Dear Students,
Given the short supply of that most precious of all resources (time), I will start with a summary of links to tools and discussion items for those that would like to explore without reading through the explanations and context that I've embedded them with. Besides, if it's not relevant in the first few sentences Andrew told me he deletes the email.
I was recently reminded of the importance of proper searching in Google. As I move through the day with my CDS (Caffeine Delivery System), occasionally someone will make the mistake of trying to claim that aspartame is dangerous, on the basis of some questionable website that informed them that aspartame is a 'chemical' and there exists a vast conspiracy to hide its toxic effects.
The problem is that when people (and of course I) search with something like Google, the most common way to use it is with simple search terms, i.e. "aspartame toxicity". The first page to pop up after such a simple search is one selling a book, and is a well-known contributor to conspiracy theories about aspartame toxicity. When distinguishing between fact
and fiction
, the most popular sites given by a simple search are often the least reliable.
Alan
November
mentioned using the "site:" command on Google to help eliminate unreliable search results. For example typing "site:.gov OR site:.edu aspartame" selects only websites that contain the word "aspartame" from either U.S. government sites (such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health) and educational sites from universities and schools (also in the U.S. - Canadian universities don't have a similar URL that can be used as a search criteria). The results give a completely different picture of aspartame. One the first page there is a link to the chemical formula and its history, several sites mentioning, and then debunking, the aspartame conspiracy/toxicity myth. Since using this method removes the .com's, the .net's and the .org's - all of which can be bought by anybody, for any reason. Lots of good sites are removed as well, but using this as a 'first search' helps pinpoint the reliable information first, before going to a more general search. Such search techniques save valuable time, as less time is spend sorting through credible and non-credible information. This search example uses the "OR" command, which means it retrieves resources from either government or education sites - for a narrower search (such as only searching educational site) the "OR" command and the other search criteria can be omitted.
Google has a lot of useful methods to distinguish and refine the information you're looking for. In Biology 12 class some students forgot their textbooks and needed definitions while working on a worksheet. Rather than retrieving their textbook, they used the "define:" command in Google. Typing "define: androgens" returns a list of possible definitions from multiple sources - a quick read reveals to the student that this is a general term referring to male steroid sex hormones. I think I prefer this method over the "The Textbook
" gives multiple definitions, different nuances, and highlights that it's the concept, and not the exact sequence of words, that's important.
In the same class a comment arose about sugar intake in children and its positive correlation to hyperactivity - a belief long held by teachers and tired parents everywhere. Rather than using the previously mentioned "site:" command, we checked directly using "Google Scholar". Typing "sugar behavior children" into Google Scholar immediately returns relevant results, with the most recent studies first. The first link is a meta-study debunking the sugar-hyperactivity myth. Of course not everyone is trained to know the difference between good studies and bad studies, double-blind and proper controls, but at least with this search you're in the right ballpark for seeking truth, even if it ends up in left field somewhere. Compared with a general Google search for "sugar behavior children", which does have both good and bad results on the first page, but the very first result is an author selling a book and a disease model of 'sugar sensitivity' to worried parents. Google Scholar is an excellent resource for research project, again saving time that would be otherwise spent trying to determine if a website is a reliable source of information or not.
If you're doing a project or presentation that involves a particular location, say for Social Studies or history, Google Earth has some nice tricks. Google Earth has the capability to put an overlay of a battle, building, or historical map. Being able to zoom in to a current location, and then overlay older images to give context to historical events would make any presentation much more relevant. You can download and install Google Earth here : http://earth.google.com/intl/
Another resource to impress your Socials teacher - the CBC archives : http://archives.cbc.ca/ . Keeping with the world war theme, I listened to a radio broadcast from April 7, 1945, a Canadian reporter 
gives an account of the atrocities from a camp Canadian troops captured the day before.
Serendipitously four other possible Social Studies sites were tweeted in the past week. The history site for Veterans Affairs Canada (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/
This brings up the possibility of directing students to include searches that specifically search the Canadian government's website for information using the "site:gc.ca" command on Google.
For example, what reliable information does our government provide on the Vietnam war? Google search site:.gc.ca vietnam war . I've found both the Canadian and American government site searches (.gc.ca & .gov respectively) give a lot of excellent scholarly and reliable information. Stuck looking for a Canadian perspective that you can't find on the web? I'd try this first.
I couldn't leave without at least one technology tool devoted to science: http://learn.genetics.utah.
