by Jose Paco Fiallos


I am an average 30-something living in 2014: I upgrade my smart phone at the earliest chance; all of my devices in my home are connected to the internet, even my air conditioner; I am part of many social media networks. I was raised with technology, from video games to personal computers to A/V equipment. But in my classroom I am something of an anachronism. Most of the technology that I am fluent with in my life gets checked at the door.

I have been to many presentations advancing this or that tech tool that would revolutionize the English classroom. I work with many teachers who live and die by their class social network, their smart board, their tablet computer, or their students’ use of apps on their cell phones. I, too, use these tools at various times in my own class, but never as the centerpiece.

I think I might be a little biased against technology when it comes to instruction. Maybe it comes from observing counties and school administrators using funds for new technologies that they then don’t provide training for, or that don’t have any immediate purpose in the classroom and so become little more than expensive toys gathering dust. Or maybe it’s because our textbooks are out of date and class sets of novels are constantly deteriorating. And as the debate over whether to convert to entirely digital textbooks and assigning each student their own tablet computer continues, important decisions about texts get pushed back.

Education, as a system, is a little too reactionary, I think. Or maybe impulsive is a better word. As educators we know that there are problems with some aspects of the system, from curriculum, to instruction, to assessment. And wouldn’t it be simple if there was a single piece of technology, or even a suite of tech tools that would address those problems and just make everything better?

There are tools being used effectively by teachers. I know it happens. And so I guess I am just a stodgy old English teacher who is tied to books and pen and paper; ink on the page, so to speak. And as such, I think that any tool, whether it be high or low tech, should not impede access to text in any way. Rather, technology should only serve as a means of increasing access, or even better, broadening the definition of what text is.

So maybe this will serve as a new beginning for me. It is helpful to state in concrete terms, putting digital ink to digital paper, what my own tech goals are.

by Edgar Corral

My name is Edgar Corral and I am a student intern teacher at Fort Walton Beach High School. I am also a senior at the Florida State University. In my spare time I partake in active activities as well as creative writing.

Google Glass was something that first caught my attention at my previous job. I worked in the College of Education at Florida State University (FSU). My job was located in the new Tech Sandbox, which was a room designed for future educators and mentors to participate in using new upcoming technology. I was initially asked to enter in the drawing to receive a “ticket” to purchase Google Glass but ultimately lost. However, due to a donation from Dr. Shelbie Witte (Assistant Professor, English Education at FSU) and the Technology Fees Fund, we were able to allocate the item.

My initial response with the resource was that it wouldn’t be much use in the classroom. However, as I kept thinking and researching I finally came to terms that this item was something revolutionary within education. I am primarily coming from an English Education background, but the use of the glasses doesn’t stop there.

In the English discipline I can see students using this tool to establish a new means of point of view. In the literal sense you can now take a video of the world around you in first person and then apply a verbal narrative. This changes the ideas of simple narrative essays to something more lively and engaging towards students. While on the topic of essays, students will now have the opportunity to take pictures and produce photo essays. If you’re not familiar with photo essay you should check out “TIME” magazines archive of photo essays (http://content.time.com/time/photoessays).

With the growing involvement of a Flipped Classroom, Google Glass provides a whole new resource. Science teachers could produce experiments and record them to upload later on the class site. This will provide a new means of instruction that could be more effective than the typical recording camera or webcam on the laptop.

With a teacher being in front of the classroom they could use the classes to record a whole lesson for students who are sick or need a refresher at home. For personal teacher use, they can later review the classes and do an informal assessment of the classes. This will provide them with feedback on student understanding of terminology as well as behaviors they might have missed. It allows the teacher to experience what they are doing effectively or determine the areas where their instruction is weak. Using Google Class in this manner could help all interns who are still balancing out their classroom instruction and behavior management.

by Katie Rybakova

Teachers often scoff when they hear the term Wikipedia. It’s a term that is connected with many opinions, some of which are as hard hitting as bias, falsity, and even plagiarism, while others a softer idea of laziness, a “cope out” from “actual” research. When I present on Wikipedia, I ask, after the usual grumbles about Wikipedia, if the audience members use Wikipedia themselves. A resounding yes—they won’t use it in the classroom, they won’t teach it, they go so far as to nix it from any research-driven classroom activity, and yet, often use it as one of the first sources for their own research. These are researchers, professors, secondary school teachers; I remember how my own teachers would swear against us using Wikipedia as a source (of course, we did anyway), but to continue to have this opinion in the 21st century?

    I wanted to look into this problem. I spent countless hours Googling Wikipedia, but often was left surprised at how little attention current educational research was giving this very well known website. I decided then to conduct a review of research on Wikipedia—I would collect what I could find on the site, then analyze the general consensus—are we for, in the 21st century classroom, or against, Wikipedia?

