Is Wikipedia a quality resource?

I've encountered quite differing opinions about the use of Wikipedia and YouTube by students. I, personally, do not accept either as a reference, although I do happily allow students to use them as jumping off points. I know other educators in the same school who do accept Wikipedia as a direct reference, but my policy will remain the same, for a few reasons.

While I understand that Wikipedia is generally accurate, the fact is that students won't know what is true and what is not, and there are certainly some mistakes on Wikipedia. More than that, I tend to find Wikipedia can oversimplify things in ways that can be misleading if the reader isn't already well informed. I certainly don't want students learning false or misleading information.

A larger reason is that when I require references from my students, the purpose is not simply to verify the information. The greater purpose is for my students to learn how to find and vet references. Always going to the same website entirely defeats the purpose of this exercise. There's an amazing wealth of resources on the internet, and using Wikipedia can discourage students from looking for further sources. On the other hand, I do allow students to start with Wikipedia, and follow the references down on the bottom of the page. In this way, Wikipedia actually provides a good example for students.

I don't find students trying to cite YouTube as often, but I also don't find it quite as problematic. Because you can see the author of each video, it's clear to students that they're not looking at an authoritative source, but rather an individual's opinion. The biggest dangers YouTube presents are the truly horrible comments, and the linked videos that will autoplay at the end, making it possible for students to get a) very distracted and b) exposed to inappropriate material. (I have had so many students tell me about incredibly unsafe experiments they see on YouTube, and want to recreate them in class.)

I make use of YouTube fairly often in class, because there really are some wonderful, accurate and informational channels, and I feel confident in my own ability to choose good videos. I do sometimes use Wikipedia to answer questions that arise due to curiosity in my daily life, but never for reasons related to my teaching. I just don't find the information to be complete enough or in depth enough to answer the questions I generally have.

Updating my PLN

Updating my PLN was a bit difficult for me, as I am already following those blogs I find most interesting and relevant to my own practice. I feel that not as many high school science teachers blog as do teachers in other subjects and grade levels. I also found a number of blogs that are no longer being updated, or that are updated infrequently. That said, the three blogs I added to my Feedly this week are as follows:

Science for All is a blog run by Kirk Robbins. Kirk is a molecular biologist, elementary school teacher, and regional science coordinator. He also supervises student teachers, and has a lot to say about making science learning available to all students. His focus is on sharing transformational science education resources.
I chose to follow his blog because he shares resources I haven't always seen. He's very on top of current new about science education, and links to many reports when they're newly released. I also very much appreciate his focus on making sure that all students receive effective science education.

Mr. Barlow's Blog is where Australian high school science teacher Tim Barlow posts interesting science news, most often with video. Mr. Barlow has been recognized as an Apple Distinguished Educator. He strongly believes that with the current prevalence of the internet, where students are able to find information on their own, teachers must do more than "simply transmit information," and must give students a drive to question and explore this information. I'm following his blog because I agree with him about the importance of providing students with interesting, intriguing science, and the news items he posts can be used as launching points to pique student interest.

Compound Interest belongs to Andy Brunning, a chemistry teacher in the UK who creates very neat, clean infographics for teachers to share with their students. Some are of clear interest, such as "does acrylamide cause cancer?" or "the chemistry of popcorn." These make great starting points for student projects or discussion. My favorite posts of his are weekly research roundups that succinctly update students on new chemistry topics. This is a great way to coax students into thinking deeper, and even to consider future education or careers in chemistry. I would like to share these with my students.


Recently followed on Twitter:

Ramsey Musallam (@ramusallam)
HS science teacher in Santa Rosa, California. Posts a lot of photos from his classroom of fun experiments and activities that are great inspiration.

Terie Engelbrecht (@mrsebiology)
Terie posts links to good resources and articles with advice and interesting questions to ponder. She tweets frequently, but doesn't retweet a lot of distracting, unhelpful information, which I very much appreciate.

Richard Needham (@ViciaScience)
British science teacher, very active in discussion with other teachers, especially through #ASEchat. He's interested in technology for learning, and posts a lot of thoughts on "big questions" in education which I find interesting.