For discussion there is a NYT article titled "Teaching About Web Includes Troublesome Parts" suggests rather than shielding students from the Internet teachers should be educating. As well a blog article "Oh my! Twitter makes history for Google search" commenting on the fact that the Library of Congress is going to archive every public Twitter comment made, right back to its inception in 2006, and Google is also going to make all comments searchable. As an archive for history and posterity, there is a wealth of data.
I remember when it was announced that ice was found on Mars. How was this news first announced? TV, Newspaper, or blog? None of the above - it was tweeted from the Twitter account of the Mars Phoenix Lander directly (sadly, the little guy seems to have died). From breaking news to marriage proposals, our collective Tweets are being saved for posterity. It's likely that when your kids are in school they will study 'famous tweets' in much the same way we study 'famous speeches' today.
Regards,
Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School
Given the short supply of that most precious of all resources (time), I will start with a summary of links to tools and discussion items for those that would like to explore without reading through the explanations and context that I've embedded them with. Besides, if it's not relevant in the first few sentences Andrew told me he deletes the email.
- Searching within a domain such as education (.edu) or government (.gov) - using the "site:" search function.
- Using Google for definitions.
- Google Scholar
- There is no 4.
- Google Earth
- World War Battle sites for Google Earth
- CBC Archives
- Searching Canadian government sites with site:gc.ca
- Demonstrating scale.
- Teaching About Web Includes Troublesome Parts
- Oh my! Twitter makes history for Google search
- Library of Congress archiving Twitter
- Google making Twitter searchable
The problem is that when people (and of course I) search with something like Google, the most common way to use it is with simple search terms, i.e. "aspartame toxicity". The first page to pop up after such a simple search is one selling a book, and is a well-known contributor to conspiracy theories about aspartame toxicity. When distinguishing between fact
and fiction, the most popular sites given by a simple search are often the least reliable. November mentioned using the "site:" command on Google to help eliminate unreliable search results. For example typing "site:.gov OR site:.edu aspartame" selects only websites that contain the word "aspartame" from either U.S. government sites (such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health) and educational sites from universities and schools (also in the U.S. - Canadian universities don't have a similar URL that can be used as a search criteria). The results give a completely different picture of aspartame. One the first page there is a link to the chemical formula and its history, several sites mentioning, and then debunking, the aspartame conspiracy/toxicity myth. Since using this method removes the .com's, the .net's and the .org's - all of which can be bought by anybody, for any reason. Lots of good sites are removed as well, but using this as a 'first search' helps pinpoint the reliable information first, before going to a more general search. Such search techniques save valuable time, as less time is spend sorting through credible and non-credible information. This search example uses the "OR" command, which means it retrieves resources from either government or education sites - for a narrower search (such as only searching educational site) the "OR" command and the other search criteria can be omitted.Google has a lot of useful methods to distinguish and refine the information you're looking for. In Biology 12 class some students forgot their textbooks and needed definitions while working on a worksheet. Rather than retrieving their textbook, they used the "define:" command in Google. Typing "define: androgens" returns a list of possible definitions from multiple sources - a quick read reveals to the student that this is a general term referring to male steroid sex hormones. I think I prefer this method over the "The Textbook
" gives multiple definitions, different nuances, and highlights that it's the concept, and not the exact sequence of words, that's important.gives an account of the atrocities from a camp Canadian troops captured the day before.Pausing before a brick wall splattered with blood and brains, the CBC's Matthew Halton tells Canadians back home about the atrocities committed by the Nazis. A day after Canadian troops capture a Nazi camp near Zutphen, Netherlands, Halton visits the site. He describes a trail of "slime and abominable crime," reporting that the worst thing you've ever read in any account of Nazi atrocities was there: "I saw and I was sick."
Serendipitously four other possible Social Studies sites were tweeted in the past week. The history site for Veterans Affairs Canada (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/
This brings up the possibility of directing students to include searches that specifically search the Canadian government's website for information using the "site:gc.ca" command on Google.
For example, what reliable information does our government provide on the Vietnam war? Google search site:.gc.ca vietnam war . I've found both the Canadian and American government site searches (.gc.ca & .gov respectively) give a lot of excellent scholarly and reliable information. Stuck looking for a Canadian perspective that you can't find on the web? I'd try this first.
For discussion there is a NYT article titled "Teaching About Web Includes Troublesome Parts" suggests rather than shielding students from the Internet teachers should be educating. As well a blog article "Oh my! Twitter makes history for Google search" commenting on the fact that the Library of Congress is going to archive every public Twitter comment made, right back to its inception in 2006, and Google is also going to make all comments searchable. As an archive for history and posterity, there is a wealth of data.
Regards,
Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment