Lecturer bans students from using Google and Wikipedia.

[Bruce Lindfield]

From my local paper today :

Professor Tara Brabazon, from the University of Brighton, said too many young people around the world were taking the easy option when asked to do research and simply repeating the first things they found on internet searches.

She has dubbed the phenomenon "The University of Google".

Prof Brabazon said: "The education world has pursued new technology with an almost evangelical zeal and it is time to take a step back and give proper consideration of how we use it.

"Too many students don't use their own brains enough. We need to bring back the important values of research and analysis."

She said thousands of students across the country, including those at the universities of Brighton and Sussex, were churning out banal and mediocre work by using what search engines provided them.

Prof Brabazon, a media studies specialist with a background in history and literature, said: "It is down to institutions to prevent this from happening. It is not good for anybody.

"I don't think students come to university to learn how to use Google. They can all do that before they get here.

"It is an easy way out for tutors to let them work to their own devices using search engines.

"People have to pay to come to university now and what they are paying for is the knowledge, experience and guidance of people like myself.

"There is a school of thinking that it should be about them directing their own learning but I think giving guidance is crucial.

"I ban my students from using Google, Wikipedia and other websites like that. I give them a reading list to work from and expect them to cite a good number of them in any work they produce."

She said young people were finishing education with shallow ideas and needed to learn interpretative skills before starting to use technology.

Prof Brabazon, who previously worked in Australia and New Zealand, said declining libraries were contributing to the problem.

She said: "I want students to sit down and read. It's not the same when you read it online. I want them to experience the pages and the print as much as the digitisation and the pixels. Both are fine but I want them to have both, not one or the other, not a cheap solution."

She will be giving a lecture on the issue, called Google Is White Bread For The Mind, at the Sallis Benney Theatre in Grand Parade, Brighton, on Wednesday at 6.30pm.

Should students be banned from using Google and Wikipedia?

[Matt_W]

Wiki and google are good for a starting point, but nothing beats libraries and academic databases. I know I would have failed if I tried to cite Wikipedia as a reference in any of my essays....and I was doing a photography degree.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Should students be banned from using Google and Wikipedia?

I plugged this into Google answers and the answer is: No.

[TheDarkReaver]

the tutors at my uni won't allow you to reference wikipedia, as it's an inaccurate source of information.

however, there is an academic version of google that searches academic sources etc.

[Bruce Lindfield]

I think it's an important debate here, as it has been established that apart from debates about accuracy Wiki is more than 90% sourced from the US and as Europeans we are getting an inherently biased view...?

Although the basic principle of using one source and one search engine that has its own bias, is valid anywhere.

[Ad Nauseam]

Most all internet information should be crossed referenced or at the very least taken with a grain of salt.

That being said, I motion to edit Tara Brabazon's wikipedia page to say she was consumed by a 400lb hamster just the other day.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Go for it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Brabazon

[heroincredible]

No I don't think they should be banned from using google or wikipedia. It is sometimes blatantly obvious that they used those particular search engines and they should be graded accordingly.

I think the whole time I've been in university I've gone to the library once to do research. Everything else I use the research databases provided by the library's website (requires you to log in using your ID card). Being a sociology major, many of my courses have had us do a mandatory session where we go to the library and learn how to properly use the online research databases for any research that we have to do.

[Mark Latimour]

Why is a book written on paper inherrently more trustworthy source than something published on the internet? Can I not also be inaccurate in a published book?

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

Why is a book written on paper inherrently more trustworthy source than something published on the internet? Can I not also be inaccurate in a published book?

I do believe there is a difference and your question was answered in the article I quoted - which kind of goes to prove the point, as you missed this!!

People tend to skim much more online - they just read headings search for keywords etc.

So here are the relevant parts - made easy for you Mark - like slicing white bread for you :


"I don't think students come to university to learn how to use Google. They can all do that before they get here.

"It is an easy way out for tutors to let them work to their own devices using search engines.

"People have to pay to come to university now and what they are paying for is the knowledge, experience and guidance of people like myself.

"I ban my students from using Google, Wikipedia and other websites like that. I give them a reading list to work from and expect them to cite a good number of them in any work they produce."

She said: "I want students to sit down and read. It's not the same when you read it online. I want them to experience the pages and the print as much as the digitisation and the pixels. Both are fine but I want them to have both, not one or the other, not a cheap solution."

[IanStephenson]

Both are amazing resources (Wikipedia has been shown by independant studies to be as accurate as Britanica!!) - the point of the article is that relying on one resource, and neglecting other (often, but not always better) resources is a mistake. I doubt any serious researcher would advocate NEVER using the internet, but this is being set as an EXERCISE for the students. As such I think it's a good exercise. If you've ever marked a student project report you'll find that EVERY reference is just a website - even when you know there's a book which would have told them everything they need to know in the library, they probably haven't read it.

It's no different than being told by your bass teacher to stop using pentatonic scales in your solo's. It's not because there's anything inherently wrong with them (they sound great!), but they're an easy, quick fix. If I "couldn't" use them, I'd be forces to engage with some deeper ideas. Once I've broadened my knowledge I'd be free to throw the quick/easy techniques back in again, but I'd be doing so as a conscious choice, not because I don't have other options.

