Two Photos, Two Different Stories

Given the graphic nature of the Web, visual literacy and information literacy are inextricably entwined. The ability to make sense of graphical or illustrative material is critical, especially since we are more quickly attracted to images on pages than text. At least that's my theory.

Visual literacy falls into the area of investigative searching: how credible is the image? What does it mean? What is it's purpose?

Without going into it deeply, images can be assigned several purposes: to convey information in a more robust way than text alone (hence, a picture is worth a thousand words), to make a page more visually appealing, to move us emotionally and, here's the one I want to address here, to deceive us.

Fake or photoshopped photos are quite easy to produce. Recall the photo of the sightseer atop the North Tower posing for the camera while an AA jet fast approaches? That's what I'm talking about.

So here is the visual challenge for today. Look at the two shark pictures. Here are links to larger images:

Hitching a ride

Kayak on a serene sea


Both of them may be real. Or just one of them. Or neither. How can you tell? Careful investigation will reveal the answer. If you want to leave your assessment and how you did it by commenting, go ahead. Otherwise I'll talk about some techniques in the next blog.

At the Intersection of Web 2.0 and Information Fluency

I've had the opportunity to lead a number of workshops this year entitled, "Power Searching in a Web 2.0 World." Sometimes the sessions are 45 minutes long; other times I've had 6 hours. No matter the length of time, it's difficult to wrap one's arms around Web 2.0.

There are a host of new tools that debut weekly in the Web 2.0 world. Just staying current takes hours. And while people are generally interested in what's new, they also want to know how information fluency intersects with this world. That takes a chunk of time by itself.

I usually start by comparing two worlds: Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. There are some simple comparisons. For example, in Web 1.0 you can only lurk. You can't leave your mark. In Web 2.0 you may lurk, but that's not really the way to discover the value that's there. Leaving your mark creates value. That's typically accomplished by blogging, contributing to a wiki, saving a bookmark, uploading an image or a video or commenting on someone's else efforts to do so.

Here are a few more global insights about Web 2.0 from an information fluency perspective:

• As much as Web 2.0 is all about contributing, equally important is networking. These two words sum up most of what there is to know about Web 2.0. At the intersection of Web 2.0 and Information Fluency, the purpose of the environment cannot be overlooked. Finding the 'right' bit of information may require participation and networking; and that takes time.
• You may get to know an author by joining his or her network, you may build trust by being a participant. The investment of time may result in the formation of your own personal learning network--which could be very powerful and long-lasting. Some of the people who benefit most from Web 2.0 have built large networks of colleagues who provide help on demand. For example, I've seen Will Richardson use Twitter during a workshop to harvest responses from his network. The larger your network, the more powerful it becomes (also know as the network effect). Applying Information Fluency skills in this environment can consume a great deal of time. But you may end up with much more than the piece of information you set out to find.
• You have to limit your choices. How many networks can you realistically join? I have memberships in Facebook, Twitter, Digg, Diigo, Delicious, Flickr, Wikipedia and Linked In. I rarely post in most of them. You have to choose where you want to spend your time. Linked In is a good investment if you're trying to build professional (business) relationships. I see a lot of Ed Tech folks in Twitter. I connect mainly with members of my family in Facebook.
  
• Web 2.0 is a public place. The information you contribute tells something about you. The more you share, they more others will know, if they're interested. You may try to hide your identity, but your readers will discover a lot about you even if they never learn your real name. You have limited control over who is able to access your information.
  
• Speculative searching doesn't work as well in Web 2.0 as it does in Web 1.0. Part of the reason for this is that search engines return the most recent information first. For example, if you are looking for a post that's more than a month old in Technorati, you have to page down and down (Google Blog Search makes it possible to search by date range). Another reason is that searching based on tags is less likely to return predictable results than keywords drawn from the context of a whole page. Tags are keywords, of course, but they are chosen by the author to characterize the information as a whole. You aren't searching the whole information. Search for a specific photo in flickr sometime. It's hard to do. You may find pictures with similar qualities but not an exact match. Try it (here's the challenge in this post).
  
• A better use of speculative searching is not to start with ideas that are too specific. Use Web 2.0 to open your eyes to new information. Exploring tagclouds is a brainstorming activity.
  
• Finally--and by no means is this the last word!--the wisdom of crowds is active in Web 2.0. The more people and perspectives that weigh in on a topic makes the information more reliable. This is the principle of collective intelligence behind the genius of Wikipedia. This is the phenomenon behind what becomes a popular item in DIGG. This may even be why Fake Steve Jobs has over 52,000 followers in Twitter, while other Steve Jobs have only a fraction of that. Has the crowd found the Real Steve Jobs? See for yourself.
  

The Trivial Nature of Search Challenges

If you google internet search challenge, the top results are published by 21cif, including this blog. But there are other challenges out there:

Internet Search Challenge

Kim Bauman put together 10 questions that can be answered using a search engine, such as:

1. Define garrulous.
2. Who stated that The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do?
3. Where is Mosi-oa-Tunya located?

The answers are on the site and may be used as a quick set of challenges using Google.

Jr. High Internet Search Challenge

St. Marys Schools (OH) published this 73-item pencil and paper trivia information challenge with items such as:

1. Find a copycat recipe for Outback Steakhouse’s Bloomin’ Onion
2. Who was the voice of Darth Vadar in the Star Wars movies?
3. Who is the current head coach of the Arena Football League’s Columbus team?

They link to it as a Junior High Search Challenge, although the url or the pdf doesn't describe it that way. Searching for 73 items would take a pretty good block of time, but it's possible to select fewer items. No search key provided.

Internet Search Challenge

This one or two player game published by Boise State University has automated features, like dice to select the type of search tool to be used, and timed search challenges. The objective is to find the correct answer to the question before the hourglass runs out (there's also a stop watch function). Sample questions include:

1. What was the name for one of the first computers invented in 1946 by J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly at the University of Pennsylvania?
   Bonus: How much space did it take up?
2. What is the name for a number followed by 100 zeros.
   Bonus: How do you write this number with exponents?

Internet Search Challenge

Tom Sloan at University of West Virginia has posted a search exercise (9 items) for his English 102 course, including questions like:

1. What is the real name for Method Man of Wu-Tang Clan?
2. What is the meaning of the Welsh word "cymru?"

The directions for this exercise include explaining how the answer was obtained.

As this sampling makes clear, the task in most search challenges is to locate obscure information, usually intended to be of interest to the searcher. In addition, the task may be to use a specific type of tool in the process and to keep track of one's search to explain how an answer was found (a difficult thing to remember, actually). The task in all these is what I consider 'speculative searching': you don't know for certain what words to use or where to look.

There are few 'investigative searches,' yet this is where students need the most help. They tend to accept information uncritically; they don't often have investigative questions in mind when they search. So let me leave you with one: what is the author's real reason for producing the site: Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus? It's a hoax site, but why? Why does the author invest the energy in keeping the site fresh (and misleading)?

This is a deeper type of search challenge and requires more thought than answering trivia. In fact, the answer is not known. It's a real challenge. If you or your students want to tackle the question--what motivates the author of the Tree Octopus site?-- feel free to add your comments here.