Changing methods of research--what does it mean?

[_asbestosman]

Blixa and others are often talking about how the younger generation is lazy about research especially given all the neat tools we have at our hands: computer databases, search engines, message boards, etc.

I remember when I first learned to use the library that I had to use card catalogs. I haven't seen one of those in years. In fact, at many libraries they give us old index cards to use as scratch paper.

What does change in technology imply for learning? I find it easier for me to answer questions quickly without having to run all over a library trying to find the appropriate book. On the other hand, sometimes I find that books are my only adequate source for learning. I find that I learn various mathematical or computer principles much better from a book than I do from searching through pages online. Other things seem to be easier to find online. Part of it is a signal to noise ratio. Online it is often difficult to find something appropriate. In a good library, I often find many good books on subjects I wanted to study. I found BYU's library to be a great source of information on subjects I had interest in.

On the other hand, I think the internet does make me a bit lazy. I don't want to do a bunch of work to find something when I'm not that interested and someone can easily provide me with a quick answer. I'm also happy to provide quick answers to questions others have in return. But it seems to me that this sort of laziness of my generation bothers some of the more scholarly among us. In the end, I think the internet has helped to make me much more knowledgable than I would be if I only had the library alone, but maybe it's made me miss something important.

[_Blixa]

The internet has not made me lazy---far from it. Its increased the ease with which I can do work and changed the kind of work I can do, thus giving rise to a whole new slew of projects and interests. The only down side of this is data overload: I have more ideas for work than I have time to be able to do them. Its also made me a much better scholar and writer, or perhaps I should say a different kind of scholar and writer. My work has only recently incorporated "research" in the sense of doing more historically based rather than theoretically driven work: something that I'm still working on synthesizing. Getting a taste of what's now possible with datebases and online archives was intellectually mindblowing: even in the first few "digitally-enhanced" projects I worked on I saw that I could accomplish in a day or two what would have taken months or years, possibly. Not only have the dimensions of time changed in this regard, but also the constraints of geographical space. I can access the collections of many libraries and archives around the globe---collections which would have been near impossible for me to ever see.

This has also made me interested in other, lower tech, forms of research as well, since I've been doing more "hands on" archival work at libraries and archives both here and in the west. The internet has also enabled/made easy another venue of research: the interview. For one of my current projects I've been corresponding some of the authors I'm working on, adding another dimension to the material I'm compiling. I'm also interested in that new genre of middlebrow conventionality: the amazon book review. I admit a lot of the time its the kind of car crash fascination (like that of MADD) that I indulge in in the "name" of research. Still its some kind of insight into mainstream tropes of interpretation.

I don't think I've ever said that students have "become" lazy about research or that the internet has made student lazy. Its made it more tempting to plagiarize, but also easier to bust that crap. Students are "lazy" because they've never been encouraged to be otherwise, by their previous education or american culture at large. They don't read. They don't know how to read. They have been produced to only recognize as "learning" and "education" giving rote answers to simplistic test questions (thanks Every Child Left Behind!). The idea of the human mind extracting different forms of information and then drawing conclusions about it, or having a response to it, is for the most part unintelligible to them. The one question I can guarantee to stop a class discussion is the openended, "What did you think?" or "So what did you make of this essay?"

Got to stop now...I'm on my way to class...

[Guest]

I wonder about this too, asbestosman. What I have found that I enjoy from the internet is that it opens me up to new topics that I hadn't known about before. It keeps me scrambling as there is always something new that I'm confronted with. So much I didn't know I didn't know!!! From there I order books or search for more material. It usually just piques my interest. I actually was searching for LDS history and was made aware of a "massacre" not too far from where I live. Without the internet I would have never known that. From there I was able to research at local archives.

I like that I can find alternate viewpoints on issues. I adore academic search engines when I'm seriously interested in a topic. Yet, I usually print out what I find as I prefer to read lengthy material not on a computer screen, rather with it in hand.

I enjoy the internet because I can quickly find material and articles -- I LOVE that! Yet, I do wonder if less people actually read things in entirety and just mine the internet for quotes and snippets of information.

[_Moniker]

I don't think I've ever said that students have "become" lazy about research or that the internet has made student lazy. Its made it more tempting to plagiarize, but also easier to bust that s***. Students are "lazy" because they've never been encouraged to be otherwise, by their previous education or american culture at large. They don't read. They don't know how to read. They have been produced to only recognize as "learning" and "education" giving rote answers to simplistic test questions (thanks Every Child Left Behind!). The idea of the human mind extracting different forms of information and then drawing conclusions about it, or having a response to it, is for the most part unintelligible to them. The one question I can guarantee to stop a class discussion is the openended, "What did you think?" or "So what did you make of this essay?"

Blixa, I agree, no one wants to THINK! We drill students to memorize material and regurgitate it back for a test. We fail our children by doing this!

[_asbestosman]

The idea of the human mind extracting different forms of information and then drawing conclusions about it, or having a response to it, is for the most part unintelligible to them. The one question I can guarantee to stop a class discussion is the openended, "What did you think?" or "So what did you make of this essay?"

