Wednesday, December 29, 2004
6 percent said "A."
13 percent said "B."
47 percent said "C."
29 percent said "D."
5 percent said "F."
Okay, now for my informal poll. Everybody who feels that the deluge of possible information sources is only going to grow drastically in the next few years, say "Ay!" I have been teaching my preservice students that the one of the most important things they could teach their future students is how to find good, reliable and HELPFUL information quickly, and how to discern between the good sources of info and the bad. We're not doing this in our schools, and we're still clinging too much to the "sage on the stage" mentality that students come to school to learn information from their teachers. I don't think they should; rather, I think students should go to school to be mentored in how to discern and find good sources of information, not necessarily to learn more facts and numbers. The internet is full of facts and numbers, dates and sources. What students need is a helping hand to navigate this mess!
Until teachers start to get this message, more and more children will be "left behind" in this digital age.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
And it's about time.
Others have talked about this kind of thing before, but there needs to be a continued discussion to update the awful printed journal tradition. Maybe the routine of writing, submitting, waiting 6 months, rewriting, resubmitting, waiting 6 months to 1 year for the journal to come out is good in some fields--but not in the field of Instructional Technology. By the time the "current" research is published, computers are twice as fast, there are dozens of new software applications, and the "new" research is old news. Since when was that ever a good thing? As Nate points out, "Paper journals do not foster nor support research. They support history." Amen.
I responded to Nate's post by saying, "I, for one, turn to journals when I have to but my daily reading to stay up to date on the field is checking my rss news reader and email listservs." In our field it is crucially important to stay current, and research journals don't do that. Nate refers to podcasting, which didn't even exist until a few months ago, and by the time the research on podcasting is published, it'll be way old news. This is the case with "older" technologies such as wikis and blogs. How much research has been published in journals about these technologies? Not much, even though they've been growing in popularity in educational circles in the last two years. I was thinking the other day it'd be useful to have a special issue or book about best practices of teachers who are succeeding at using weblogs in the classroom. Why hasn't this been published (to my knowledge) yet? It'd be pointless. By the time it was published, the trends and research would have already changed.
Let's do a needs analysis here: What is the essential component of the traditional form of publishing that is still needed for promotion, tenure review, etc? PEER REVIEW. Okay, we can keep that -- I'll be the first to say that is very important. But why marry ourselves to the printed journal? That's not a need at all. As Nate suggests, there should be a way of keeping peer review but by making the journal an all-digital journal the research would get out there that much faster. Nate suggess two-week turnarounds from when an article is submitted until it is reviewed and published online. That'd be great, but let's take it one step at a time. If we could just cut out the time it takes to publish printed journals by publishing something online the minute it passes peer review, that would be a great step forward. If money is an issue, have a password-protected login before someone can view the articles. We'd be saving so much money anyway on publication costs that the cost of "subscribing" to these journals would be greatly reduced. Then more people would subscribe--how cool would that be? Higher readership, greater dissemination of information, and more recent research. It'd be even better if rss could be incorporated so the minute the article is published, it shows up in my news reader.
I know I'm oversimplifying this and am probably too ignorant to understand some of the barriers. But it could be done. It's about time this WAS done. It should've been done years ago.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
What an awful thought! Can you imagine the wall we'd hit if Microsoft could control any part of the internet? Honestly, Microsoft has created some wonderful tools, but what could be any more damaging to the progress of educational technologies than Microsoft-style monopolistic practices? The beauty of the internet is how open, accessible, and consumer-friendly it is.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Friday, November 05, 2004
1) How is a university supposed to be able to progress in knowledge if they do not allow faculty to research and experiment with new innovations?
2) Anytime you standardize something, quality is lost.
I think blockbuster CMS systems like Blackboard and WebCT provide a great service, but anytime you standardize a system, you lose the quality that comes from being able to adapt to unique instructional and learning needs. That's why for my classes, I'm using more weblogs and wikis, and hope to use a portal system like Xoops, Drupal, or Plone in the future. You may not like the technologies I have chosen, but then you don't have to use them. They work for me, for what I am trying to do in my classes. Blackboard doesn't. Standardization can impede adaptability and quality, and it's a real tragedy when institutions don't realize that.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
"I am still not understanding why it is that many people are still trying to divide the sea and call one side water and the other H2O and insist they cannot mix (that is the way I see this and other debates on the ID field). It is true that there are interesting points on each side, which I particularly think that together will make a powerful weapon on the learning process."
