handed out to all teacher education program graduates right at their commencement. This is a simple book written in a conversational style that will benefit any teacher, not just beginners. It is only 65 pages long, but the book is a tool that educators will likely revisit often. Her ten commandments are really simply principles, but they are principles that education programs often fail to tell their students, and it is often the case that new teachers have to learn some of these basics the hard way. Ms. Gill provides advice on such important topics as finding a mentor, dealing with parents, paying attention to details, and professional development. Each chapter ends with a set of questions for further reflection. These questions can be discussed in small groups, but I find that they can be used for personal reflection in the form of journal entries or other personal writing as well. I cannot recommend this book enough, and I tend to be sceptical of yet another book written by a teacher for teachers. However, this book is different. The author has a strong voice; she is passionate about her work. She writes in a clear style that invites the reader to think and reflect. I checked out the library copy, but I will likely purchase a copy for myself as well. If readers out there have a son or daughter just graduating from a teacher education program, this would make a very thoughtful gift. In addition, there are some elements here that would be very applicable to librarians and other professionals that work with people. For instance, beginning librarians often need to find a good mentor. They need to pay attention to the details. They need to continue their professional development. So, I would recommend it for librarians as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)