My mind (and my printer) is reeling.

First of all, for a digital history course, I’m sure using a lot of paper. That is entirely my fault, however. I like to read things on paper, mark them up and go back to them, if need be (sorry, trees).

Now, wikipedia. Hmm… As an undergrad we weren’t allowed to cite anything at all from wikipedia. If we did certain professors would refuse to grade our papers. I cannot say that I disagree. The information can at times be sketchy, and for proof, I offer a classmate’s comment today in class. She said that one of her students (high school ) edited a site which stated that he was the father of democracy. I didn’t bother to look, I just believed. However, after reading the assigned readings, I’m sure a ‘wikignome’ has gotten in there to correct it. On a very basic level I really think that the people who write, edit, and moderate wikipedia are truly loyal to the integrity of the site. However, I also believe that the information can indeed be faulty. This is not to say that I have never used wikipedia, I have found it a good jumping off point for certain things. For example, In Spanish classes in the past when given a topic to explore and then present, I have found good information about leaders in South America, environmental and cultural issues that I could not easily access by searching google or some other search engine. Another example is watching ‘Who wants to be a millionaire?’ Not that I sit there everyday, computer on lap ready to key in before a contestant gets to answer, but i have found some fun and interesting things (I now know what a fata morgana is) by perusing wikipedia. And after reading Schiff’s article in The New Yorker, I now understand the dedication and work that goes into keeping the site up and running. I also learned that there is a lot of drama that goes along with that, as well. The fact is that anybody can add, edit, and contribute to the site and it gives a lot of ‘buffs’ the chance to show their wares, so to speak. This very topic was debated in last week’s class, and some believe that the buff and the true historian are on very different planes. While I don’t quite disagree with this, I think Wikipedia is an outlet for all different kinds of minds to meet and contribute to the ‘greater good’ as the site remains, for the most part, anonymous and allows for collective thought, regardless of titles and degrees.

Now for the dreaded scantron. Geez, can filling bubbles with a pencil really gauge one’s intelligence? If I were to answer this question, I’d say no. From personal experience, many people, myself included, simply stink at that kind of testing. I think, as Cohen and Rosenzweig do, that it just allows for rote memorization of things: dates, names, places and in order to really learn something one must put things in context and absorb the bigger picture being presented. Again, as an undergrad, students would whine to professors why they did not put multiple choice questions on tests. The answer across the board was always that the department did not allow multiple choice questions, only short answers and essays. To this I was always glad for I would, given the choice, choose the wrong answer.

The way teachers teach and the way students learn are forever–and quckly–morphing due to the digital age. Computers are in many classrooms, and if not in the classroom, at least in the bedroom–or in the cell phone. To truly teach ( and learn) today there must be a blending of old ways and new. I’ve had classes that did not require any computer class time and others that did. Both worked for me, and will continue to do so. However, please don’t make me fill in any bubbles.