Great analogy, Ed! I often feel the same way: that we spend too much time in the Instructional Design field arguing about which is the RIGHT way of doing instruction instead of just finding as many VARIETIES of effective instructional methods or theories that simply work. The more good instructional tools that we can put in the toolbox, the better instruction will be for all learners.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Well, if for nothing else, Microsoft's always good for a laugh! :-)
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
The implications, as I see them, for education are that students don't need to be receivers of knowledge, or dumpsters where teachers do some information dumping. Instead, they can be creators of new knowledge, remixed from old information they glean from the Internet. They can Rip, Mix, and Learn words, audio, video, and many other things and learn through the creation of the new products.
Will Richardson refers to a presentation on this topic by Alan Levine about this topic, and then Will goes on to say how blogging and other new technologies can enable RML by our students:
" Today, Alan writes about RML with RSS as he's building combined feeds with Blogdigger. The "rip" is to take feeds from a number of different sources, "mix" them into one feed, and "learn" from the results. The easy example for students is to create a number of search feeds for the same terms from various sources (Bloglines, Feedster, Google News etc.) and then stick them all together at Blogdigger.
What I think has even more potential at some point is the mixing on all the content feeds that a particular student might have to create a virtual portfolio feed. For instance, as a teacher using all of these tools in the classroom, I would love one feed that watches what my student posts in her Weblog (either just in my class or in all of her classes,) what she saves to Furl, the pictures that she takes to supplement her work at Flickr, the e-mails she receives to her rss-able Bloglines e-mail account, and her contributions to the class wiki. I wouldn't mind that as a parent either. Anyway, it's cool to think about the possibilities. Still just a wacky vision in a few wacky brains, but you never know..."
I don't know if I would take it as far as Will (can you imagine trying to manage all of those different feeds from all of you students?), but I agree with him in previous posts that blogging is a form of RML. Maybe that's why I love to do it!
How cool would that be? Can you imagine getting a daily audio file from, say, lds.org? How about if your professor posted things to you every day? What if your best friend, or boyfriend/spouse, did that? Could this be better than email? What if you could record your voice into your computer, and then send it by rss to your friend's IPod, and they would hear it the next time they plugged their IPod into their computer. Fun!
Will Richardson started talking about some educational possibilities for this technology on his blog:
"..now let's take this into the classroom, huh? Foreign language students can now read their homework responses which automatically get sent via RSS feeds to their teachers who download them to their iPods or other player to listen to them. Or, the teacher creates a daily broadcast that his students download and listen to. Or, each day, one student does an oral reflection on the class that then gets sent around to kids who miss the class."
This is something I could get very excited about, maybe partly because I love audio talks and audio books. On my other blog I am carrying on a discussion with my students about possible educational applications of Podcasting. If you have ideas, please go there and post them! (or post them here, if you wish)
In closing, the article says this about Podcasting and why it might take off and get popular:
"But Podcasting -- like blogging -- seems to combine the best of the Internet with the best of traditional media. It's a way for someone to create and distribute a show to 40 people. And it also would allow a media company to distribute audio content to millions."
Friday, October 01, 2004
"The inventor of the World Wide Web told a technology conference on Wednesday that making the web more useful hinges on a familiar challenge: Getting the players behind the technology to agree on standards governing how computers communicate with one another."
Standards are not always what everyone wants, but if we all kept them, what an easier time we would have collaborating if our technologies all spoke the same language!
Monday, September 20, 2004
I just heard about the wikalong feature today and am still trying to wrap my brain around what it could mean. To quote the Firefox people:
" Wikalong is a FirefoxExtension that embeds a wiki in the SideBar of your browser, indexed off the url of your current page. It is probably most simply described as a wiki-margin for the internet."
Too cool, way too cool. I'm really interested in your ideas: how could this technology be used in education or IDT?
Here's a screenshot of what wikalong would look like:
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
So I did.
I created a project at Web Collaborator, creating a list of differences between blogs and other forms of CSCL tools. This is something I am interested in because blogs do a lot of the same thigns as discussion boards and other tools, and one of my students point-blank told me he didn't think they were different. I do ... but I can't always explain why very well. So maybe you can help me. If this project interests you, sign up at Web Collaborator, and then send me your email (the same one you use to sign up). I will add you to the project, and we can share our ideas on this topic!
