Marentette wiki powerpoint


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • small campus public liberal arts, small senior seminars, focus on recent term, n of 7, two small groupsGoal: Knowledge Translation: present the results of academic research in a useable manner to the general publicJOINT ATTENTIONVOCAB DEV’T
  • Easy, it is a central tenet of information literacy that students locate and rely on publishable sources. My students did not enter the course with pre-existing positions on vocabulary development or joint attention, so I didn’t expect them to have an agenda to push.  Surprisingly this was the biggest problem we encountered. It reared its head in two ways: 
  • Here are my senior university students: well trained to read primary research, in training with respect to writing and communication, with extensive access to academic literature. They are perfectly suited to the job of KT. The question I hadn’t considered was whether Wiki was the right platform for such a task!Two particular concerns I’ll highlightdirected away from the peer-reviewed lit review’s found in primary researchdirected toward secondary sourceswritten by the very same people whose primary articles were being rejectedmismatch between wiki understanding of the what counts as a secondary source, and mine…
  • Ah, by reading widely and summarizing their work, our students were perceived as “creating new positions” because they often cited more than one source for claims made within one sentence. particularly problematic given the table, when rewritten as sentences the problem seemed to go away
  • Marentette wiki powerpoint

    1. 1. Translating knowledge out of the classroom:The highs and lows of Wikipedia as aplatform for student writingPaula Marentettewith Juliet Brown, AnastasiaEvarts, Erika Heiberg, AlannaLindsay, Alison Owens, NadiaRebkowich, Lianne Theelen
    2. 2. Things we learned about Wiki• NPOV: fair and without bias• verifiability: direct support in stated sourcesWe encountered problems with:• NOR: use of material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist”
    3. 3. 1. Primary & secondary sources• NOR: use of material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist”Students were discouraged from using peer-reviewed journal articles:“Wikipedia articles usually rely on material fromreliable secondary sources”
    4. 4. 2. synthesis• NOR: use of material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist”students were discouraged from citing multiplesources in one sentence:SYNTH: combination of material from “multiplesources to reach or imply a conclusion notexplicitly stated by any of the sources”
    5. 5. Recognition – Did You Know?
    6. 6. Recognition: Good ArticleWiki Criteria:1. It is reasonably well-written.2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.3. It is broad in its coverage.4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.5. It is stable6. It is illustrated by images, where possible.
    7. 7. Good Article
    8. 8. Advice• work in teams for support• do this in a small class• get help with editing early• waiting for feedback is a problem• sort out the citation/reference style!!!!“Take the advice of editors seriously. Swallowyour pride and your pithy comments.”
    9. 9. Thanks• APS Wiki Portal (thanks Rosta!)• Wikipedia Canada Education Program (Jonathan)• online ambassadors (Neelix, Nikimaria)• volunteer wiki editors (Mr. Stradivarius, MathewTownsend, MasterOfHis OwnDomain)