Phil’s Blog
Use the auto-cite in Ebsco databases
Many database have an auto-cite feature which provides a recommended citation for articles in various styles (such as APA, MLA, Turabin). This shows how to find and use this in all Ebsco databases. Ebsco provides many of our databases: Academic Search Premier, ERIC, CINAHL, Business Source Premier, PsychINFO, SOCIndex, and more.
www.blueplanetbiomes.org/world_biomes.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/index.php
Critical thinking is an essential part of any writing process. It is especially important when you are encountering and evaluating others’ ideas and when you are trying to construct and articulate your own ideas.
To get a general idea of what critical thinking involves, please read the following overview.
Once done reading, watch this video. This video gives a few media examples of some common logical fallacies.
Next, read through this list of definitions of some common logical fallacies. (Some of the language may be a little different than that used in your Wadsworth Handbook, but that’s ok: Being able to recognize the logical errors is what is most critical.)
Finally take this short quiz. Once you’ve finished the quiz, please indicate at the bottom of the results page that you would like to have those results sent to your instructor’s email or jason.ezell@lmunet.edu.
Create an account in Ebsco databases
This will allow to permanently store articles and searches in Ebsco databases. Ebsco provides many of our databases: Academic Search Premier, ERIC, CINAHL, Business Source Premier, PsychINFO, SOCIndex, and more.
Search Google Scholar
Shows you some of the more advanced features of Google scholar and how to see if LMU has the full-text of what you may find.
How to videos:
These are brief tutorial videos about accessing and using various tools needed for INFL100. They have audio, so if you have speakers or headphones be sure they are on.
How to access Piper
Some Piper features
Covers:
- Tips for search queries
- Using limiters
- Accessing ebooks
- Features on Piper records
How to access Academic Search Premiere (ASP)
Some ASP features
Covers:
- Keyword and field searching
- Limiters
- Features of ASP records
- Full-text
- Interlibrary Loan
Plagiarism is using a source without credit.
In your academic work, you will most likely encounter plagiarism as a problem when you write papers or create projects (slides, speeches, presentations). Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum. To make a case, formulate an argument, give a summary, do an analysis — all the things you do when you write a paper — you rely on ideas, expressions, and quotations from those who have come before you, from outside sources. The whole point of finding and evaluating information is to use it in some way. And there are accepted conventions for how to do this. The most common is citing. This means whenever you take a direct quote from a source or paraphrase an idea or argument from a source you provide a citation for it. This acknowledges that the idea is not originally yours, tells whose it is, and allows readers to follow the citation and find it themselves.
There are some things which you do not need to credit.
Common knowledge: For instance, stating that cancer is a deadly disease is an obvious fact. We all know this. You don’t need to cite it. But if you say that recent research suggests that eating more kiwi will prevent cancer, you better have a source to back you up.
Your ideas, expressions, and words: If you then say kiwi is delicious and you should eat it both because it tastes good and it is good for you, that is your idea, your conclusion, your expression and you obviously don’t need to cite that. You are the source of your own ideas, and now someone can quote and cite you!
This may seem simple and obvious and at one level it is. But there may be times when you are not sure if something is common knowledge or not. For instance, I may mention that humans and chimpazees share about 96% of the same DNA. Is this common knowledge or not? It may depend on your intended audience. If you are presenting to a room full of specialists in genetics, it probably is. But if you’re writing for a general audience, people who don’t necessarily know much about DNA and chimpazees, it may not be.
Another rule of thumb is if you can easily find multiple sources for something, it’s probably common knowledge. When I do a quick Google search for “human chimp DNA” I see from the first page of results that there are many potential sources for this. Though I’d want to more carefully evaluate these sources (for instance, some 98%, some 90%), just the fact that it is so widely circulated puts it more on the common knowledge side.
But when in doubt, cite it!
Degrees of Plagiarism: Intentional and Unintentional
Plagiarism can be malicious and intentionally dishonest or more innocently simply ignorance. You may know the conventions and flaunt them or you may unintentionally break the rules because you don’t know what they are.
Keep in mind that different disciplines have different conventions for acknowledging sources. In general the sciences and social sciences are more strict and rigorous, demanding closer attention to how you acknowledge outside sources, while in the humanities and especially literature and artistic expression — where making indirect references to previous writers and artists can be an art form in itself — the conventions may be looser.