You can send your emails to firstname.lastname@example.org if you want to join this collaboration.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
"Web Collaborator coordinates collaborations automatically, keeping backups of every revision ever made to the project, letting you see who made the changes, and allowing you to focus on the work instead of managing the work."
There are three different aspects of this tool
1) A discussion aspect of some sort where collaborators talk to each other
2) the project itself. This part has wiki-like capabilities where the members of the group can each add, edit, or delete things from the project and the changes show up instantly. You can print out a pdf form of the project at any time.
3) Also a la Wiki, Web Collaborator allows you to go back to previous versions of the document.
Anyway, looks interesting, and I'm itching to try it out. Anyone have a collaborative project they need to work on? :-)
This falls in the "compatibility" department. Recently Rich posted a neat tip about Jabber as a way of chatting with ALL your contacts, regardless of whether their instant messenging souls belong to AOL, Yahoo Messenger, IM, or [insert client here]. I have also posted recently that I feel one of the biggest barriers to computer-supported collaboration is the lack of compatibility across computer platforms and applications. Jabber is definitely a step in the right direction, and what a convenient tool! Thanks Rich for the tip!
This post is to inform any Mac users that the new version of IChat in Tiger will be utilizing Jabber. To read more about this, check out the post on Slashdot. In the words of Napoleon Dynamite, "Sweeeeeet!"
Monday, September 13, 2004
On Slashdot, someone asked the all-important question, is this legitimate computer alchemy or vapormare?
I have my doubts until I see it work myself. Call me faithless. But I blogged once that someday the biggest breakthrough in computer-supported collaboration will be greater compatibility. I believe the biggest barrier to greater online collaboration is we aren't compatible across platforms, or across programs.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
"Social capital analysts have debated the implications of the Internet for some years now. But this debate has recently been joined from the opposite side, as software experts and developers are showing an increased desire to understand and improve social networks, both offline and online.This report introduces some of the core ideas of this new unified debate, and outlines possible directions for the future."Looks good! I'll be scanning over this when I get some time ...
Monday, September 06, 2004
Saturday, September 04, 2004
"The old record was nearly cut in half: the two parties, California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), 'transferred 859 gigabytes of data in less than 17 minutes.' InternetNews goes on to say, 'This record speed of 6.63Gbps is equivalent to transferring a full-length DVD movie in four seconds.'"What options does this hold for education? What if we could transfer simulations, video, multimedia, and ANYTHING as fast as we transfer text? Would this change the way we design instruction? In what ways?
The difficulty in our field is making our ideas keep up with the technology. Old models of instruction won't suffice. How would we teach if the technology barriers came tumblin' down? Because eventually they will.
How scary! My first feeling was excitement. My second feeling was fear: did I spell everything right? Did I do Stephen's keynote justice? What if I completely misunderstood what he was trying to communicate? What if I wrote something dumb that now everybody might read?
I'm mentioning this because 1) I think it's the first time anyone outside of BYU has read my blog, so I'm excited; and 2) this is a good example about the beauty of blogging. This is a quick way for your voice to be heard. What you write today could be read by who knows who tomorrow. It's also, like I said, scary and will force me to be a little more thoughtful about everything I say. The potential to have an audience, even if I don't, will force me to be a much more careful blogger from now on.
"The point I want to make, however, is that if Behaviorism is to be evaluated or discussed, it should be done using appropriate examples. Citing bad examples of Behaviorism as the reason not to use it ignores those contexts where it may have some useful contributions to the field of education."I wanted to comment and say (but I can't find out how to comment on your blog, Rich!) that I agree that we often criticize behaviorism by pointing at awful examples that everyone would agree is poor instruction. I think behaviorism can be an effective instructional strategy in some contexts. So the question should not be "behaviorism or constructivism?" but "WHEN do I use behaviorism, HOW do I use behaviorism, and WHAT EXPECTATIONS should I have when I do use this strategy?" We need to stop bickering in our field about whose theory is the best and instead start looking for more applications of each theory. But I do think it is necessary to remember what expectations we can have from each theory. Expecting high level synthesis and analysis (which many teachers do expect) after using only behavioristic methods (which is how many teachers teach) is unrealistic.
So to reframe the debate, does anyone have any ideas about when behaviorism is most appropriate?
I also thought Geoff posted an interesting analysis:
"It seems even our very existence is contingent upon a rewards system, where we have cognitively made the decision to pursue certain careers, choices, life, et cetera."Hmmm, CAN we escape behaviorism? Maybe not completely because it does seem to be human nature to do whatever gets us a reward. But I think we can be optimistic and find ways to use alternative methods and theories to guide our instruction--when an alternative method is more appropriate. I think people can learn to be less behavioristic--isn't that what progression in character is all about? Learning to do, think, and be motivated for more important reasons than to get a reward?
"Do I believe this is the most effective system? No. But do I think we can escape it? No."
Friday, September 03, 2004
Anyway, log these urls well, I think they'll be useful:
Gogogo.notlong.com - His presentation wiki
Itibloggers.notlong.com - a list of edubloggers from the IT institute. A great source of IT bloggers!
Brian started his presentation by saying "The digital and academic worlds are butting heads together. Can these work together?"
His argument is that digital media requires that we teach differently than before. We need to move quicker, think looser, and, most especially, let learners go crazy with the technology and not over-moderate how they learn. In this way, he had many similar ideas as Stephen Downes. One example of digital technology butting heads with academia is what Brian called "Mass Amateurism." This is the ability that fast, cheap, and simple technologies can give to the masses to approach a level of professionalism. Brian claimed that this often scares the "intellectuals" and tenured professors because "What is academia about? About being the professional. The notion of allowing the common man to do it makes them uneasy." He gave the example of digital cameras. He's not a professional photographer, but with the incredible cameras anyone can buy, he is "80% there."
Another example is Apple's GarageBand, where anyone can be a professional music mixer. Brian later observed, "The more esteemed a scholar is, the less likely they seem to be to embrace new technologies. The ones who accept new technologies are struggling new faculty looking to get an edge. Those with tenure aren’t interested." He might be over-generalizing, but it is true that technology could change the traditional model of education to some degree.
Brian's actual job is to run the learning objects movement in a British Columbian university. He made the claim that technologies like Furl and Flickr (both of which are AWESOME tools BTW) are really creating types of learning objects because you tag a piece of content (a website) or a graphic with some kinds of metadata (like what categories they belong to, what rating you give these objects, and what keywords you attach to them).
He then attacked the lack of openness and freedom to adapt and "remix" objects (a.k.a. Larry Lessig's keynote). He said that if we could have the freedom to take material and change and adapt it without worrying about copyright infringement, then we don't have to make the difficult decisions about how much context to add to a learning object, or what the granularity of the object should be--because teachers will make these decisions themselves. They will remix the objects and take the amount of the object that they need and adapt it to their own context.
Anyway, he had many other very good points, but ala modern society, he was very all over the place and scattered in his thoughts so they are hard to recreate here. But that's exactly what his point was: we need to let go and let modern e-learners go "out of control" with technology, even if the way they interact and learn is different than what we're used to.
Anyway, he tied in the three major themes of this conference: reusability, social software, and open learning. I thought he was a perfect closing keynote because he had taken pictures and notes from all the presentations he had seen and used them in his own presentation.
He's a visionary man. he said that “In general new technology is introduced in two stages … First, it duplicates existing products and services. Second, it obliterates them.”
Examples of this phenomenon are:
- Blog vs. newspapers
- Internet vs. Television
- Skype vs. Telephone
- Wikipedia vs. encyclopedia
Back to Stephen. He presented some dichotomies between models. The old model is broadcast, commercial, bundled, proprietary. The new model is open, network, free. He then asks:
"What has worked in the past?He then said that we are at the point now were in e-learning we have duplicated the existing model of education. The next step is to leave the model and go on to something new. He believes one thing we need to change is to stop trying to organize and structure e-learning. He quotes David Wiley that "Instead of trying to organize learning communities, we should focus on how learning communities can organize themselves."
FTP, email, usenet, the web, blogs, RSS …
What did these have in common?
They were …
- - simple
- - decentralized
- - open – We could all play
- - free, etc.
My opinion? I'm not sure, but I think I'm halfway. We need general boundaries, but without dictating exactly how e-learners have to talk, walk, and listen. If we get too ordered, then we're like the pharisees and stifle their ability to grow. We should provide some general structure, and then let the communities dictate how they will relate and grow and we should be there as instructional designers to support them.
