Une suggestion de lecture (merci à Edith Ackermann):
Search vs. Research
Or, the Fear of The Wikipedia Overcome by
New Understanding for a Digital Era
de Marc Prensky
ici en PDF
et voici quelques citations, pour donner l’envie de lire:
“As soon as any new technology comes down the pike, be it TV, phones, cell
phones, cameras, video cams, or the Wikipedia, the good old American school
tradition is always ready…
… to fear and ban it!
Never mind that new technologies give our kids access to whole new worlds- they may not worlds the teachers can control. Never mind that with cameras in their phones kids can collect and share visual data of all sorts, from their own faces to natural phenomena-someone might take a picture in the toilet. Never mind that kids have access to the Internet in their pocket-they might
cheat. Never mind that we can finally, at no cost via webcams, share with parents, administrators and the world what goes on in our classrooms- someone’s privacy (particularly the teacher’s!) might be invaded.
Others have written about how TV and land-line telephones were systematically excluded from American classrooms. For all the speed withwhich we’ve introduced computers for every student into our schools, we’ve effectively, up to this point, banned them as well. I’ve written elsewhere of
the folly of banning cell phones from our kid’s education (see “What Can You Learn from A Cell Phone? - Almost Anything!” at http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=83 .
But now the latest absurdity I’ve been hearing about is banning kids from citing-or even looking at-the Wikipedia-one of the most innovative and far-reaching products to come down the pike in a while-because it might not be as correct or accurate as a traditional encyclopedia written by paid
experts.
If that’s our criterion for what kids can read and cite, we’d better re-think kids’ access to the Bible!
“So, one beginning lesson for students using Wikipedia is to look at the number of changes and additions to a particular article and the number of authors. More may mean more reliable information
But of course it’s not that simple. Because information contains points of view. Was the Battle of Gettysburg a great, nation-saving event, a humiliating defeat, or just a bloody massacre? Is the 2005 war in Iraq an attempt to liberate a people, an attempt to further a political system, or a thinly-disguised protection of American oil interests? Were Pearl Harbor and 9/11 vile, sneak attacks. or brilliant military maneuvers? Is evolution “the” answer or “an” answer? To address this the Wikipedia has established a “neutral point of view” policy, asking that all points of view be included and all sides of an issue discussed. This is not always easy, but it may include more information than an article by an expert, whose point of view might not be so obvious. (Again, a good topic for class discussion: Review some traditional encyclopedia articles on the topics listed above. Are all the points of view represented?) So, other than to count the number of authors in an article, what should we teach our kids about Wikipedia? First, that it’s a source. Second, that it’s never the only source. And third, that merely searching, finding and citing the Wikipedia-or even the Brittanica-does not constitute “research,” even by an elementary school kid. Students need to be taught early to cross check information, to consult multiple sources, and to go to, read and cite original documents and sources,
where they exist. Especially in this time and political climate, students must be taught not to necessarily believe what they hear or read-even from so-called ‘experts,”-but to always look for additional, corroborating sources. (By the way, that’s the “re” in research.)”
Alors, bonne lecture!
Elena