Intentional Plagiarism: This is the category for outright academic dishonesty. If you commit any of these acts you should be ashamed of yourself. This includes having someone else to write your paper for you, or downloading one off the internet, or wholesale copy-and-pasting chunks of text from a website. This kind of thing is just not accepted and comes with severe punishment: expulsion, tarnished reputation, even legal action. This kind of plagiarism can also be a copyright violation. And this doesn’t just apply to students. There are well-documented cases of plagiarism amongst established scholars and writers. This is just not doing your work because you’re too lazy to do it yourself. And you’re better than that, so don’t do it.
Unintentional Plagiarism: This is not as bad as intentional plagiarism because you didn’t mean to do it. Nevertheless it is just as wrong, and after completing this learning unit you will no longer have the excuse that you didn’t know! This also involve not knowing the conventions of the discipline within which you are working or writing, of when it is appropriate to cite and when you don’t need to. You will learn these conventions with time and familiarity. But again, if in doubt, cite it.
Activities
Go through this entire tutorial. Pay especially close attention to the detailed examples it gives you. It will help give you a sense of how tricky it can be to properly paraphrase a source and how easy it is to use a source irresponsibly.
This is your homework for this module. Instructions are on the form. Basically you are reading an excerpt from an article then five different uses of that source. You will rate each of the five uses on how well it uses the original source. Things to look for (which should be familiar from doing the tutorial):
- Using the exact wording but not putting it in quotes.
- Using quotes but not reproducing the exact wording.
- Taking a quote out of context. In other words, accurately quoting but misrepresenting the point or meaning of the words in the original source.
Tutorial Modules for possible use in INFL
Subject Encyclopedias:
Popular/Scholarly:
Primary/Secondary:
Keyword vs. Subject Searching:
Wikipedia:
Web Searching:
Picking out key search terms:
Boolean diagrams:
Evaluating:
Plagiarism:
Information Cycle:
Copyright/Intellectual Property Laws:
Source Selection:
IRIS: Information Research Instruction Suite
Source: Clark College
Target Audience: 2 year colleges, General Undergraduate
Format: Click through text, easy to navigate side menu, some funny pics, some brief videos on specific topics
Coverage: (5 main sections with several sub-sections) “Start (Research team, explore topics, research notes, call numbers), Explore (Research process, information types, subject encyclopedias, books and e-books, magazines/journals, primary/secondary, deep/invisible web, world wide web), Find (Library catalogs, google books, periodical indexes, web search tools, wikipedia, search strategies, boolean operators, google search tips), Evaluate (books and articles, websites), Plagiarism (Acknowledging, citing)”
Notes:
“Research team”: mostly institution specific info, interesting note: talks about subject librarians
“Explore topics”: usual techniques for choosing a topic, broadening and narrowing, concept mapping
“Call numbers”: generic, fun little call number interactive game
“Research process”: stresses circular nature of research with good visual
“Subject Encyclopedias”: covers this fairly well, most tutorials don’t
“Books and e-books”: gives specific evaluation criteria for books: ASAP: Age, Sources, Author, Publisher. Quite a bit on using google books to verify author and publisher
“Deep web”: good coverage of fee vs. free resources
Evaluation Criteria: A.S.P.E.C.T.: Authority Sources Purpose, Evenness, Coverage, Timeliness
Quiz: Yes
Rating: Highly recommend! Succinct, visually appealing, highly generic (not institution specific), very good on including web sources (such as google scholar and google books) and distinguishing thme from library sources.
TIP: Tutorial for Info Power
Source: Western Connecticut State University Library
Target Audience: General Undergraduate
Format: Click through, very brief text, good pics, some basic flash animation
Coverage: “Investigating, Searching, Locating, Evaluating, Utilizing” Utilizing covers info ethics: plagiarism, citing, copyright.
Evaluation Criteria: C.R.A.A.P.: Currency Relevance Authority Accuracy Purpose
Quiz: Yes; good little review questions within each section. Unfortunately, the quiz at the end is only for WCSU students, requires a student ID.
Notes: Good detail on topic selection; how to pick something you’ll enjoy researching, how to turn a thesis statement into a research question. Good section of difference between library resources and open web. Nice little exercise on picking out key words of a thesis statement for searching. Good also on reading a bib record, somewhat institution specific here though of course. I like how they separate searching from locating. A real strength is the little built-in assessments throughout the tutorial; they cover a concept and then assess it right away.
