At first glance of the title, I immediately concluded that Wikipedia was indeed a foe to the teacher. Until reading this article I had always assumed it was unreliable because it was a live document. However, after reading and discussing the article, I have concluded that Wikipedia can actually be a wonderful tool to explicitly teach to our students about research writing. After all, it shows the true meaning of research--to question and seek answers. True research is adaptive in nature, and this website can help facilitate a lesson on how to conduct research and validate your sources. I loved some of the ideas that the author introduced. One of those ideas was using the website to activate prior knowledge and then spark more questions. While my fifth graders are a bit young to be changing research documents, they are at the perfect age to question further as well as evaluate sources. I also loved the idea of using Wikipedia to compare with other documents.
Another interesting aspect to think about is that some book sources are filled with biases that deem them unreliable as well. It’s easy to point a finger at Wikipedia for the vast negative attention it has received. However, we need to be careful in our instruction so that it focuses on evaluating all different types of resources. Just because a book is published does not make it a valid source for research. Critical analysis is a crucial component to our research writing instruction.
Finally, it is important that we do not just assume students understand the pros and cons of Wikipedia. It is our job as teachers to explicitly teach how to utilize the website along with how to validate other sources. Like the entirety of the internet, Wikipedia can be another friendly tool when used (and taught!) appropriately.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comments. Wikipedia, when used correctly, can be a friend to a teacher. I think that a teacher needs to be fully prepared before teaching the lesson as well. There are a lot of different aspects to Wikipedia and a teacher should know all of the different features of Wikipedia so they can use it beneficially toward the students. It is a good point that you bring up about the books as well. Students (looking back, me too!) assume that books are always valid information. I think these are hard things to teach as students get stuck in their ways / have previous habits. At the fifth grade level, as you said, they are still young. What parts of Wikipedia would you teach to them? I teach first grade and it is hard to figure out what to introduce to them at that young of an age.
ReplyDeleteI would love to teach my fifth graders about what a live document means. I really want to incorporate a bulletin board in my classroom that demonstrates a "live document" in my class. I also like the idea of discussing that just because sources are cited does not mean they are valid. I would like to complete a whole group exercise where we check the references and compare other sites. I liked what Donna talked about yesterday in the discussion about providing (well planned out of course) two different Wikipedia sites--one that is valid and another that is not. This would help introduce the kids to the evaluation process. I agree that it would be much harder to introduce to 1st graders as they are still developmentally too young. Teaching basic skills (such as what is research) to 1st grade may work, but the evaluation piece is a little more abstract.
ReplyDeleteI think that is a very good idea, I like the bulletin board! They will be able to grasp the understanding of how Wikipedia works! Hope it works well :)
ReplyDelete