That a good student exercise has been turned into some kind of crusade is just poor journalism.

Ian

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by TheDarkReaver

the tutors at my uni won't allow you to reference wikipedia, as it's an inaccurate source of information.

however, there is an academic version of google that searches academic sources etc.

google Scholar


I have just finished my honours year, and I'll admit, I did use Wiki and Google. Wiki provided a good background knowledge and acted as a good starting place, also, any decent Wiki article tends to have references, which is good, as you then go on to read them, and then the references from those references etc.

Google Scholar was also used alot, it is just a great way to search all the scientific journals!

Why ban something? Because it is new and effective? Nobody tends to accept Wiki pages or general web pages found off google as good references anyway, it is just a great way of getting to useful sources.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by IanStephenson

Both are amazing resources (Wikipedia has been shown by independant studies to be as accurate as Britanica

I think you're missing the point there big-time - so when I did my degree, you would have been laughed at by fellow students if you had used an encyclopedia in your reseach - Sociology was derided as the "Penguin Degree" as you didn't need to read a hardback book!!

The whole point about doing degree-level research is to read original sources and draw your own conclusions, not edited and condensed versions, selected by somebody else!

The fact that I have to spell this out and that anybody would even consider using such a thing at University shows how far standards of education have declined since we got the net!

[FL Knifemaker]

All I can say is I completed my education, pre-internet. Seeing the way my kids do their school assignments these days.........they have it REALLY easy I had to carry books around, read, interpret and write my own words......BY HAND As you guys mentioned it wont be as easy in college but the internet makes high school a breeze.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by FL Knifemaker

All I can say is I completed my education, pre-internet. Seeing the way my kids do their school assignments these days.........they have it REALLY easy I had to carry books around, read, interpret and write my own words......BY HAND

I agree that this makes a big difference - so I can remember writing long essays by hand and before you started writing, you had to have all the facts organised in your head.

Whereas now it is possible for students to just copy and paste parts from anywhere.

I believe that the process of gathering all those facts and arguments in your mind, was a big learning experience, which people today are not getting! And I think you can tell by the decline in writing style of youth today...

Most new recruits that come into my organisation cannot write a clear memo or letter - their communications are garbled and poorly thought-out!

Whereas older people I communicate with, write clearly in well-organised paragraphs .....

[peterbright]

Most cutting edge information is not found in books...the lead time for publication is too great. The web is an excellent source for locating & downloading current information from peer reviewed journals (often at a considerable cost), and everyone performing any type of research needs to know how to use it effectively.

Google & Wikipedia can be useful for free quick overviews and locating general references. They are what they are. I think part of an effective course in research could be a direct comparison of these "low level/general" tools to "higher level/specialized" sources/resources. Compare the quality of the information using both methods.

[tplyons]

I agree with most things said here, however Google and Wikipedia are great sources... to start with. One might provide insight to another point of view, another idea about a topic that one has yet to consider, but farther research should always be done. Likewise, as with any source, ideas should be taken with a grain of salt, context should be considered, and hopefully, the ideas should be able to be backed up in another source.

I'm going through college right now, I constantly grade higher than my classmates? Why? I bust my arse doing papers: researching, organizing, writing, re-writing. Proper grammar is sparse these days and it drives me nuts looking at my peers and their lack of writing skills.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

I do believe there is a difference and your question was answered in the article I quoted - which kind of goes to prove the point, as you missed this!!

People tend to skim much more online - they just read headings search for keywords etc.

So here are the relevant parts - made easy for you Mark - like slicing white bread for you :


"I don't think students come to university to learn how to use Google. They can all do that before they get here.

"It is an easy way out for tutors to let them work to their own devices using search engines.

"People have to pay to come to university now and what they are paying for is the knowledge, experience and guidance of people like myself.

"I ban my students from using Google, Wikipedia and other websites like that. I give them a reading list to work from and expect them to cite a good number of them in any work they produce."

She said: "I want students to sit down and read. It's not the same when you read it online. I want them to experience the pages and the print as much as the digitisation and the pixels. Both are fine but I want them to have both, not one or the other, not a cheap solution."

You didn't read my question. I didn't ask about the difference between two different sources (which doesn't really require an answer, does it?).

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

You didn't read my question.

Yes I did and my point was that you were misreading the article - so it wasn't about the accuracy of sources - which was your assumption, rather than what was actually there!

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by peterbright

Most cutting edge information is not found in books...the lead time for publication is too great. The web is an excellent source for locating & downloading current information from peer reviewed journals (often at a considerable cost), and everyone performing any type of research needs to know how to use it effectively.

Google & Wikipedia can be useful for free quick overviews and locating general references. They are what they are. I think part of an effective course in research could be a direct comparison of these "low level/general" tools to "higher level/specialized" sources/resources. Compare the quality of the information using both methods.

As an actual professor I agree that Google and Wikipedia can be fine sources of information. The problem is that too many students simply google something and write up whatever the search gives them. Students are not learning how to read and judge sources. They are often as likely to quote a hoax or charlatan as they are to quote a leading researcher. Students need to spend time in the library to understand what real information is, and to learn to evaluate the quality of information before them.