Rating: Highly recommended!
Research Roadmap
Source: Humboldt State University Library
Target Audience: General Undergraduate
Format: Click through, lots of pics, flash animation and interactive components
Coverage: “The Basics, Info Cycles, Topics, Searching, Finding, Evaluating, Ethics”
Notes: “The Basics”: Actually defines the internet and distinguishes it from the WWW, something most tutorials don’t do. Good little interactive on primary/secondary, how it depends on the context/how you use whether a source is primary or secondary.
“Info Cycles”: Very thorough yet succinct coverage of source types with concrete examples.
“Topics”: Fairly detailed coverage of topic selection, distinction between different types of research (fact searching vs. open-ended question research), detailed section on concept mapping, broadening and narrowing a topic).
“Searching”: Covers subject specific databases fairly well. Good flash animation on Booleans, truncation, nesting. Good flash interactive on search construction.
“Finding”: Covers citations, gives examples, but doesn’t say what style it is using. Also library organization.
“Evaluating”: Sufficient but not thorough
“Ethics”: Covers plagiarism, citing, copyright. Really nice interactive flash plagiarism covering citing (in different styles), paraphrasing, and quoting.
Evaluation Criteria: Credentials (of author, or publisher), Usefulness (Objectivity, Quality, Coverage, Relevance)
Quiz: Yes, quizzes at the end of each section and frequent on point assessments throughout each section
Rating: Highly recommended, very in-depth coverage especially of topics and plagiarism.
St. John’s Information Literacy Tutorial
Source: St. John’s
Format: Click through text, some animated screen shots
Coverage: “Getting started (covers topic selection), Finding Books, Finding Articles, Internet Research, Evaluating Information, Citing Sources, Avoiding Plagiarism”
Notes:
“Getting Started”: Good basics on topic selection, narrowing down, primary/secondary, etc.
“Finding books”: institution specific
“Finding articles”: Covers scholarly/popular, animation of ProQuest search,
“Internet research”: animation of advanced Google search
“Evaluating”: Adequate, no animation or interaction
“Citing Sources”: Fairly thorough treatment of APA and MLA, no animation or interaction, quite a bit about managing and organizing,
“Avoiding Plagiarism”: Some good “real life” cases of plagiarism by prominent writers/artists
Quiz:
Evaluation Criteria: Authority, Intended Audience, Timeliness, Bias, References, Fact vs. Opinion
Rating:
Empower
Source: Witchita State University Libraries
Target Audience:
Format: Click through, lots of interactive flash animations
Coverage: “Starting your research, Choosing your topic, Using the catalog, Finding articles, Using the web, Citing sources”
Notes:
“Starting your research”: covers resource types (periodicals, books, web), some interactive, somewhat institution based
“Choosing your topic”: basic covering of broadening, narrowing, etc. not much interactivity
“Using the catalog”: very institution specific
“Finding articles”: covers popular/scholarly, basic and advanced search techniques, not much interactivity and again very institution specific
“Using the web”: Covers basics and history of internet, directories, search engines, search techniques, evaluation
“Citing”: citing, plagiarism, multiple choice paraphrasing game, copyright,
Evaluation Criteria: Accuracy, Authority, Objectivity, Currency, Use
Quiz: Only for Witchita students, some on point assessments throughout
Rating: Okay, but too institution specific, not as interactive and “fun” as some of the others, no one piece I would pick out for local use.
Source: AUT
Target Audience:
Format: Click-through, some animated screen shots, not much interactivity.
Coverage: “Intro, Search Techniques, Using the Catalog, Using Databases, Using the Internet, Evaluating Information”
Notes: These are generally brief, have embedded animations, but not many outstanding generic examples
Evaluation Criteria: START: Scope, Treatment, Authority, Relevance, Timeliness
Quiz: Yes, 10 questions
Rating: Okay, but most institution specific, not very in-depth examples, overall not as good some of the others
LUCI: Library User Computer Instruction
Source: Grossmont College
Format: Text, images, audio: it reads the text to you, a little slow loading, no menu within the tutorial, so difficult to skip around to different sections
Coverage: Library Website tour, topic selection, Finding Books
Notes: Topic selection section is generic but all the other sections too institution specific for our use
Evaluation Criteria:
Quiz:
Rating: Topic selection section is generic but all the other sections too institution specific for our use
Source: Leabharlann James Hardiman Library, Ireland
Format: Click through text based, a few interactives and videos
Coverage: Selecting, Searching, Locating and Evaluating, Citing and Plagiarism
Notes:
“Selecting”: generic but too general
“Searching”: adequate, interactive on picking out key words and synonyms from a research question
“Locating and Evaluating”: too general and institution specific, use Cornell’s evaluation criteria
“Citing”: very general, doesn’t specify which style it’s using
Evaluation Criteria: From Cornell: Accuracy, Authority, Objectivity, Currency, Coverage
Quiz: No
Rating: Okay, too general and institution specific
Learning Objectives:
History of information creation, use, and storage
Overview of social, political, ethical, and biological contexts of information
Similarities and differences of networks and hierarchies and how these relate to information systems.
