Google Wave

I was reading an article about the new Google Wave. It is a program that will allow maximum interaction between students and teachers on the Internet. Dennis Carter, Assistant Editor of eSchool News, says,

“Combining text, audio, and video chat with features like drag-and-drop documents and interactive polls, Google Wave is a free web program that could add unprecedented depth to student interaction, many educators say.”

In my opinion, I think Google Wave will be a great feature to utilize in the classroom. Just like with any other piece of technology, I think students will be very excited and more inclined to participate if a program like Google Wave is involved. The article talks about group projects and the age-old question: “How do you know that everyone is participating?” With this program, you will be able to monitor the students’ work and who are participating. I think that is great! Students will have no choice but to do what they are supposed to do. Students that would normally slack and let all the other group members do the work will run into some difficulties, and feel that it is necessary for them to do their part. The teacher will be able to see exactly what is going on and will be able to grade group work fairly and accordingly. This feature alone should peak teachers and school systems interests.

Additionally, I think this a great program because it’s FREE! Therefore, the program should be accessible to many. There won’t be any problems with school systems that are not as financially stable as other system, and everyone will be able to enjoy and benefit from the perks of Google Wave. Another feature that caught my eye was the spell checker. The spell checker is not like the ordinary spell check. It not only corrects spelling, but it also corrects words used inaccurately or out of context. Dennis Carter says, “Wave’s spell checker doesn’t match words against their dictionary spelling, but rather accounts for the word’s context using a complex language model spawned from billions of web pages. Even if a word is spelled correctly, Wave will underline the word in red if it is used incorrectly or out of context.” At the same time, this feature could hinder users because the user can become dependent and expect every wrong to be corrected. This will truly hurt them if the long run if the user does not know the reason for the correction. As a result, I think this feature should come with some moderation, but I think it is a good feature.

My overall reaction to Google Wave is WONDERFUL! I want to try it out myself to really get a feel for the program, and be a witness to all of the great things described about it. I truly think Google Wave will be a positive and effective thing for the education world, but there are a few questions I would like to propose:

1. Will teachers and students be able to use Google Wave at home?
2. Will Google Wave serve as an after-school connection for students and teachers for additional help?
3. Will there be some kind of filter in determining who can and cannot use Google Wave?

Here is a link that should be helpful with Google Wave:

http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html#video

Works Cited
http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/01/19/has-google-developed-the-next-wave-of-online-education/

Wikiality

There are many outlets to consider when it comes to web-based media and resources in education. One can choose from scholarly journals online or educational videos from a variety of websites such as CNN or A&E. Nevertheless, there are some websites that are not as creditable as others, and one should be cautious when crediting certain websites as a resource. For example, Wikipedia should not be considered one of the most lucrative websites when writing a research paper or for creditable source.

Wikipedia is described as “a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly-editable model,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Wikipedia is written collaboratively by a group of international “volunteers,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Volunteers being anyone who feels inclined to enter a new article or edit previously entered information. This can lead one to believe that some information entered can be biased or very opinionated instead of actual facts. Furthermore, the information provided could just be incorrect! I do not doubt the fact that some of the information is correct and factual, but it is an uneasy feeling knowing that any 'John Doe' can enter information compared to an expert in the perspective fields.

Stephen Colbert’s piece “Wikiality” proves the lack of dependability of Wikipedia. Colbert jokes on how Wikipedia quotes him on one of his jokes that he made on “The Colbert Report” as if it was an actual fact that is profound enough to be included in an encyclopedia. "Any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them it becomes true," (Colbert, 2006). With that statement he then decides to change the entry himself during the show, and the previously quoted statement is now a different statement without much effort. Moreover, if I wanted to go change his entry, I could by simply logging in Wikipedia and typing it. This could definitely cause confusion or misinformation if someone were to use this for reference purposes. Colbert goes on to say if he disagrees with something that is considered a universal fact, he can change that also. He uses the example of George Washington owing slaves. "Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves. If I want to say he didn't that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact," (Colbert,2006).

Wikipedia states they are aware of some the cons that can arise by letting anyone enter information. The encyclopedia says that most of the older articles will be more concrete and complete, “while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Wikipedia claims to have control over the vandalism or nonsense entered into the encyclopedia. Wikipedia defines vandalism as “any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated,” (Wikipedia, 2010). They then go on to say, “Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Basically, they believe most of entries are made with intentions to improve the encyclopedia rather than hurt it. Where will the line be drawn if administrators of Wikipedia believe that all entries have the intentions of positivity and effectiveness?

Overall, Wikipedia should not be used as a creditable source for reference or research. There will be some factual information found on Wikipedia, but there will also be some misconstrued information also. Therefore, I do not think Wikipedia should be the main source for concrete research or education.

Works Cited

Wikipedia:About. (2010, January). In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About.


Colbert, S. Wikiality. (2006, July 31). Comedy Central. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=72347.