Skip to main content

Not All Books Have Pages

I can't believe I'm about to tell a story that involves the progression of the Internet using my freshman year of high school as an example of "the Stone Age," but it's true.

When I first started high school, information wasn't nearly as accessible as it is now. Oh sure, it was there, but there wasn't any Wikipedia and most search engines were still in their embryo form. You had to dig a lot deeper to find most of the information you can now find just by typing a few words into Google.

One thing I clearly remember from being in high school is that we always had to find two kinds of sources for each paper or project:

Online sources and book sources.

Believe it or not, I still see students come into the library I work at with the same rules.

"Only Three Online Sources Allowed."

My co-workers and I try to explain to these students that there really isn't a difference between the two anymore. You can find magazine articles and whole books online.

When we explain this, they look at us, sigh, and say--"Yeah, but my teacher said..."

And the sad thing is--

They're right.

Their teachers don't realize that the online/in print difference doesn't exist anymore.

They seem to have this sentimental vision of their students scanning text in old, dusty books in vast libraries finding some magical fact that's never been found before.

Basically, they want their students to suffer simply because they had to when they were students. They don't want to accept that things are actually a lot easier now.

Instead of having their students take advantage of all the Internet has to offer, they tell them that it's unreliable and they need to continue to find their information in print.

As if everything that's printed is automatically fact.

It's archaic, and it certainly isn't going to help them become better researchers, let alone enjoy the process of researching (if that's even possible).

Teachers need to do away with this nostalgic way of thinking about putting together a paper.

If they did, who knows what their students could come up with?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A List of People Who Can Go to Hell Now That I Can't Have Elizabeth Warren

So today was a rough day for everybody who isn't a @#$%-ing #$%hole. Let's just start there. If that upsets you, by all means, go straight to hell. This entire rant is going to be exactly what it sounds like. I am mad and I am going to exercise my right to BLOG ABOUT IT LIKE IT'S 1995, SO BUCKLE UP, BUTTERCUP. I really don't even know where to start, so let's just jump right in with the first person who comes to mind. Bloomberg, go to hell.  You really didn't have anything specific to do with today, but you can just go to hell for spending an ungodly amount of money on literally nothing.  I mean, you could have lit millions of dollars on fire and at least warmed the hands of the homeless, but instead, you made tv stations across the country that are already owned by Conservatives rich, so kudos to you and go to hell. Amy Klobuchar, I STUCK UP FOR YOU AMY.  I got into FIGHTS on SOCIAL MEDIA while DEFENDING your sorry, self-interested ass.  You know

Theater and the Outbreak

After last week's interview, a representative from a theater that recently experienced the results of opening too soon reached out to speak with me. I want to thank this person for coming forward in the hopes that it'll change some minds about what's safe and what isn't when it comes to the performing arts. Here's the interview: ME:  So this wasn't a full production or-- THEM:  No. It was us trying to do a little something for friends and donors. ME:  Who is 'us?' THEM:  The board of _____. ME:  And how long have you been on the board? THEM:  Three years. ME:  What was this going to be? THEM:  There's a, uh, beautiful park here in town, and we wanted to do an outdoor performance of a Shakespeare as a benefit, because, as you know, theaters are having a hard time right now paying the bills. We checked with the local government and the health department for the state to make sure we were doing everything the way we needed to in order to keep everyone s

People You Know Are More Important Than People You Don't Know

This post is in response to arguing with people--straight and gay alike--about a certain celebrity, whether or not she's an ally, if she's pandering, if pandering matters, and whether or not I'm an asshole. The last part is probably an enthusiastic "Yes" but let's reflect on this for a bit anyway without actually giving more time to an argument about a person none of us know, which is a crucial part of what I want to talk about. People you know are more important than people you don't know. I realize it's tricky in an age where we've never been closer or more engaged to our celebrities to keep in mind that we do not know them, they are not our friends, and while we may love them and stan and feel like we're attacked when they're attacked-- That is not true. That is not real. They are in no tangible way connected to us. Now, as someone who is obsessed with pop culture, I get that it's a little hypocritical for me to be making