Content Sequence:
Though more and more of what we read and research comes to us online there also seems to be a sense that looking up things online is “lazy” while looking them up in a book isn’t. But if you take a little step back and consider what was going on in the middle ages and Renaissance, you realize that a book (especially a printed book as opposed to a handwritten manuscript) is itself a technology. And people complained about how it made people lazy, because they didn’t have to remember things and could look them up.
Then book technology got more advanced, and books began to be printed with indexes (before this, people would usually write their own for each book they owned if they wanted one). More complaints about laziness–you didn’t have to remember anything, or even go through the book carefully to make your own index! You could just look it up without any trouble!
Is the shift to looking things up online that radically different from the shift to looking things up at all, or looking them up with a pre-compiled index? Is it inherently lazier? If so, what seems to you to be the big distinction? I’m curious to hear where some of you stand on this.
I think this video makes the point really well, so let’s begin this discussion with it.
Middle Ages Tech Support: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRBIVRwvUeE
Technological innovations didn’t begin with computers. Books are a technology too. Though things have never changed as quickly as they do now, new mediums of information storage and dissemination are typically met with some suspicion and resistance, as this humorous little video shows.
Alex Wright, “Networks and Hierarchies” in Glut: Mastering Information Through the Ages: (pdf attached in Blackboard)
This reading gives us a framework for understanding how information is created, shared (or not shared), and used. Networks and hierarchies are two ways of considering the relationship of individuals and societies with the information they generate; either in a centralized top-down hierarcharchal way or a loosely associated bottom-up decentralized way. Wright suggests these modes extend far beyond our current digital era way back to the earliest human societies and even into other complex forms of life. There may be something genetic or epigenetic about our capacity to create and control information. As with biological life and human cultures, information systems too evolve into increasingly more complex forms.
History of Information: http://giic.ucsd.edu/historyofinfo.php
A brief timeline of some significant points in the evolution of information systems.
Discussion Questions:
Instructions: Choose and respond to any one of the following questions. Also respond to a post for a different question than the one you chose.
1. Hopefully these videos and readings will help you begin to consider information and technology in a broader sense than you may be used to doing. Information is not synonymous with technology and technology is not synonymous with digital gadgets or even machines. As the medieval book parody humorously shows, at one point in history books were a radical new technology and were greeted with much the same suspicion and disdain that new technologies today get (think of text messaging or chatting and how many self-proclaimed protectors of Proper Written English think they are the death knell of writing). Can you think of any other examples of new technologies which when they are introduced to a society at large cause an unsettling, a disturbance or damage that some think is irreperable? Is this always the case?
2. Though their cries of alarm may be hasty overgeneralizations, curmudgeons and Luddites (Luddites are vehemently anti-technology people) do have a point: new communication mediums do displace social conventions and habits and something unique and intrinsically valuable may be lost as we transition from one platform to another. For example, when was the last time you sat down and wrote a nice handwritten letter to your grandmother or some other loved one? The time it takes to sit down and do this, the particular quality of your handwriting, the look of ink on stationary paper, all these nice tangible qualities are completely absent from the email most of us would use for such a communication now. Do you think the medium through which we communicate has any effect on how we communicate, on what and how we say it? Is there a significant difference, for instance, between texting somebody and calling them? What is lost or gained in such transitions?
3. In discussing networks and hierarchies (see page 7 of the reading for his definitions and examples), Wright is careful not to play favorites. It’s not like networks are always good and hierarchies always bad or vice versa. Rather, networks and hierarchies are two distinct but often overlapping ways in which people interact and share information, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Choose one of the terms below and briefly describe a few ways in which it functions like a network and like a hierarchy.