I generally stayed silent because most of the time my only thoughts on literature was that it was boring. I never really liked reading much fiction when I was in school. One exception to that was Douglas Adams and his Hitchhiker's Guide trilogy. Another exception was some of the stuff by Mark Twain. I found both of them to be entertaining and had thoughts on them. Sad to say, but other classics generally didn't interest me. Well, I did enjoy parts of Great Expectations and maybe a bit from Lord of the Flies and I also liked the occasional short story. Other than that asking me "What did I think?" would elicit no response because a reply of, "It's boring--I hate most fiction and I don't like biographies either" is not the sort of thing most teachers find acceptable.

The other side of the problem is that speaking up is so uncool. Fortunately for me I was already uncool. I was just too shy most of the time even when I did have thoughts. Math and science class, on the other hand, I reveled in being known as the uncool brainiac. I wouldn't have dared for literature or history even when I had a response.

So maybe what separates me from you is that my research expereince has tended to focus on researching science and technology while I gather that you tend to research history, literature, and art. The latter are subjects I find very difficult and have only even developed a slight interest in them of late perhaps because I only now see how relevant they are to me--I had never really seen any relevance before I became an adult.

[_Moniker]

Ack! I cringed. :(

Literature -- boring? Oh, asbestosman!!!

Well, math bores the hell out of me!!

[_Blixa]

Heh.

Well had you been my student I would have told you its not the books that are boring but you. A good student never rests content with "boredom," the oldest copout in the book, but rather learns to find ways to make anything interesting to them. That is one of the challenges of learning. Unless you know something about a topic you are in no position to "judge" its "interestingness" or lack thereof. Allowing onself to be bored by an entire discipline is a failure of human creativity as well.

The same goes with talking in class. Uncool? Get the “F” over that right now. You are an adult and will be faced with a whole life of circumstances where you will need to speak up and present yourself as a sentient and capable human being---even by the possibly low standards of most jobs.

Besides, knowledge is (always) produced collectively. In a classroom all the participants are engaged in the production of knowledge as a group. Unless you are contributing you are exploiting those who are, letting them do the work for you. Worse, you are actually inhibiting the experiences of others: your lack of participation affects everyone's education, not just your own, by limiting the possibilities of discussion.

I know this runs counter to how most students understand, and have been taught to understand, education: that classrooms are merely collections of discrete entities whose actions and behaviors have no connection to each other. That's why I start classes by talking about these things in an effort to start the hard work of reunderstanding the material and conceptual situation of the classroom.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Here's my problem...I love to think about stuff, but I don't really like to research. I love to read, but not tons of material about the same subject. I can do research, but I don't particularly enjoy it. What does that make me? (Normal?) Perhaps it means that I haven't found a broad subject I'm really interested in and want to immerse myself in.

[_asbestosman]

Well had you been my student I would have told you its not the books that are boring but you.

Which is why I would never have offered up my thoughts. Such a thing would have been extremely rude. In any case, I've been called boring plenty of times--usually when I actually try sharing my thoughts about subjects I really like.

Actually there was a time when expressing similar thoughts about the literature did help. When asked what we thought of "Bartleby the Schriveneer", some of us jokingly replied, "I'd prefer not to." The teacher then got us to talk about the significance of that phrase and then suddenly the story was a bit more interesting.

A good student never rests content with "boredom," the oldest copout in the book, but rather learns to find ways to make anything interesting to them. That is one of the challenges of learning. Unless you know something about a topic you are in no position to "judge" its "interestingness" or lack thereof. Allowing onself to be bored by an entire discipline is a failure of human creativity as well.

On the one hand I do think it's sad that many people find mathematics to be boring. On the other hand, I can understand that some will have a low interest in it. I doubt I'll ever gain an interest in fashion, cross-stitching, quilt-tying, rap music, Nascar races, sports teams, and many other things. Yet I can appreciate that many do find those things to be very interesting. I can understand that not everyone thinks that going to sleep and pondering number theory or digital signal processing, or even such subjects as computer arighmetic is interesting. So when I think that reading The Scarlet Letter was laborious work instead of entertainment and I would never have chosen to read it myself, I can understand why some may find it interesting. When I say I find it boring, I am making no pronouncement on the book proper, but rather on my own personal tastes.

Now granted, such may point to me being uncreative and even spoiled. Again, my tastes have matured somewhat over the years. However, that I wouldn't have spoken up in class is not an indication that I was unable to analyze, but rather that I was unmotivated to do so in certain areas.

The same goes with talking in class. Uncool? Get the f*** over that right now. You are an adult and will be faced with a whole life of circumstances where you will need to speak up and present yourself as a sentient and capable human being---even by the possibly low standards of most jobs.

I am over it. I wasn't an adult when coolness may have been an issue. Shyness is a different issue and one I still struggle with to some extent. That said, serving a mission was infinetly harder than talking up in a meeting is. As a missionary, I said things I knew would bother people--things I wish I didn't have to say. I did it because I felt that's what God wanted. Speaking up elsewhere is nothing compared to that because most of the time people will find value in what I say instead of merely being annoyed as they are with soliciters.

