Posts Tagged ‘zotero’

When Students Assess Scholars

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

What happens when students assess the work of scholars in a public, i.e. online, forum? To what degree to student assessments have an impact on professional reputations, on promotion decisions, or on resource allocations?

I’ve been mulling this question over for the past week because about a week ago I received a somewhat testy email from someone who thought that an entry in a Zotero group library on an article she had published was, to use her words, “sloppily and misleadingly summarized on Zotero…even my name was misspelled.” She then asked, “If this is the way Zotero is going to operate, it simply isn’t good enough.  What must one do to see that it is corrected? Must authors look for such problems on Zotero?”

As it happened, the entry she objected to was written by a student in a class taught by a colleague, not by me, and so she was asking the wrong person for help (I pointed her to my colleague so she could engage with him over this issue). But her email–notwithstanding a misunderstanding about how “Zotero is going to operate”–raised the question I posed above.

Should we care that students are reading our work and then writing about it online for good or ill? One could take the position that any writing about our work is proof that our work is being assigned and read — a good thing. Or one could worry that negative commentary on our work from those who might be less qualified to comment on it that we would like might have negative consequences for us — a bad thing.

After thinking about it for a week, I’ve decided that I am completely unsympathetic to the latter argument for several reasons. First, it proceeds from a viewpoint that I reject, namely that student views of our scholarship don’t or shouldn’t count. In American higher education we are fond of describing our students as both students and partners in a learning enterprise and if that is really true, then we have to take seriously what our students have to say. Sure, a review of my book by someone who knows a lot about what I’m writing about is more useful in many ways, but that is not to say that a review of my book by an undergraduate student is not useful just because he or she hasn’t spent a decade or two studying the arcana of Czech history.

I read and re-read the summary of the article that sparked my thinking and there is no negative criticism of the author or her research methods to be found there. But what if the student had also said something like, “Unfortunately, the author’s findings are obscured by intensely boring academic prose.”? We’ve all wanted to say something like that from time to time about a book or article we are reading/reviewing, but professional courtesy holds us back (most of the time). Perhaps the unfettered voices of our students might just hold us to a higher standard when it comes to writing about our subjects in clear and compelling ways?

I also reject the  reviews by students are bad argument for a second reason. The purpose of the academic endeavor is to create and circulate new knowledge and the target audience for most of that endeavor is our students. We want them to engage with our work so that as they mature as scholars, business people, government employees, or whatever they chose to do, they can make better informed decisions about their own work and lives.

And the way this generation does that is online. Period. To argue that student work, flawed or perfect, should not be posted online is to argue for a return of the typewriter.

Finally, the whole point of the article in question was that more needed to be done to increase digital collaboration between scholars, librarians, and archivists. If limits are to be placed on that collaboration, then we might as well forget the entire effort. Digital media today are collaborative by their very nature, so I think it’s time we all get on that bus and accept that embracing digital technology means embracing it for all the good and all the less than good. So I guess I find it a little surprising that an author whose own work argued for more collaboration doesn’t like it when that collaboration isn’t up to a standard she has set.

Irony of Ironies

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

This semester I am teaching my graduate course — Teaching and Learning History in the Digital Age — and on our first night of the semester we had what my older son would call “a fail.” In this case, it was a “classroom fail.” Why? Because the room to which we were assigned was not only almost too small to fit the 16 of us, but because the technological capability of the room was decidedly old school.

We had an overhead projector and a television set with DVD/VHS player.

Somehow, it seemed to me (and to the students), it was going to be a little difficult to teach and learn about teaching and learning in the digital age in a decidedly undigital room. Fortunately, I was able to locate a conference room (with a laptop and a projector) that we could use. Otherwise it would have been a very challenging semester, to say the least. It was, however, a good lesson for the students, many of whom are already or plan to be history teachers. You never know what kind of classroom you are going to get until you get there, so be prepared just in case.

And, of course, the power might go off, or the servers might crash, or your laptop my start smoking. So always be ready.

I would share my syllabus and/or class blog for this course, but this semester the whole thing has gone into a closed Zotero group. Like my colleague Sean Takats, I am teaching through a Zotero group (using the 2.0 Beta version) of the software instead of the blog I’ve used with such good results over the past six years.

Why would I forsake the blog platform when it has worked reasonably well? I am hoping that by having my students create a Zotero library for the course, complete with notes, tags, annotations, related resources, etc., something new and different will happen. In prior years, my graduate students used the class blog quite well, posting reflections on readings and talking to one another. But once the semester was over, pffttt, the blog was over. In six or seven years of class blogging with students, only once or twice did anyone ever go back to the blog and add something. And even then it was an isolated post that didn’t generate any response.

But, a Zotero library that will become an annotated bibliography on teaching and learning history is a resource that not only my students, but history teachers all over the world can use now and in the future. My hope is that not only my students, but also others (once we open it up to the public) will use and add to the library we are creating.

Why keep it closed to the public during the semester? Despite my devotion to opening our teaching to public inspection, at least for now, I want the students to have some privacy as they learn the ins and outs of Zotero. Also, because we are creating a public resource that will eventually become open to others who might want to edit or add to what we’ve created, I need to be able to assess the work my students have done for the purpose of grading them. If anyone wandering by can change their work, it will be quite difficult for me to give my students a clear and valid assessment.

Stay tuned for more updates on this project.

For those who have been regular readers of this blog, I apologize for going silent throughout the summer. Personal matters dictated that I push aside all but the most essential things and I have to admit that, as much as I am devoted to it, this blog fell into the category of an optional activity. I’m back now.

Zotero 2.0

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

[This post originally appeared in the blog hist.net.]

zotero-smZotero 2.0 became available for public download on May 14. This new version of Zotero provides many exciting features that unlock the research archives of individual scholars making those research archives (or portions of those archives) available for a wider audience. Think about it this way. In what my students like to call the “olden times” (anything before 2000), scholars collected materials into their personal research archives then sat down and wrote a book, an article, or a conference paper. That publication provided the scholar’s audience with a glimpse into the source materials he or she had collected from various archives, libraries, etc. But only a glimpse, and mostly in the footnotes. If you wanted access to those same sources, you had to replicate the research already completed by the author of what you were reading.

Zotero 2.0 potentially puts an end to this re-research process. Now, a scholar can make any portion of that personal research archive available online via Zotero’s collaborative capabilities. So, for instance, as I collect materials for an article I am perparing for a volume of essays on “getaways” in communist Eastern Europe, I can make my Zotero folders available to anyone or just my collaborators in the volume. Once the book is published, I can choose whether or not to make my sources available to those readers who want to work with the sources I collected. In this way, the “hidden archive” of scholarship will begin to migrate to the surface. The potential for transformation of scholarly work is, I think, quite significant.

Zotero 2.0 also taps into the potentialities of social networking for scholars. Once logged in to the Zotero server, one can create a personal profile page, create or join affinity groups, and track (“follow”) the work of others who are part of the Zotero community. For a brief summary of the features of Zotero 2.0, read what Dan Cohen, Director of the Center for History and New Media, has written (and will continue to write) in his blog.