A college classroom
A family
The military
A work environment
A church
The internet
4. Wright also talks about the close tie between information and affects or emotions. When something means something to us personally we remember it better and keep better track of it. Can you think of any examples of when an otherwise neutral piece of information could be very important to a person? For instance, you hear about studies and drugs and treatments for cancer in the news all the time but it isn’t until a close family member is diagnosed with cancer that you start to really pay attention to these things. Or say you are poor college student up to your ears in student loans, those same ears are likely to perk up when you hear about a debt forgiveness program for people who work in public service jobs. Or even simpler, say you have a friend in Vermont, you see on the weather channel that VT is getting lots of snow this weekend, you may remember that little tidbit because of your friend whereas otherwise it would have been just another factoid you don’t even notice.
This learning unit will introduce you to:
- History of information creation, use, and storage
- Overview of social, political, and ethical contexts of information
Fun video on the complexities and delights of information seeking in the digital age.
Technological innovations didn’t begin with computers. Books are a technology too. Though things have never changed as quickly as they do now, new mediums of information storage and dissemination are typically met with some suspicion and resistance, as this humorous little video shows.
Read this article: Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Discussion Questions:
1. Hopefully these videos and readings will help you begin to consider information and technology in a broader sense than you may be used to doing. Information is not synonymous with technology and technology is not synonymous with digital gadgets or even machines. As the Carr article argues and the medieval book parody humorously shows, at one point in history books were a radical new technology and were greeted with much the same suspicion and disdain that new technologies today get (think of text messaging or chatting and how many self-proclaimed protectors of Proper Written English think they are the death knell of writing). Can you think of any other examples of new technologies which when they are introduced to a society at large cause an unsettling, a disturbance or damage that some think is irreparable? Is this always the case?
2. Though their cries of alarm may be hasty overgeneralizations, curmudgeons and Luddites do have a point: new communication mediums do displace social conventions and habits and something unique and intrinsically valuable may be lost as we transition from one platform to another. For example, when was the last time you sat down and wrote a nice handwritten letter to your grandmother or some other loved one? The time it takes to sit down and do this, the particular quality of your handwriting, the look of ink on stationary paper, all these nice tangible qualities are completely absent from the email most of us would use for such a communication now. Do you think the medium through which we communicate has any effect on how we communicate, on what and how we say it? Is there a significant difference, for instance, between texting somebody and calling them? What is lost or gained in such transitions?
3. The Google article suggests there are different types of reading. There is old fashioned “deep reading”, sitting down with a long novel for hours, getting wholly absorbed in one thing and then there is “power browsing”, skimming, quickly moving from page to page, getting the basic idea and moving on but never deeply reading any one thing. Consider your own reading habits [or lack thereof 
]. Do you think the internet causes you to read more or less? Do you feel the hyperlinked nature of the web makes it harder for you to sit down and concentrate on one thing long enough to really understand it? Is that kind of sustained attention even necessary anymore?
4. The article also mentions the effect new technologies have on memory and attention. The trend seems to be that the more technology advances the less we have to rely on our memories and the more apt we are to be distracted. What might be some advantages and disadvantages of these changes? How does it change the way we gather information and learn?
You can find magazine and journal articles about Pharaohs through the library’s databases:
Library > Databases > Pre-College > Junior Editions > Search for “pharaohs” or specific pharaohs like “Hatshepsut”
You can also check out these websites:
http://www.akhet.co.uk/clikmumm.htm
Click around on the scary mummy for icky stuff they would do to preserve bodies. Ew.
http://www.neferchichi.com/pharaohs.html
Summary and timeline of pharoahs and dynasties.
http://www.neferchichi.com/ml_curse.html
Funny mad-lib pharoah story, ahahahhAHAhahha!!
http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20in%20ancient%20egypt.htm
A site about the ladies of ancient Egypt.
… and lots more from this directory. Do you know what a directory is?
As you have probably experienced, it seems like you can find just about anything on the web these days. While this is not completely accurate, it is true you can find a great variety of types and quality of information on the internet. How to make sense of it all? How can you tell if what you find is from a reliable source and if it is appropriate to use for academic purposes in a paper or class presentation? How can you tell when it is okay to use something you find online as a source and when you should use a library database? Unfortunately there is no simple answer or rule that will always apply here. You can sometimes find some amazing things online and we are indeed fortunate to have access to so much and such varied information. But just as often it is all too easy to get lost, confused, or frustrated when what seems like a simple question or fact you need proves difficult to find. One key distinction that may be of use here is the difference between popular and scholarly sources.