David Bydlowski (@ICCARS)
David is a science consultant for WayneRESA and I've had the opportunity to attend several training sessions he's run at various conference. He's a really fun guy, who posts great local opportunities as well as good resources for all science teachers.

Alicia Johal (@AliciaJohal)
Alicia teaches 8th grade science in California. I am following her because she describes herself as a "equity-driven" teacher, and seems really focused on making her classroom work for all students.  I find her twitter feed to be very inspirational.

Martin Swanhall (@Swanny203)
HS science teacher in Connecticut, not the most active on twitter but consistent. He's a fan of science puns and bad science jokes, and I think he's worth following just for that.


I can't say that I've been making great use of my PLN so far. I do quite like my Feedly, though I don't find time to read it all that often. I've turned to Pinterest a few times, but there's always a lot to wade through that doesn't interest me. The one platform I have not used at all is Twitter. I genuinely dislike how cluttered Twitter can become, as well as how often I wind up seeing the same things tweeted and retweeted across different accounts that I follow. I'd like to become more efficient in
finding information on Pinterest and Twitter, as perhaps if I find a way to filter out the junk, I will find these resources more useful.

RAT model and Web 2.0

I teach high school science, chiefly biology and chemistry, to students spanning grades 9-12, depending on the class. I’m currently doing research and helping out in a 9^th grade biology classroom. We don’t have computers in the classroom, though a majority of my students do have smartphones and most have internet and computers at home. I do have several students with no phones and/or extremely limited technology access at home.

As a relative newcomer to the study of educational technology, I’m more familiar with using actual rats in the classroom than with using models of technology integration, such as RAT and SAMR. I found the Replace, Amplify, and Transform hierarchy of the RAT model to be very simple and easy to understand. 

The first level, “Replace,” is admittedly the most common in my technology use. Using a class website to post assignments and PDF copies of book chapters is really just replacing paper with a computer screen. I also use PowerSchool and PowerTeacher in place of attendance sheets and gradebooks.

Using technology to “Amplify” outcomes involves increasing efficiency of instruction or student learning, without fundamentally changing either. One example is putting lectures on YouTube for the purpose of flipped instruction. This may superficially seem like replacement, swapping lecture for video. But because the video allows students to absorb the material at home, at their own pace, this switch opens up class time for practice and interaction, enhancing opportunities for learning. Another amplification technology I use frequently is Remind, which enables a teacher to send messages via text, without either the teacher or students seeing the others’ phone number. (For students on phone plans that charge for texts, there’s an app to receive messages, and students without phones may choose to receive them by email.) I use it to remind students about assignments, days they need to bring their books in, and sometimes to give hints or modify an assignment. This can be far more efficient than writing reminders on the board and hoping students write them down. I’ve found that more students turn in homework when a Remind has been sent.

“Transformation” via technology aims to actually reinvent instruction and learning. One transformative use of technology I’m interested in is the use of VoiceThread to facilitate comments and discussion, in place of a discussion board. This could work much like the Facebook group attempted in O’Bannon’s article, but I believe my students might be more inclined to listen to other comments and to participate themselves in an audio and/or video format than in a written one. Interactive discussion where students have time to research and prepare their own comments enables a higher level of discussion, and allows students who may normally be too shy to comment in class to participate at a greater level. I’m particularly thinking about my many ELL students, who don’t speak in class due to fear of misspeaking and not being able to find the right words quickly.

Another transformative use of tech I would like to try is using Google Docs to create a lab report developed and discussed by the entire class. Students would communicate about each other’s observations, and be tasked with finding supporting evidence and resources for further information and exploration. The vast number of resources on the web really transforms the way students can connect to lab experiences. 

Generation Edge

Defining the start and endpoint of any generation is always fuzzy, but most experts seem to define today’s K-12 students as part of Generation Edge, children born perhaps as early as the mid-90s, though others hold the beginning of this generation until 2000. Generation Edge has seen the US job and housing markets collapse and has witnessed the political turmoil in our increasingly divided country, while at the same time been raised with amazing technologies commonplace and integral to daily life. How will these forces and experiences influence their generational traits?

