I know this is a little off the subject, but your statement that using encyclopedias as a “starting point” is of course one of the key reasons for OER materials. A multimedia presentation of an age appropriate learning situation, example or problem situation on a smartboard would give more reality to what is being taught. While a textbook is still the prime source in a classroom the presentations gives it, if done correctly, depth and a reality to the learner. Ideally the presentations would be situations that the learner or fellow learners encounter in their daily life.
Jim Kelly http://www.k-12math.info/teachingOERmath.html On Feb 13, 6:16 pm, Declan <[email protected]> wrote: > There was an interesting article comparing scientific accuracy in > Wikipedia with Britannica published in Nature: Internet encyclopedias > go head to head. Giles, Jim; Nature; Dec 15, 2005; 438, 7070; > Britannica rebutted the article and Nature fired back. Fascinating, > but ironically you'd need subscriptions to read the articles :) > > I grade papers regularly and I do not accept Wikipedia as a citation; > nor do I accept Britannica. If I published a scholarly article using > Wikipedia (or Britannica) as a cited source, it would in all > probability be weeded out during the editorial process. This is the > standard for my field and I therefore hold my college students to the > same standard. It's not about the quality of the source; rather it's > about primary Vs secondary sources. > > Having said that, I regularly encourage students to use encyclopedias > as starting points in their research. I use Wikipedia for rapid facts > for my own work. Personally I find it approximates traditional > encyclopedias in many ways and I find the graphics very convenient for > lecture presentations. It's also easier to use than many online > encyclopedias. I needed information about kuru today - started in > Wikipedia; grabbed some nice graphics regarding prion replication; > moved on to the New England Journal of Medicine for maps; genotypic > frequencies of resistant alleles etc. The images from Wikipedia I > could choose to share online and reuse in any way I liked (public > domain image in this case). The NEJM images - I could purchase a > slide set for $15 and reuse would involve some sort of copyright > process I'm sure. Importantly, the Wikipedia information on kuru was > spot on and cited the NEJM paper that I also used. > > My take home is that Wikipedia is as useful a traditional > encyclopedia. Neither is a primary source, and I ask my students to > use primary sources. But consider this: many if not most students use > primary sources incorrectly. They pull information from the > introductions......and introductions are written on the strength of > other published articles.....introductions are in fact secondary > sources embedded within primary sources. Oh the joys and > complications that presents....I'm ranting slightly....clearly I > should be grading lab reports on natural selection in goldenrod > galls. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
