Jamie McKenzie's Essential Question

In 1998 Jamie McKenzie wrote, "It is a foolish waste of technology, money, and information power to assign information-gathering, topical research projects... Student research should focus upon essential questions." The point is not that information-gathering is bad, but that this should not be the the assignment. In the workplace, technology tools help us find and analyze information, communicate and collaborate with colleagues, and synthesize and present our findings. Information-gathering is just step 1 in this process. Why do we so often ask students to only do this step? ...and we accept a PowerPoint or paper drawn from a few web sites as evidence of "learning." What about using a spreadsheet to analyze, graph, and compellingly display your information? ...or emailing experts to gather their opinions? ...or storing your information in a database for ease of manipulation and reporting? Our students are becoming adept at displaying a shallow veneer of learning. Don't get me wrong-- this is the same style of learning as 30 years ago when I was in elementary school with no computers. The point is that classroom information and communication technologies increase the chances that students may pursue a deeper level of learning.

It's All About Meta-Data

I like reading the New York Times while eating breakfast. I'd consider getting it on paper if 1) someone would be willing to drive all the way up my driveway and bring it to my kitchen door; 2) it didn't cost anything; and 3) someone would come and take it away when I'm done with it. Given the impossibility of these 3 requests I will continue to be grateful for the free online version. I wonder how long it will continue to be free. Can advertising support it? I doubt it. Seems to me the Times is just trying to build market-share or get people hooked before they start charging. [It's working.] Several other large newspapers also provide free access.

Anyway, that's not the point of this entry; what I want to talk about is the "Top 25 Emailed Articles [in past 24 hours]." This is one of my favorite things on the web. It's all about meta-data. Just like amazon.com ranks books by sales, newspapers are ranking articles by how many readers choose to email those articles to other people. I'm guessing that writers at the Times smirk in jubilation if their work makes it onto the top 25 list. I know I would. The Times is way too big to surf through on a daily basis. It's fairly daunting in paper too; that's why the top 25 list is so cool-- you're saved the work of surfing all over the paper to find the most interesting articles, simply click the link to the top 25 and find out what the rest of the world considered interesting enough to email to friends and colleagues.

Do you notice how the advertising on the Times site is so much more visually interesting than the articles? Maybe advertising will actually support the free online paper for awhile. On the other hand, what happens when multimedia news content starts to get as visually appealing as the ads?