Ian Pierpoint and Caroline Fletcher suggest that Gen-Edge kids are individual and resourceful, valuing critical thinking. They are realistic about and even skeptical of the world and their futures in it. To Gen-Edge technology is simply another tool taken for granted, and can thus be questioned and critiqued. They understand the drawbacks of internet oversharing, and prefer to keep some things private. As witnesses to institutional collapse in their formative years, they mock and challenge the status quo.

Do I see these traits in my students? Mostly, I’d say yes. My students don’t seem to take their futures for granted. Amy Lynch agrees, calling Gen Z (an alternate name for Generation Edge) pragmatic. I’ve seen this exact trait in many students. I feel that when I was a teen, my peers either had future careers in mind based on interests and ideals, or were keeping their plans open because so many things appealed to them. Many of my students today, when asked, ask me in return what will make good money, or more often than that, will ask me what jobs I expect to be in high demand in 5 or 10 years.

Lynch also agrees as to Gen-Edge’s desire for a certain amount of privacy, due to their understanding of the way information spreads on the internet. This trait was also mentioned in the video, as a contrast to Millenials' embrace of oversharing on social networks. I am starting to see this in many of my students. While I’ve been distressed students who post identifying information on Twitter and other social media sites, most of my student do seem to restrict their social networking to people they know in real life. Most are constantly connected to their peer and friends through technology, and tweet and snapchat each other all day long. I do not see them avoiding oversharing within this network, so I suppose they value privacy from the broader world, but don't seem to value privacy as much among their immediate peers.

Strangely, to Pierpont and Fletcher’s point of Gen-Edge mocking and challenging the status quo, Lynch counters that most members of Generation Edge are polite, avoiding confrontation and stressing consensus and civil behavior. Who is correct? I see an interesting combination of both in my students. They certainly question the status quo, constantly asking why things must be done, and why can’t they do it another way? But ultimately, I’ve seen that they don’t much want to rock the boat. If their classmates disagree, they often back down. If they do agree, they don’t seem to think it’s worth the effort to do anything about it. They like to question, but action is almost always lacking. I don't see petitions, editorials in the school paper, or protests for change. Ultimately, I would never label my students as valuing politeness, but I do think they value consensus and lack of genuine conflict.

I am also not convinced by Pierpont and Fletcher’s claim that Generation Edge tends to value critical thinking. In fact, I feel that critical thinking is a skill many members of this generation lack. I think that this ties directly in with their reliance on technology. Generation Edge students are what Marc Prensky called “digital natives,” meaning they grew up with and are entirely comfortable with technologies such as personal computers and the internet. Members of Generation Edge are said to be especially adept at multitasking. Sarah Fudin, in Gen Z & What does it mean in your classroom?, mentions that these students believe they work best when simultaneously listening to music, watching television, talking, texting, or browsing the internet. I’ve seen this in many of my students, who request to listen to music while working, and who tell me they do their homework while watching television and communicating with friends. I frequently have to ask students to remove earbuds during class discussion, as they try to sneakily keep one earbud in. Kim Lear, as quoted in Generation Edge: An Early Look at America’s Youngest Generation, suggests that this should really be termed “switch tasking,” as students are in fact rapidly switching their attention between the different tasks. However, Fudin also points out that many mental health experts disagree that these students are truly being as effective as they think, and mentions “acquired attention deficit disorder,’ as coined by Harvard Medical School’s John Ratey. I agree with Dr. Ratey. The students I’ve observed “multitasking” don’t seem to be absorbing material as well as they would if deeply focused on one task, but the problem seems to be that they have extreme difficulty achieving such deep focus. By splitting their focus, they feel comfortable enough to do work, but deep, sustained concentration eludes them.

How does this multitasking lead to a lack of critical thinking? Dr. Ratey believes that the more we rely on technology to deal with details, such as spell checking or maintaining a list of phone numbers, the less our brain is able to focus on detail. Prensky stresses that digital natives are used to “twitch speed,” instant gratification, and constant, prompt feedback. He fails to see that this leads to a decrease in the ability to reflect and to analyze things “with any depth and nuance," a skill vitally important to critical thinking. This is what I see in my own students. They can parrot information back, exactly as presented to them, but when parameters are modified even slightly, or they are asked to dig deeper, students are often stumped, and become immediately uncomfortable.

