CN: Grazing the Net

Resources: Part 1, Part 2

Assignment: Read Jamie McKenzie’s work entitled Grazing the Net: Raising a Generation of Free Range Students – Part One and Part Two. It was written in 1994 yet describes what many of us are told should be the student or teacher of the ‘future’.

  • Is the future here? If yes, how is that the case (site examples)? If not, why not?
  • What do you think about his ideas?
  • How far away or close to this idea are we at present?

Part one: McKenzie paints a picture of students with access to seemingly limitless information resources on the web, but warns that large volumes of this information are the mental equivalent of junk food, and gorging or regular consumption may lead to unhealthy addictions. McKenzie implores us to teach students to become infotectives. He describes infotectives thus:

a student thinker capable of asking great questions about data (with analysis) in order to convert the data into information (data organized so as to reveal patterns and relationships) and eventually into insight (information that may suggest action or strategy of some kind) (“Students as infotectives” section, para. 2)

They are puzzle-solvers who synthesize and evaluate the information they encounter. Their skills are thinking, researching and inventing.

McKenzie essentially presents the case and a basic outline of Problem-Based Learning (PBL), with students coming at the Internet and its information with a question, and finding the answer to the ill-formed problem. McKenzie doesn’t use the PBL framework but touches on the same ideas of ill-formed problems, guiding questions and students finding their own solutions. The examples provided aren’t completely PBL, but are perhaps one step removed with their defined lack of knows/need to knows, feedback, and collaboration, but they do contain a presentation element as a capstone. Like PBL, however, the focus is constructive. The section on “Eisenberg’s Big Six” remedies some of these absences.

[Part 2]

Three levels of thought must occur concurrently and recursively:

  • Envisioning – Top level, 50,000-foot view of things. Dreams, fantasy, imagination, visualization
  • Inventing – Middle level, where the visions are turned into reality. Questions about what might work, how that happens. Innovation comes from this level.
  • SCAMPERing/Rearranging – evaluative stage. SCAMPER comes from Osborne and modified by Eberle, refers to the mnemonic: “S=substitute. C=combine. A=adapt. M=modify, magnify, minify. P=Put to other uses. E=eliminate. R=reverse” (Osborn, cited in McKenzie).
[Tangent: Oh, hi Gopher! I had forgotten about you…]
McKenzie goes on to elaborate on the importance of an open mind, how that is manifested in purposefully seeking out opposing positions, through listening and careful consideration of others ideas, their assumptions, and how they reached their conclusions. He also discusses how source-sensitivity (bias and loading of databases with a specific view) needs to be a part of that cautioned open-mindedness about how and where information is sourced.
Answers to the questions: 
  • Is the future here? If yes, how is that the case (site examples)? If not, why not?
I think McKenzie’s comments about info-glut and overload were prescient. Students (and everyone else with Internet access) have lead to a world where we don’t need to engage with opposing positions, and some people are concerned we are becoming less polite about it (See Eli Pariser’s TED talk on “Beware Online Filter Bubbles”). It is important to maintain an open but critical mind.
  • What do you think about his ideas?
I think his case for working with students to graze and be critical of sources (Internet-based or not!) is logical and correct; few academics are likely to argue with this. Additionally, his three-levels of attention paradigm work well for any treatment of information.
  • How far away or close to this idea are we at present?
 I’m not entirely sure which idea this refers to. If it’s the concept of a glut of information of varying qualities available at any time or place, we are certainly there. I would posit, however, that the closed nature of access to peer-reviewed literature on the Internet (that is, pay walls for journals and even now the New York Times) makes them increasingly inaccessible, leaving writing and media of less authoritative quality easier to access.
References:

Published by

Kimberly Hogg

As a child, Kim would take apart anything she could put a screwdriver in to figure out how it worked. Today, she's still interested in exploring the processes and limits of our tools, whether online or in hand. Kim enjoys exploring and learning about anything and everything. When not at a computer, she enjoys birdsong and the smell of pine needles after a rain. Kimberly holds an MEd in Information Technology and a BA in Communication Studies. You can contact Kim here or on Twitter @mskhogg.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.