Josh Ng - 7131EDN Assignment 1 & 2 (wiki post)

“Googlization” in education
“Googlization” (Vaidhyanathan, 2011) describes the ubiquitous worldwide dominance of Google, permeating lives including education creating an epistemological risk. Yet, its split-seconds integrated search results of websites, images, videos, news etc. over billions of websites presented in a clean organized fashion ranked using popularity is an everyday blessing when not long ago in the 1990s the world-wide-web (in 1990) was chaotic. Attitudes towards Google are overwhelmingly positive. However, in education the informational need arising from the need to seek answers (Taylor, 1968), reduce uncertainty (Atkin, 1973), and make sense (Artandi, 1973) or a wide spectrum of motivations such as subjective information needs (Derwin and Dewdney, 1986) calls for a scrutiny of our information behaviour. The world-wide-web which feeds into Google Page Rank algorithm (Page, Brin, Motwani and Winograd, 1999) is not really a worldwide in coverage. Google misses out on the “deep web” (Macleod, 2012). Even Google Scholar is not comparable to the current “scientific literature database” due to limitations - search syntax, results retrieval and graphical user interface (Boeker, Vach and Motschall, 2013). Consequently, information literacy is essentially in education (Brabazon, 2007) (Trilling and Fadel, 2009). Based on our review, there is no strong evidence that Google is unduly influencing the education institutional arrangement and the rise of plagiarism. The underlying issues, however, is that education institutional arrangement may have been too entrenched to be responsive enough in the Google age. The casual treatment of web information as though for collective use also speaks of a careless attitude towards copyright.
(251 words excluding heading)

Digital Information Literacy Professional Resource For Polytechnic Students
The academic rigor necessary in the context of an institute of higher learning calls for a greater scrutiny in the students’ Google information diet. Google has an overwhelming appeal to in terms of its ubiquitous ease of access and instant information gratification for students (D’couto and Rosenhan, 2015). However, its information quality and students’ ignorance of their information search behavior is worrying (Salisbury and Karasmanis, 2011)(Ivanitskaya, Laus & Casey, 2004:170). Consequently, a resource that emphasized beyond the conventional skills-based information literacy to embrace the “digital” aspect (Bowler and Nesset, 2013) and multiple literacies underpin the design of our intended resource.
The purpose of our professional is for polytechnic students transiting from their secondary school to polytechnics and are not exposed to the academic rigor required for a well-researched assignment. It further serves as a tool to construct deeper knowledge that is required for polytechnic students transiting to universities. Students in the modern era tend to “power browse”, never really reading or delving deeper for knowledge construction (Rowlands, Nicholas, Williams, Huntington and Fieldhouse, 2008). Hence, the design of our resource is to arrest such information behavior. This resource is divided into three levels of competencies scaffolding each other. Level 1 “Basic housekeeping skills” focused on understanding search language, the characteristics of information itself and “five things we should know about Google”. Level 2 “Mental map” progressed beyond information search skills to encourage students to have a mental map in developing their assignment with critical thinking and to appreciate the source of web information and their hierarchy. Level 3 “Multi-literacies” aims to develop a “reflexive” approach envisaged by Brabazon (2013)’s horizontal modeling of literacies and create an awareness that Google information is re-representation of the real world. Not everything is in Google and Google is not everything in information. Mackey and Jacobson (2011) posited a “meta-literacies” as the new overarching literacies for digital information literacy.
(313 words)

Bowler, L., & Nesset, V. (2013). Information Literacy. In Beheshti, J. and Large, A. (Eds.), The Information Behavior Of A New Generation (pp. 45-60). UK: Scarecrow Press Inc.
Brabazon, T. (2013). Digital Dieting From Information Obesity to Intellectual Fitness. England, US: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
D’couto, M. & Rosenhan, S. H. (2015). How Students Research: Implications For The Library And Faculty. Journal of Library Administration, 55, 562-576.
Ivanitskaya, L., Laus, R., & Casey, A. M. (2004). Research readiness self-assessment: assessing students’ research skills and attitudes. Journal of Library Administration, 41(1/2), 167-183.
Mackey, T.P. & Jacobson, T. E. (2011). Reframing Information Literacy as a Meteliteracy. College and Research Libraries, 72(1), 62-78.
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., and Fieldhouse, M. (2008) The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290-310.
Salisbury, F. & Karasmanis, S. (2011). Are They Ready? Exploring Student Information Literacy Skills In The Transition From Secondary to Tertiary Education. Australian Academic Research Libraries, 42(1), 43-58.