Also mentioned by Sarah Fudin as a drawback of digital natives’ reliance on technology, many of them have no idea how to be critical of information, or to judge reliability of a source. I see this over and over with my own students, who have no tools to distinguish good information on the internet from biased or even false information.

The final trait mentioned in Generation Edge: An Early Look at America’s Youngest Generation is that Gen-Edgers have a competitive spirit, due to being raised by blunt Gen-Xers and thanks to shrinking job prospects. I don’t see this in my students at all. In fact, the biggest generational difference that I’ve noticed among my students not mentioned in either the video or the articles is actually something of the opposite: my students seem to have a strange relationship to other people’s work and ideas. A lot of my students think nothing of copying work from another student, or getting answers and even papers from the internet. I’ve discussed this at length both with students and with other teachers, and it’s become obvious that these students don’t think of sharing information as cheating. They seem to view information and ideas as collective, and anything they can get their hands on as fair game. My guess is that this is a direct response to games and the internet. What do you do if you’re stuck in a video game? All but the most hardcore gamers go online to the hundreds of walkthroughs, strategy guides, or even cheat sites. Why struggle through a tough question when you could pop it into Google and find someone who’s already done the work? Additionally, the internet is famously negligent about accreditation. News stories are shamelessly re-posted on website after website with the bylines removed. Entire websites exist that do nothing but aggregate other content and present it in snippets, again often with little credit to the originators. Unfortunately, I think this has resulted in Generation Edge’s lack of understanding of intellectual property, the need to acknowledge sources, and the benefits of doing one’s own work.

Finally, I must state that when I read both part one and two of Prensky’s article, I definitely recognized the characteristics he attributes to digital natives (a preference for multitasking, instant gratification, graphics before text, and games over serious work) as present in my own students, but I disagree with his conclusions. Prensky believes we must shift all instruction to be fun for students, and prefers game-based learning. He argues that “it generally isn’t that Digital Natives can’t pay attention, it’s that they choose not to,” citing time spent focusing on video games and other engaging tasks. Personally, I find this argument unconvincing. Sustained attention to an interactive, fast paced activity such as a video game does not require the same deep focus that reading a textbook would. The video game constantly provides new stimuli, while a textbook does not. It is certainly true that if we delivered all content as video games, and removed the “boring” textbooks, students wouldn’t need such deep focus at all, and perhaps they would learn what we asked of them. And I do believe we must offer instruction in ways that engage students and that allow them to succeed. But as Prensky points out repeatedly, the human brain is amazingly plastic. I think it's our responsibility as teachers to help our students regain the ability to think critically and to focus deeply. I think Sarah Fudin's suggestions are absolutely correct, that we must take advantage of Generation Edge's technological and visual abilities to engage them in learning, while also helping to "train students to focus their attention on a single task that has depth and complexity" and aiding in the development of critical thinking skills, including as applies to their use of technology and online sources.

Introduction

My name is Dayna Austin. I'm originally from Massachusetts, but have been living in Michigan for seven years now. I have a BA in Natural Science from Johns Hopkins University, and am currently finishing up my Master's in Teaching at Wayne State. My certifications are in secondary biology and chemistry, and I've also done some long term substitute teaching for forensic science. I am not teaching this semester, focusing instead on my Master's project and on preparing to move, as I will be moving to California this summer! Being on the West Coast will be quite the change for me, but I'm looking forward to exploring a new natural environment.

Natural science is truly a passion of mine. My love for science and nature extends to my hobbies, which include hiking, kayaking, and traveling. I also love to read, though I've found little time for recreational reading recently!

I think it's necessary that we teach students to use the internet responsibly and critically. I've been wanting to integrate more technology into my teaching, and am very interested in the flipped classroom model, which I've seen used in an AP biology class with great results.I'm particularly intrigued by the ways technology can be used to differentiate instruction. I look forward to building my knowledge of the resources available, and the ways they can be best used.