    A little background—Wikipedia, a combination of “Wiki,” or a source on the Internet that can be edited by anyone on it, and encyclopedia, an area for an immense coverage of different concepts and things, went live in 2001. Within the first year of being a live site, Wikipedia went from 1,000 articles to 20,000 at the end of 2001, and by the second year, hosted 100,000 articles just in its English version (Rosenweig, 2006). The growth of the site sparked the growth of students in the classroom using it as a source for research. In 2006, the Alexa traffic rankings placed Wikipedia at number eighteen out of all sources on the web, above New York Times Online, Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Library of Congress (Rosenweig). It continues to be the lead hit on most Google searches on various concepts.  

    It is clear how this connects to the classroom—should we, as teachers, or should we not, allow students to use it as a source? Could it be used for other activities? In addition to the practical usage of Wikipedia, there is also an underlying political one—digital texts and digitalization of information in general has been the topic of mandates continuously since No Child Left Behind (Department of Education, 2013). The Race to the Top Initiative continues to emphasize the uses of technology inside the classroom and the professional development of teachers to do so in its statues as well (Department of Education, 2013). Essentially, though, or, if you will, on a societal level, it is clear that the shape and functioning of texts differs from the traditional sense of composition, and the distribution of writing no longer rests in the hands of a press (Wysocki, 2009). The most important variable, especially for educators in the classroom today, is the growing need for fine-tuning information literacy and research skills, helping students become critical consumers (Kniffel, 2008).

   What, then, is the issue? Of course, because any registered user of Wikipedia can edit the site, many educators see Wikipedia as an unreliable source of information that students use. Scholarship shows the continuing argument amongst academia regarding Wikipedia as a research tool (Eijkman, 2010).

   What I did was find 55 articles on Wikipedia. I used JSTOR, ERIC, and Google Scholar using the keyword Wikipedia. All of the articles that are included in this review of research (34) were published at the earliest in 2005, and at the latest in 2012. This gap in research from 2001 to 2005 can be explained, perhaps, by the growth of Wikipedia as an online research source.

   Essentially, the majority of articles that accepted Wikipedia as a source in the classroom were from the field of humanities and social science, namely education related articles (33% of education articles accepted Wikipedia into the classroom). 33% of the articles that wrote a scathing prohibition of Wikipedia were education articles, while the resounding majority were articles from the hard sciences. In general, 24 out of the 34 articles were in favor of using Wikipedia in the classroom.

   Statistics aside, what was most interesting to me was the reasoning behind the choices of acceptance versus prohibition. The negative reactions to Wikipedia stemmed from the obvious—Wikipedia is unreliable because it is being updated by Joe Shmo, Wikipedia has caused negative experiences with students plagiarizing or submitting poor work, and a general “easy way out” for students, a general consensus across all of the articles that prohibited Wikipedia from the classroom. It was interesting, though to see what the articles that suggested teachers utilize Wikipedia in the classroom suggested. Generally speaking, there was an overall positive experience with using Wikipedia. Because of its popularity, most teachers and authors acknowledged that students would, whether prohibited or not, use Wikipedia as a source when researching. Some articles even justified the accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia sources. Most suggested Wikipedia be allowed as a starting point for research; a use of explaining critical consumerism to students in this digital age. Research skills and information literacy skills were used to identify specific concepts that could be taught using Wikipedia in the classroom.   

   The research I did boils down to this—if we do want to use, as teachers, Wikipedia in our classrooms, or teach pre-service teachers to use Wikipedia in their classrooms, we need to expose them to it just like we would want to expose our students to it. Yes, it’s not the only source that students should go to for information. But, it shouldn’t be something that is prohibited outright, because, if you know anything about 6th to 12th grade kids, a rule isn’t going to stop them from using it. It’s better to expose students to Wikipedia—it’s positives AND negatives—rather than keeping kids out of the loop when it comes to an important skill—critical consumerism and information literacy skills.

Aycock, J., & Aycock, A. (2008). Why I love/hate Wikipedia: Reflections upon subjugated knowledges. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2); 91-101.

Bennington, A., & Baur, J. (2008). Dissecting the web through Wikipedia. American Libraries, 39(7); 46-49.

Biddle, L., Donovan, J., Hawton, K., Kapur, N. (2008). Suicide and the Internet. British Medical Journal, 336(7648); 800-802.

Bohannon, J. (2011). Google books, Wikipedia, and the future of culturnomics. Science, 331; 1.