This chart gives you some basic characteristics of popular and scholarly sources. Keep in mind this is more of a continuum than a strict either/or. Often times a source could be both popular and scholarly, or more popular but with some scholarly elements or vice versa. Still these are basic features you can look for.
Popular_Scholarly_Chart
The reason this is important, especially when you’re searching the open web, is that you can find both popular and scholarly (or mixed) sources on the web. If you can identify whether something is more popular or scholarly, you will have a better sense of whether it may be appropriate to use for a class (or whatever information need you may have)– no matter whether you find it from a Google search, in a library database, a print book, or wherever. Sometimes well-meaning professors will tell you that you can’t use the internet, that you have to actually go to the library and find an actual book or print journal article. This may a useful exercise in itself –oftentimes you really do have to track the paper copy of a book or article. Probably what they really intend is for you to find a scholarly source. But the problem is you can’t do research these days without using the internet in some way. You can find scholarly material on the internet; you can find books, journal articles, statistics, government reports, all sorts of entirely authoritative, valid, and valuable material. You can find full fledged scholarly journal articles, you can find very informative and well designed websites for the general reader which are solidly supported by research. You can find many sites which are useful but sometimes of dubious quality or authority (such as wikipedia). Then of course there are the tetrabytes of blogs, social networking sites, and advertising or commercial sites. These are almost always more popular.
In general, it is easier and quicker to find more scholarly material through the library’s databases rather than the open internet. Yes, you use the internet to access the library’s databases, but as you have probably already seen you have to login to most of the library’s databases because these are not freely accessible to the general public. You may be curious why this is so. Why isn’t all information freely and openly available to all? The answer would lead us into a whole other area of information literacy dealing with copyright and intellectual property laws (which we may touch on later in the semester).
To sum up: Information comes in all sorts of packages. It can come in a print book, a website, a magazine, a television news story, a journal article from a library database, a DVD, and so on. No matter how it comes to you it can be more popular or more scholarly. So there are popular books and scholarly books, there are popular websites and scholarly websites; same thing with journals, magazines, DVDs. Some sources may contain elements of both. One is not “good” and the other “bad”, it depends on what you need or what is required for a given assignment.
 |
Stan wants to start his paper on technology with a definition of it. But when he starts to do this he realizes he isn’t exactly sure how to technically define it so he Googles it. Wikipedia gives him this:
“Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, system or methods of organization.”
He begins his paper with this sentence:
Technology, by definition, is the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organizations. This usage, though is being taken advantage of by society. People forget that technology’s role is “to be used” and are allowing technology to “use” them.
Stan did put “by definition” into the sentence, but it is clearly lifted from Wikipedia. He did not cite it as a quote or a paraphrase (probably because he has been told over and over that Wikipedia is an unacceptable source), so it is doubly problematic. This is a clear case of plagiarism.
How could Stan have avoided plagiarism? One easy way would be to put the quote in quotation marks and cite the source. If he didn’t want to use Wikipedia, he could look it up in a more credible source such as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED, available through the library databases) or any number of other free online dictionaries. What would be even better, though, would be to create his own definition.
Something like this, the definition of a commonly used word or concept, will usually be what is sometimes called common knowledge. Common knowledge is stuff like two hydrogens and one oxygen make water, George Washington was the first president of the United States, and the moon orbits the earth. Things most people who have at least a grade school education know are common knowledge.
