A tale of two tasks: editing in the era of digital literacies

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
A tale of two tasks: editing in the era of digital literacies
Authors: Kelly Chandler-Olcott [edit item]
Citation: Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 53 (1): 71-74. 2009. International Reading Association.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.1598/JAAL.53.1.7.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
A tale of two tasks: editing in the era of digital literacies is a publication by Kelly Chandler-Olcott.


[edit] Abstract

This article argues that editing in the era of digital literacies is a complex, collaborative endeavor that requires a sophisticated awareness of audience and purpose and a knowledge of multiple conventions for conveying meaning and ensuring accuracy. It compares group editing of an article about the New York Yankees baseball team on Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, to the decontextualized proofreading task required of seventh graders on a state-level examination. It concludes that literacy instruction in schools needs to prepare students for the multiple dimensions of editing in both print and online environments, which means teaching them to negotiate meanings with others, not merely to correct surface-feature errors.

[edit] Research questions

"My purpose is not to take a position on the credibility controversy. I understand why teachers are concerned about students citing Wikipedia uncritically, and I understand why tech-savvy teens growing up in an open-source culture might chafe at those concerns. What I find most interesting about Wikipedia, though, is less about whether information on a page can be trusted and more about how the pages are constructed collaboratively online. Teachers’ justification for banning or limiting students’ use of Wikipedia (“ANYONE can contribute”) is also what makes it a powerful example of 21st-century editing"

Research details

Topics: Student contribution, Student information literacy [edit item]
Domains: Education [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Case study [edit item]
Data source: Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Longitudinal [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article, Article:talk, History [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"If, as teachers, we dismiss examples of collaborative writing in digital environments such as Wikipedia because they do not fit traditional (and often hierarchical) conceptions of authorship and authority, we miss rich opportunities to consider new roles and relationships for writers. Worse, our students miss them, too."

[edit] Comments

"By dismissing examples of collaborative writing in digital environments, we as teachers and our students are missing rich opportunities to consider new roles and relationships for writers"


Further notes[edit]

This is mostly a discussive article arguing for using Wikipedia as an example of a digital environment for collaborative writing.

A very minor analysis is made of a single article (about New York Yankees baseball team). It is a question whether this should be regarded as the research.

Facts about "A tale of two tasks: editing in the era of digital literacies"RDF feed
AbstractThis article argues that editing in the erThis article argues that editing in the era of digital literacies is a complex, collaborative endeavor that requires a sophisticated awareness of audience and purpose and a knowledge of multiple conventions for conveying meaning and ensuring accuracy. It compares group editing of an article about the New York Yankees baseball team on Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, to the decontextualized proofreading task required of seventh graders on a state-level examination. It concludes that literacy instruction in schools needs to prepare students for the multiple dimensions of editing in both print and online environments, which means teaching them to negotiate meanings with others, not merely to correct surface-feature errors. merely to correct surface-feature errors.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionLongitudinal +
CommentsBy dismissing examples of collaborative writing in digital environments, we as teachers and our students are missing rich opportunities to consider new roles and relationships for writers
ConclusionIf, as teachers, we dismiss examples of coIf, as teachers, we dismiss examples of collaborative

writing in digital environments such as Wikipedia because they do not fit traditional (and often hierarchical) conceptions of authorship and authority, we miss rich opportunities to consider new roles and relationships for writers. Worse, our students miss them, too.iters. Worse, our students miss

them, too.
Data sourceWikipedia pages +
Doi10.1598/JAAL.53.1.7 +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22A%2Btale%2Bof%2Btwo%2Btasks%3A%2Bediting%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bera%2Bof%2Bdigital%2Bliteracies%22 +
Has authorKelly Chandler-Olcott +
Has domainEducation +
Has topicStudent contribution + and Student information literacy +
Issue1 +
Pages71-74 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inJournal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy +
PublisherInternational Reading Association +
Research designCase study +
Research questionsMy purpose is not to take a position on thMy purpose is not to take a position on the credibility controversy. I understand

why teachers are concerned about students citing Wikipedia uncritically, and I understand why tech-savvy teens growing up in an open-source culture might chafe at those concerns. What I find most interesting about Wikipedia, though, is less about whether information on a page can be trusted and more about how the pages are constructed collaboratively online. Teachers’ justification for banning or limiting students’ use of Wikipedia (“ANYONE can contribute”)

is also what makes it a powerful example of 21st-century editing
a powerful example of 21st-century editing
Revid10,642 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleA tale of two tasks: editing in the era of digital literacies
Unit of analysisArticle +
Urlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1598/JAAL.53.1.7/abstract +
Volume53 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageEnglish +
Wikipedia page typeArticle +, Article:talk + and History +
Year2009 +