Wikipedia is here (well its been here a while actually!). An online encyclopedia based on the simple format of a Wiki website. Wikipedia has its foundations in knowledge sharing, a concept that educators love! Anyone from anywhere can share their knowledge on just about any field by creating and uploading articles to the site. This information is then freely accessible, downloadable and usable by the (Internet using) public. At the time of writing this post Wikipedia stated that there were 3,260,250 articles in English published on their site.
But how usable is this information? Is it accurate? Trustworthy? Wikipedia itself warns against taking the information on the site at face value. They state:
Wikipedia firstly gives a starting point for research. For many, researching on the Internet is a scary prospect and is a task (and I'm sure many of you will agree) that can lead to A LOT of time wasting. Why not use Wikipedia to guide you (and your student's) research? Use it as a base, a jumping off point or a way to identify key words that you can explore further. (O'Neil, 2006)
Given the warnings about the reliability of information given on the site, this would also be a perfect place to teach critical literacy. Luke and Freebody's Four Resource Model (1990) for engaging in reading cites "Text Analyst" as a fundamental component of becoming literate. This set of skills involve the "critical analysis of texts... What kind of person produced this text? What are the origins of this text?" (Anstey & Bull, 2004). Teaching students to question the things that they read, particularly on the Internet, is vital in the knowledge economy where technology is the way of the future.
The best thing about Wikipedia is that it is a relatively safe environment to allows students to be self-guided in their learning. Because the information is collaboratively written articles are essentially quite neutral in view point, presenting up-to-the-minute information on relevant topics. It is interactive and multi-dimensional text, whereby students can follow links to get a rounded view of the topic. It is also visually appealing and includes many images to make learning more engaging, particularly for visual learners (Felder, 1991).
If using an Engagement Theory type learning experience (Kearsley and Shneiderman, 1999), this can be a good place for students to begin their research to get their projects underway. Alternatively, why not use Wikipedia as the actual 'authentic product' that is produced. Anyone can contribute, why not link this to the 'donate' phase.
For such a simple concept, knowledge sharing can open up a wealth of opportunities for learning to take place. Wikipedia most certainly has a place in the 21st century classroom.
References
Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (2004). The Literacy Labyrinth. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Felder, R. (1991). The Index of Learning Styles.
Retrieved 12 March 2010 from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html
Kearsley & Shneiderman, (1999). Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning.
Retrieved 1 March 2010 from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1999). Further Notes on The Four Resources Model. Reading Online.
Retrieved 2 March 2010, from http://http://www.readingonline.org/
O'Neil, C. (2006). Using Wikipedia in the Classroom: A Good Starting Point. Retrieved 19 April 2010 from http://www.edutopia.org/using-wikipedia-classroom
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Help/About.
Retrieved 10 April 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:About
But how usable is this information? Is it accurate? Trustworthy? Wikipedia itself warns against taking the information on the site at face value. They state:
"Properly written articles cite the resources, and a reader should rely on the Wikipedia article as much, but no more, than the sources the article relies on. If an article doesn't cite a source, it may or may not be reliable."(cited in O'Neil, 2006)There are no special qualifications needed to publish on Wikipedia, nor to edit someone else's article. The information is however continually updated, monitored and edited by both the public and Wikipedia staff and so they go on to suggest that,
"older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, un-encyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed" (Wikipedia, n.d.)They add that these articles should not be used for assignments or formal academic writing of any kind. So whats the use of it then?
Wikipedia firstly gives a starting point for research. For many, researching on the Internet is a scary prospect and is a task (and I'm sure many of you will agree) that can lead to A LOT of time wasting. Why not use Wikipedia to guide you (and your student's) research? Use it as a base, a jumping off point or a way to identify key words that you can explore further. (O'Neil, 2006)
Given the warnings about the reliability of information given on the site, this would also be a perfect place to teach critical literacy. Luke and Freebody's Four Resource Model (1990) for engaging in reading cites "Text Analyst" as a fundamental component of becoming literate. This set of skills involve the "critical analysis of texts... What kind of person produced this text? What are the origins of this text?" (Anstey & Bull, 2004). Teaching students to question the things that they read, particularly on the Internet, is vital in the knowledge economy where technology is the way of the future.
The best thing about Wikipedia is that it is a relatively safe environment to allows students to be self-guided in their learning. Because the information is collaboratively written articles are essentially quite neutral in view point, presenting up-to-the-minute information on relevant topics. It is interactive and multi-dimensional text, whereby students can follow links to get a rounded view of the topic. It is also visually appealing and includes many images to make learning more engaging, particularly for visual learners (Felder, 1991).
If using an Engagement Theory type learning experience (Kearsley and Shneiderman, 1999), this can be a good place for students to begin their research to get their projects underway. Alternatively, why not use Wikipedia as the actual 'authentic product' that is produced. Anyone can contribute, why not link this to the 'donate' phase.
For such a simple concept, knowledge sharing can open up a wealth of opportunities for learning to take place. Wikipedia most certainly has a place in the 21st century classroom.
References
Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (2004). The Literacy Labyrinth. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Felder, R. (1991). The Index of Learning Styles.
Retrieved 12 March 2010 from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html
Kearsley & Shneiderman, (1999). Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning.
Retrieved 1 March 2010 from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1999). Further Notes on The Four Resources Model. Reading Online.
Retrieved 2 March 2010, from http://http://www.readingonline.org/
O'Neil, C. (2006). Using Wikipedia in the Classroom: A Good Starting Point. Retrieved 19 April 2010 from http://www.edutopia.org/using-wikipedia-classroom
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Help/About.
Retrieved 10 April 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:About
Hi Phebe
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post - a very clear explanation of wikipedia and it's use in the classroom.
All the best
Hannah
Hi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I have enouraged students during my EPL to look into Wikipedia, it is fascinating to note how they always go straight to Google when they're asked to do any research on the internet. I've suggested Wikipedia as an alternative starting point, and told them that whilst these articles are not necessarily written by someone with a particular qualification, indeed all of the articles are open to editing and improving. The information is about as 'peer reviewed' as your going to get!
Cheers,
Phebe.