It can be difficult to tell whether something is common knowledge, but a good rule of thumb is if you look it up and see it uncited in several different sources then it probably is. If this is the case, one thing you can do is paraphrase these multiple sources. For instance, if I Google “define: technology,” I get these definitions:
• the practical application of science to commerce or industry
• engineering: the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems; “he had trouble deciding which branch of engineering to study”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, and crafts, or is systems or methods of organization, or is a material product (such as clothing) of these things. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology
• Technology is the first album of the melodic death metal band Crimson Death. It was recorded in 2001, but due to financial problems of the record label it was released in 2004 by Mythic Metal Productions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_(album)
• the study of or a collection of techniques; a particular technological concept; the body of tools and other implements produced by a given society
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/technology
• technological – based in scientific and industrial progress; “a technological civilization”
• technological – technical: of or relating to a practical subject that is organized according to scientific principles; “technical college”; “technological development”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
First, Stan should read through these and try to get a sense of what they all have in common. Also, obviously, he will need to disregard definitions that are irrelevant to the task at hand (sorry, Crimson Death). Maybe he could even jot down commonly used words. He sees “application” and “use” as well as “science,” “knowledge,” and “industry” used in almost all the definitions. Next, Stan looks away or walks away from the screen for a few minutes and tries to explain to himself what he just read and tried to understand. He imagines he is describing it to someone else. How would he explain it to a friend if it came up in a conversation? After mulling this over for awhile, he returns to the screen or the notebook and tries out his own definition. He uses some of the same key words (“application,” “science,” etc.) but the tone and way he explains it are distinctly his. He comes up with this:
Technology is the application of scientific knowledge to human uses.
His definition might not be as detailed and scholarly sounding but at least it is his and furthermore it overlaps enough with those other definitions to hold up and make sense. He doesn’t need to cite it because it is common knowledge and anyone questioning his definition could look it up themselves and see that it is basically correct. In addition, putting it in his own words makes the rest of the argument he wants to make in the paper go easier since he can tailor the definition to fit the argument he wants to make. For instance, by putting “human uses” into his definition, he can go on to argue that technology can go awry and instead begin to use humans.
Stan has avoided plagiarism by synthesizing several sources of common knowledge. He won’t be marked down for using Wikipedia, he will appear 20% smarter to his instructor, and he has done his daily duty of learning to think for himself.
ACRL notes on IL for faculty and administrators. Information literacy curriculum should include different kinds of literacy: tool literacy, resource literacy, social-structure literacy, research literacy, and publishing literacy. We should be identifying classes in which these kinds of literacy are already being touched on and embellish them. For instance, tool literacy has to do with the mechanics of using software, which I believe is covered in CIS100-Computer Literacy. So we need to explore, what are the learning outcomes there, can we bring them into dialogue with IL at a more integrated level?
Resource literacy: “the ability to understand the form, format, location and methods for accessing information services”. Seems like what INFL100 is basically trying to do. Maybe maintain the class in a different form that really just focuses on this resource literacy. Our plan for the embedded integration may be weak on this point, since they just get resource literacy in the context of a particular assignment (English) and not really a general sense of the range of resources available.
Social-structural literacy: “Knowledge of how information is socially situated and produced. It includes understanding the scholarly publishing process.” This is higher level, junior and senior UG, I would say. The publishing cycle is different in different disciplines and would make the most sense to be really covered when students undertake the first major-related research project.
Research literacy: “The ability to understand and use information technology tools to carry out research, including the use of discipline-related software and online resources.” This seems very similar to resource literacy… but perhaps more in depth and something that goes in tandem with social-structural.
Publishing literacy: “The ability to produce a text or multimedia report of research results.” I guess this would be related to standard 4: Use.
The problem with this kind of sub-literacies approach is the same that dogs IL itself; they really need to go together as a cohesive whole. It is difficult to pull one out and approach it in isolation. Nevertheless, we can identify components and address them individually while keeping the notion of analysis on a broad front in mind.
Click full screen for best viewing
New feature in the Piper online catalog combines your love of texting and your love of quickly finding books in the stacks. Look for this option in the right hand column of the Piper record:
Text Call Number
For this essay you need to critique one of the issues Turkle discusses in her essay. In addition to looking for logical flaws or weaknesses in her argument, you need to find a couple of outside sources to back you up. I will show you how to access and search for these sources in one of the library’s databases called Points of View. This quick screencast video will show you how to get into the Points of View databse. (The path is: http://library.lmunet.edu > Databases > A-Z list > Points of View Connect)
Accessing Points of View database.
As you have probably already discussed in class, when you have a broad topic like this, you need to narrow it down to bring it into a more manageable focus. There are lots of ways you can do this. One would be to look at the sections of Turkle’s essay and just jot down the main themes: Privacy, avatars, PowerPoint, Word Processing, interfaces, simulation. Do any of these immediately appeal to you or arouse your curiosity? That’s a great place to start!