Bravo, V., & Young, M. (2011). The impact of a collaborative Wikipedia assignment on teaching, learning, and student perceptions in a teacher education program. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 37(3); 2-25.

Brown, A. (2011). Wikipedia as a data source for political scientists: Accuracy and completeness of coverage. PS, 339-343. Doi: 10.1017/S1049096511000199. 

Brown, J. (2009). Essjay’s ethos: Rethinking textual origins and intellectual property. CCC, 61(1); 238- 258.

Calkins, S., & Kelley, M. (2009). Who writes the past? Student perceptions of Wikipedia knowledge and credibility in a World History classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 20(3); 123-143.

Campbell, C. (2009). Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia (review). The Drama Review, 53(4); 185-187.

Chandler, C., & Gregory, A. (2010). Sleeping with the enemy: Wikipedia in the college classroom. The History Teacher, 43(2); 247-257.

Coiro, J. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory into Practice, 50(2); 107-115.

Coiro, J. and Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42; 214–257. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2

Crovitz, D., & Smoot, W.S. (2009). Wikipedia: Friend, not foe. English Journal, 98(3); 91-97.

Davidson, C. (2009). Young children’s engagement with digital texts and literatices in the home: Pressing matters for the teaching of English in the early years of schooling. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(3); 36-54.

Denning, P., Horning, J., Parnas, D., Weinstein, L. (2005). Wikipedia risks. Communications of the ACM, 48(12); 152.

Department of Education. (2013). Improve student performance. Retrieved 16 Nov 2013 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html.

Elder, D., Westbrook, R., & Reilly, M. (2012). Wikipedia lover, not a hater: Harnessing Wikipedia to increase the discoverability of library resources. Journal of Web Librarianship, 6(1); 32-44

Eijkman, H. (2010). Emerald article: Academics and Wikipedia: Reframing web 2.0+ as a disruptor of traditional academic power-knowledge arrangements. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(3); 173-185.       

ERIC. (2012). About the ERIC program. Retrieved 1 Nov 2012 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/resources/html/about/about_eric.html.

Fontichiaro, K., & Harvey, C. (2010). How elementary is Wikipedia? School Library Monthly, 27(2); 22-23.

Forte, A., Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the classroom: Exploring online publication and learning. ICLS; 182-188

Google. (2012). About Google Scholar. Retrieved 1 Nov 2012 from http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html.

Hardy, M. (2007). Wiki goes to war. Australian Quarterly, 79(4); 17-22.

Harouni, H. (2009). High School research and critical literacy: Social Studies with and despite Wikipedia. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3); 473-493.

Jancarik, A., & Jancarikova, K. (2010). Wiki tools in the preparation and support of e-Learning courses. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(2); 123-132.

JSTOR. (2012). Using JSTOR. Retrieved 1 Nov 2012 from http://about.jstor.org/content/using-jstor-0#JSTOR-Content.

Kittur, A., Chi, E., Pendleton, B., Suh, & B., Mytkowicz, T. (2007). Power of the few vs. wisdom of the crowd: Wikipedia and the rise of the bourgeoisie. WWW; 1- 9.

Kniffel, L. (2008). Authority and Wikipedia. American Libraries, 39(7); 4.

Konieczny, P. (2009). Governance, organization,  and democracy on the Internet: The iron law and the evolution of Wikipedia. Sociological forum, 24(1); 169-192.

LaFrance, J., & Calhoun, D. (2012). Student perceptions of Wikipedia as a learning tool for educational leaders. National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, 1-15.

Maehre, J. (2009). What it means to ban Wikipedia: An exploration of the pedagogical principles at stake. College Teaching, 57(4); 229-236.

Oblinger, D. (2007). Becoming net savvy. Educause Quarterly, 3: 11-13.

Pollard, E. (2008). Raising the stakes: Writing about Witchcraft on Wikipedia. The History Teacher, 42(1); 9-24.

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3); 103-116.

Purdy, J. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia. CCC, 61(2); 351-372.

Rozenweig, R. (2006). Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past. Organization of American Historians, 93(1);117-146.

Schweitzer, N.J. (2008). Wikipedia and Psychology: Coverage of concepts and its use by undergraduate students. Teaching of Psychology, 35(2); 81-85.

Shareski, D., & Winkler, C. (2005). Are Wikis worth the time? International Society of Technology in Education, 1.

Viegas, F., Wattenberg, M., Kriss, J., & Ham, F. (2007). Talk before you type: Coordination in Wikipedia. IEEE; 1-10.

Wysocki, A. (2009). Seeing the screen: Research into visual and digital writing practices. In C. Bazerman (Ed), Handbook of research and writing: History, society, school , individual, text (599-611). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis group.