To finish, I'll paraphrase Stephen again:
"We have to gain our voice, to speak for ourselves, to reclaim our language, our media, our culture. Could we learn to read and write if only a small number of people had access to language? No, we need openness for everyone. Go fast, go cheap, let it go out of control."
He quotes a writer who describes it as 'Educhaos'. He feels we should "let go" and let learners take the digital medium to its deteministic end.
To paraphrase him again:
Which ties into our behavioristic/constructivist discussion this week, eh?
- "Social software- we need a way to support conversations with content, and not just content.
- Learning – we need to leverage the principles of self-organizing networks.
- We need to transform learning … from something we do for people to something they do for themselves."
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Anyway, I'm going to blog the presentations I like the most. I'll do this for two reasons:
- To help me learn the material better by writing about it
- To maybe allow anyone not here at the conference to catch some of the highlights
So if any of these posts interest you, read them and ask me questions when I get back. If you don't care, don't bother! Either way, I'll still be learning more from this conference because I'll be articulating and reflecting my thoughts.
- Learning Activities
- Content Collection
- List of Links
- Reference/Archive/News/Database (RAND)
- Teacher and Parent Resources
- Shared Experiences
- Personal Expression and Interpersonal Interaction (PEII)
- Informal Education
- Research and Service Organizations and Projects (RSOP)
I thought this was a phenomenal research idea and project. I suggested to Trey that the next step might be to offer keys to evaluating each category of websites, because just describing to a teacher that "hey, this is a RAND website" is kind or worthless. It will be very important to tell them, "if you need to use a RAND for your classroom projects, here is how you could evaluate RANDs and know when you've found a credible and useful one." So could we create some evaluation steps for each category?
After I suggested this, one lady said this had already been done, because there are many places that tell you how to evaluate educational websites. Yeah, we do this too in IPT 286. But the evaluation standards would be different for each type of website. A content website should not be commercial--that's a red flag. A commercial site SHOULD be commercial. A learning activity website should not have fluff but should have meaningful content. A weblog should have fluff because the blogger and the reader are learning through interaction and co-construction of ideas until the fluff becomes more thoughtful and refined.
Does this make sense?
The next step for Trey is that he wants to create a search engine that would then find only RANDs or PEIIs or whatever, and the website in its metadata would define what category that website falls into. However, he's also wanting to switch gears on the project entirely and instead define attributes of educational websites instead of categorizing the entire website. This is a much better idea because pbs.org, for example, has many different attributes and could fit into many different categories.
Anyway, I'm definitely using some of Trey's ideas in teaching digital resources in IPT 286, but I'm not sure how yet. I'd like to ask each student to find a good website for each category, but that might be too heavy of a workload. So maybe instead have them find their 5-10 websites and then require them to analyze the sites and put them in their appropriate category. This could just be a helpful tool to aid their reflection.
Session: Impact of the affect and gender of a learning companion on learning outcomes
Yanghee Kim, USU
Yanghee had some interesting ideas about simulated learning companions, which are basically computer-generated “peers” that e-learning students can relate to during a computer-mediated learning activity. She was reporting on her dissertation research about how the affect (how happy/grumpy) and gender of a learning companion could impact the learning. Her prerequisite assumption was that the more a learning companion showed emotion, the more believable the simulated peer would be and the more effective it would be in helping to mentor the students.
Her logic went something like this:
People learn better through interaction – they prefer interaction with peers – peer interaction is absent in strict Computer-Assisted Learning (we won’t talk about blended environments here) – would a simulated peer be able to fulfill this role?
She also did a second experiment investigating responsiveness of the learning companions. After completing each part of the CAI activity, there were emoticons, and they were supposed to pick one. If they said they were happy or doing well, the LC said “great! Glad you’re understanding it.” If the student was struggling, the LC expressed understanding and sympathy and gave reinforcement.
Her specific hypotheses were something along these lines:
A happy, positive learning companion creates more positive student attitudes
A responsive learning companion will positively impact self-efficacy and student affect.
The results? Of course her hypotheses were supported. She also found that male LCs were more effective at mentoring than female ones. I think this must be because the class was mostly female, and not because a male LC is better.
(As aside about positivistic research. Yanghee had to report her finding that, in her study, a male LC is a better mentor, even though she isn’t convinced. So we’re not convinced, but we report it as a “finding” anyway!)
