Thanks, Bill, for the thoughtful post on your's and Harlene's project. I
was particularly interested in your statement:
>Students have initially found the American Memory site complex to use, but
>as their familiarity with it grew, it became easier to find material. Some
>students mistook background statements and overviews of the collections for
>primary sources themselves, and I corrected them as we went along.
This fascinates me. I've become very interested in how people read such
material. What happens when kids read so that they mistake
overviews/background material for primary sources? Was it their inability to
scan first, was it because they hadn't a lot of previous exposure to primary
sources? Please understand, this isn't anything about how you presented the
material. I'm just curious about the kids' misunderstandings and why it
happened. There is a lot of discussion in certain circles about how we read
and whether reading hypertext is different from other kinds of reading. I tend
to argue that it isn't about on or off line texts, but about the act of
reading itself. I think if we want to use this material effectively we have
to look closely at these kinds of misunderstandings.
Is it happening in other projects? Anyone else observe this and have thoughts
Delivered by the Dalton/NLTL Internet gateway.