Sometimes it helps to look at something else to get the ideas flowing. Turkle’s essay itself is one thing you can look at. Another thing to look at would be some of the literature about computers and technology, what do other people think about some of these things and how can you find some of the books and articles they are written in. This database, Points of View, is designed to help students in your situation. You have a broad topic you have to narrow down and then take up a position which you will persuasively argue. Most of the topics in this database will give you a general overview of an issue, then give supporting and opposing viewpoints of it. In addition, it will lead you to other sources such as journal and magazine articles about the issue. You should use this database to find the 1 or 2 sources you will use to support your argument in your paper.
You can do this in a couple of different ways. You could pick one of the broad categories on the front page, such as Internet and follow some of the suggested issues listed there.
Or you could do a search for a basic term such as interface or avatars and see what kinds of results you get. If you do this you may need to further refine your search. One good and easy way to do this is to look at the suggested subjects in the left column. For instance, if you search the term “interface” some of the suggested subjects are COMPUTER software and COMPUTER programs, which is probably what you want in this case rather than UNITED States. Dept. of Defense which is also listed here.
Hopefully one of these issues you looked at will be something you can devote yourself to for this paper. If not, keep looking! Next, you must find a related article you can use as a source for your paper. If you started searching from the broad categories on the home page of the database, you probably found a set of articles that give an overview and a point and counterpoint. These are great to look at to get the basic idea and an overview of the different positions on a given topic, but don’t use these for your sources. Instead, take a look at the tabs across the top, where it says All Results, Points of View, Periodicals, Newspapers, and so on. Click on periodicals. Periodicals are things like magazines, newspapers, and scholarly journals – anything that comes out periodically (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.). You want to select one of these for your source. (This is covered in the above screencast video).
A couple of words on using sources. Good use of a source involves more than just picking out a quote or two that you can throw into your essay somehow. What you really want to do is find an article whose main substance or idea ties in with the position you are trying to take in your own paper. For instance, you could find a quote such as “these days, more and more young people use social networking sites such as Facebook to communicate with each other” in many different articles. This is just a statement of a basic fact, quoting something at this general level doesn’t enhance your argument in any way. Instead look for what the author has to say about Facebook use; do they think it is a good thing? Why? Or maybe the author is arguing online social networking fundamentally changes the way people relate, or that it doesn’t at all, that actual physical contact with people is still the most important thing. If this relates to what you are trying to argue, this would probably be a good source. But if your argument is going in a completely different direction, don’t just pull out a quote for the sake of having a source. Try to find a source whose arguments or points your own paper to support your position.
This site has some web evaluation forms you can have students use when evaluating web sites:
http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/eval.htm
Another:
Instructions:
URL:
Accuracy: Is the site free of basic grammatical errors? Does it contain factual errors? Are there any references? Can the information be verified by other sources?
Rating (1= not very accurate 5= very accurate):
1 2 3 4 5 n/a
(if n/a count as 5 in your final tally)
Credibility: Who is responsible for the website? What are their credentials? Are their credentials relevant to the content?Is there a sponsoring organization and are their credentials relevant to the site’s content?
Rating (1=not very credible 5=very credible):
1 2 3 4 5 n/a
(if n/a count as 5 in your final tally)
Objectivity: Does a business or political organization sponsor the site? If so, what is their political affiliation?Who do they link to and what are their viewpoints? Is there any advertising?
Rating (1=not very objective 5=objective)
1 2 3 4 5 n/a
(if n/a count as 5 in your final tally)
Currency: When was the site last updated? Are the links still working? Is the information on the site up-to-date?
Rating (1=not current 5=current):
1 2 3 4 5 n/a
(if n/a count as 5 in your final tally)
Scope of Coverage: How deeply does the site cover the topic? Does it provide information not available elsewhere? Is there a target audience and is this appropriate to your needs?
Rating (1=inadequate scope 5=adequate scope):
1 2 3 4 5 n/a
(if n/a count as 5 in your final tally)
Stability: How long has the site existed? Is it regularly updated? Is it sponsored by a reputable organization committed to financing it?
Rating (1=inadequate scope 5=adequate scope):
1 2 3 4 5 n/a
(if n/a count as 5 in your final tally)
Add up your ratings. How does this site score?
1-14 ________ Do not use
15-24 ________ May be okay, but consider finding a better source
25-30 ________ Acceptable source
Popular or Scholarly?
Overall, would you rate this website as more popular (1) or more scholary (5)?
Rating:
1 2 3 4 5
C:\Users\philip.smith\Desktop\jings\vids\Wiki_Tutorial_1.swf