A question about the article "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?" The question -- do we buy the argument that Google and other Web 2.0 tools are necessarily pushing us to think broad but not deep. They also push the ideas from Information Behavior and the Research of the Future. I also recommend reading Miler's classic paper, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.
Kirsten brought up the question of does the fact that materials are online, does that make students just "absorb" them and not think about authorship -- they make statements as if they are making those statements. Is this just a studentship thing (learning to annotate things, cite sources, etc.) or do they fundamentally deal with these differently because its online, in these ideas?
"Man Computer Symbiosis", by Lichleiter -- cognition, information literacy.
Mitch brought up the idea of access to information online vs. analysis. The really interesting thing, according to Google, is whether or not computers can start to do analysis for us.
Is there a value to unanswerable questions?
Dawn says, let's define analysis in a broader way, and she thinks that students are really synthesizing information in a very nice way that we should be proud of and learn to understand. She also suggests that Google is overly-represented by white men in the silicon valley.
Muriel says that students should be taught to understand authenticity, and to understand.
Dawn suggests that we should learn to write for newly literate media students, who are really looking for the meat and potatoes of the article.
Jian suggests that he agrees; a new form of writing.
Linda indicates that this may be more of a phenomenon of being able to document what we're doing, rather than an actual shift from what we're doing. That is, that people have always surfed and skimmed, but now we can *demonstrate* what they are doing and record them through the web.
Kate says that she fears that students aren't very good at the questioning piece of this.
Alisa asks if students' confidence in writing comes from the proliferation of user-generated content -- basically, they see a range of online writing, good and poor, and they see that they are better than some of that.
Pam asks if our ideas about what makes something credible.
Phil asks if we are making Google Stupid, rather than just is Google making *us* stupid? He says that Google gathers a lot of data from us and that's what makes Google what Google is.
Kirsten asks if the commercialization of the web will determine what is credible? Mitch says that these things are very important, but that the open-source community offers an alternative.