Here are my thoughts that stemmed from her presentation:
- Could we create simulated learning companions that can take a variety of roles (mentor, coach, teacher, student, etc., whatever is needed for the learning situation)?
- Could students pick an LC that would most uniquely match their own attributes? I think Bandura said something about how we learn best from those with similar attributes to our own.
- Could we allow students to pick a new LC any day or for any part of the activity? For example, in Mario Bros. games, you can pick Mario, Luigie, Donkey Kong, etc to be your opponent. Could we have those options in an LC? Let the students pick a hunk to be their learning companion if they want.
- An exciting implication, I think, is to allow students to learn by teaching (she alluded to this but didn’t elaborate it). Maybe we could allow the live student to learn by teaching the simulated LC?
The problem is, as Dave says it, "No matter how smart you are, someday you will have a question. And having the material online is not enough. You need to talk to somebody."
They are working on a possible solution for this with OLS. This is basically a collaborative component tied into every open course. For example, if you are reading the Linear Algebra material, you see a link on the menu bar for OLS. You go there, and there are discussion boards and features to support a growing community where students help each other learn the material.
It has some interesting features, including the ability to click a button and give "kudos" to someone's post. If someone gets more and more kudos from lots of people, they gain credibility in the community, and people will start listening to that person more (kind of like ebay's feedback feature). This way, if you have a question, you can choose to read the posts written by the smartest people in the community.
They also learned the hard way that too many advanced features can kill a growing community. So the default features of the software are simple. As the community grows and wants more features, the software is extensible and can grow and add more features.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Will reports that:
"Suddenly, studies are springing up to check the accuracy of the posts. People are posting nonsense at Wikipedia to see if it gets edited out quickly or, god forbid, remains a part of the entry for a longer period of time thus confusing and misleading those who access the information."He than adds "Ghastly. If I sound cynical, it's because, well, I'm cynical." He's cynical because he is not sure that authority, credibility or trustworthiness exists BEFORE the research, but that research lends credibility to the source. We develop credibility with our readers in many ways, and not all of them very rigorous. For example, you're reading my blog--do you tend to believe I have intelligent things to say? Or do you believe that I could not be an accurate source? If you do believe me to be credible, then you will likely believe Will to be credible because I quote him. You trust him because you trust me--not vice versa. In other words, quoting Will does not make me more credible with you, my readers--but it does add credibility to Will in your minds (face it: none of you knew who he even was before I quoted him, right?).
Colin talks about this in a different way (in a better way, I'm sure because I'm still considering these ideas):
There are a gazillion sites for verifying the credibility of web sites, very few of which offer the simple insight that dates back to Aristotle at least: credibility is something you earn and develop, not something you simply have. When we ask our students to do research and to prepare the results in written form, we are teaching them to earn credibility through breadth and depth of research. You don't earn credibility by citing an "authoritative source," whatever that means. You earn it by testing your sources against one another, understanding what the reasons are for differences of opinion, and figuring out how to resolve them or to choose among positions, etc. In other words, authority should be something that each of us assigns to our sources, not the other way around. It is the result of research, not a prerequisite.So perhaps we should teach students to think and construct interpretations and -- most importantly -- back up their interpretations with logic and compare their interpretations with others, but to not rely on "docs" or "peer-reviewed articles" as the source of all authority. Teach them that they can be the credible source, if they are thorough enough in the research. Isn't that what a wiki is all about?
The advantage of sites like Wikipedia is that much of this back-and-forth ... is visible and public, and in that sense, Wikipedia offers students a chance to watch credibility-in-action. "Trustworthy information" is indeed important, but perhaps more important is that we offer students a chance to see how trustworthiness is developed, to see the conversations that may ultimately result in Encyclopedia Britannica articles. Rather than asking students to plug "authoritative quotes" into 5-paragraph containers, why not ask them to take a topic on Wikipedia, and research its validity? And if they find that there are pieces missing, why not encourage them to contribute? You telling me that stringing together blockquotes from authorities is going to teach them more about research than participating in a wiki might?
BTW- somebody did post about a dozen errors on Wikipedia and they were fixed in hours! I think the wiki trend is proving the scripture that "it is not common that the avoice• of the people desireth anything bcontrary to that which is right" (i.e. let the masses construct the knowledge and you'll probably be closer to the truth).