I know this runs counter to how most students understand, and have been taught to understand, education: that classrooms are merely collections of discrete entities whose actions and behaviors have no connection to each other. That's why I start classes by talking about these things in an effort to start the hard work of reunderstanding the material and conceptual situation of the classroom.

Well, I actually enjoyed collaberating with my fellow engineering students. I liked their insight into problem solving. I enjoyed thinking about engineering enough to actually correct the professors on occasion. I enjoyed being engaged in those subjects because I enjoyed those subjects and almost consider them a form of recreation.

Nowadays I may spend a bit of free time looking something in history or literature, but it's not much. Instead I tend to analyze movies I see. I have cared more about history the more I see how it effects my interaction with others in the world and also how it has shaped my own family dynamics. Before those connections, history was fairly meaningless to me, or even bunk as Henry Ford put it.

By the way, I quite liked my history of philosophy class while I was not quite so interested in my ancient history class. I think I liked the former becauase it allowed me to think more abstractly and had more clear implications to my life than I could see in ancient history.

[_Blixa]

Well had you been my student I would have told you its not the books that are boring but you.

Which is why I would never have offered up my thoughts. In any case, I've been called boring plenty of times.

A good student never rests content with "boredom," the oldest copout in the book, but rather learns to find ways to make anything interesting to them. That is one of the challenges of learning. Unless you know something about a topic you are in no position to "judge" its "interestingness" or lack thereof. Allowing onself to be bored by an entire discipline is a failure of human creativity as well.

On the one hand I do think it's sad that many people find mathematics to be boring. On the other hand, I can understand that some will have a low interest in it. I doubt I'll ever gain an interest in fashion, cross-stitching, quilt-tying, rap music, Nascar races, sports teams, and many other things. Yet I can appreciate that many do find those things to be very interesting. I can understand that not everyone thinks that going to sleep and pondering number theory or digital signal processing, or even such subjects as computer arighmetic is interesting. So when I think that reading The Scarlet Letter was laborious work instead of entertainment and I would never have chosen to read it myself, I can understand why some may find it interesting. When I say I find it boring, I am making no pronouncement on the book proper, but rather on my own personal tastes.

Now granted, such may point to me being uncreative and even spoiled. Again, my tastes have matured somewhat over the years. However, that I wouldn't have spoken up in class is not an indication that I was unable to analyze, but rather that I was unmotivated to do so in certain areas.

The same goes with talking in class. Uncool? Get the f*** over that right now. You are an adult and will be faced with a whole life of circumstances where you will need to speak up and present yourself as a sentient and capable human being---even by the possibly low standards of most jobs.

I am over it. I wasn't an adult when coolness may have been an issue. Shyness is a different issue and one I still struggle with to some extent. That said, serving a mission was infinetly harder than talking up in a meeting is. As a missionary, I said things I knew would bother people--things I wish I didn't have to say. I did it because I felt that's what God wanted. Speaking up elsewhere is nothing compared to that because most of the time people will find value in what I say instead of merely being annoyed as they are with soliciters.

I know this runs counter to how most students understand, and have been taught to understand, education: that classrooms are merely collections of discrete entities whose actions and behaviors have no connection to each other. That's why I start classes by talking about these things in an effort to start the hard work of reunderstanding the material and conceptual situation of the classroom.

Well, I actually enjoyed collaberating with my fellow engineering students. I liked their insight into problem solving. I enjoyed thinking about engineering enough to actually correct the professors on occasion. I enjoyed being engaged in those subjects because I enjoyed those subjects and almost consider them a form of recreation.

Nowadays I may spend a bit of free time looking something in history or literature, but it's not much. Instead I tend to analyze movies I see. I have cared more about history the more I see how it effects my interaction with others in the world and also how it has shaped my own family dynamics. Before those connections, history was fairly meaningless to me, or even bunk as Henry Ford put it.

By the way, I quite liked my history of philosophy class while I was not quite so interested in my ancient history class. I think I liked the former becauase it allowed me to think more abstractly and had more clear implications to my life than I could see in ancient history.

I hope you didn't think I was telling you to grow up and be an adult...rather that is the case I make to my students---that they are adults, not frightened children. All my comments were illustrations of how I view these things in relation to the students I encounter, not you. The same with the issue of "boredom" which usually comes after a few lessons on theories of reading, in particular the notion that the reader produces the meaning of the text. Once a student accepts that idea you can productively ask, "so why then do you want to produce this text as "boring?"

Also I'm not saying one has to be interested in everything. What I'm talking about is what happens in the classroom. Too often students, because they have been taught to do this, approach "literature" as though it were merely a matter of appreciation. And thus they think its all just a matter of "likes" and "dislikes" or enjoyment and entertainment. I'm sure its still taught that way in some classes as well. I am not interested in inculcating some form of connoiseurship. Rather in my courses, which are not classes in "the classics" or "great literature," texts are an object of study and whether they fit one's tastes is immaterial to a study of the structure of narrative and an investigation of the ways in which narrative tropes mediate our relation with reality. In other words, I'd like students to be able to reflect on how ideas and concepts organize our situation in the world, producing both limitations and possibilities.