I knew what you meant by learning. My question was rhetorical in order to make my point. You can educate anyone to any degree and to agenda you may have. Education is not knowledge. Education is not Reason. Education is not facts. Education IS ideas. Which to me is what the article is suggesting when it asks: " Are we creating a generation of kids who can neither formulate a research plan nor analyze their findings? "
This is what hinders education in the short run and learning in the the long run.
Our Institiutions of higher learning are more concered with "education" and not as much with learning. Education is an agenda, Learning and Reason are ideals. They are...

I knew what you meant by learning. My question was rhetorical in order to make my point. You can educate anyone to any degree and to agenda you may have. Education is not knowledge. Education is not Reason. Education is not facts. Education IS ideas. Which to me is what the article is suggesting when it asks: " Are we creating a generation of kids who can neither formulate a research plan nor analyze their findings? "
This is what hinders education in the short run and learning in the the long run.
Our Institiutions of higher learning are more concered with "education" and not as much with learning. Education is an agenda, Learning and Reason are ideals. They are not synonymous.

And by the way, I also knew you would be snotty about it.

the great majority of what Americans call "education" happens to take
place inside schools, like it or not. It's a term of convenience, not
ideology, in this case.

And now you have taken a term of convenience and made it about ideology. I think it is important to distinguish the meaning of words. After all this article asks the question. If you want to dismiss my opinion because you have a different definition, then that is fine. However, it is disingenous to then say I am putting words in your mouth.
If you are going to ask the question: "Is the Web's easy access to information bad for education?", it is important to distinguish the attributes of education, learning, reason...

the great majority of what Americans call "education" happens to take
place inside schools, like it or not. It's a term of convenience, not
ideology, in this case.

And now you have taken a term of convenience and made it about ideology. I think it is important to distinguish the meaning of words. After all this article asks the question. If you want to dismiss my opinion because you have a different definition, then that is fine. However, it is disingenous to then say I am putting words in your mouth.
If you are going to ask the question: "Is the Web's easy access to information bad for education?", it is important to distinguish the attributes of education, learning, reason and the impact of it's sources and methodologies. To me sources have little to do with education. What is important is the reason, dissemination, application, discussion and testing of these "sources".

Good grief, willhelm, I can't follow you. All right, it was careless of me to say that education is formal and institutional when what I meant to say was, in this context I think the word education is referring to something that's formal and institutional. You got me!

Beyond that, I honestly don't get what your point is. In my view, the article argues that the easy accessibility of little factoids and chunks of information, usually without context, which is historically novel and would have been almost unimaginable even twenty years ago, has a tendency to lull people into thinking they understand complex issues because they can Google it and get a few soundbites or statistics. Certa...

Good grief, willhelm, I can't follow you. All right, it was careless of me to say that education is formal and institutional when what I meant to say was, in this context I think the word education is referring to something that's formal and institutional. You got me!

Beyond that, I honestly don't get what your point is. In my view, the article argues that the easy accessibility of little factoids and chunks of information, usually without context, which is historically novel and would have been almost unimaginable even twenty years ago, has a tendency to lull people into thinking they understand complex issues because they can Google it and get a few soundbites or statistics. Certainly I see this in my students. I see it in debates that go on here. As far as I'm concerned, this means that there's a certain risk to education. The total effect isn't bad, nor is it good; it means that teachers have to change their strategy and, to a certain extent, counteract the influence of the broader information culture which (I think) encourages a superficial confusion of "information" with "understanding". But, speaking from experience, that's very difficult. I can imagine that back a few decades ago when in order to find a piece of information you actually had to go to the trouble of walking to the library, finding a book in a card catalogue, poking through the stacks and finding the book, and flipping through the book -- undoubtedly coming across additional information at every step of the process -- it would be harder to lift information completely out of context. Also the sheer added investment of energy involved in doing research would mean that people had to put a little more time into being sure they asked the right questions. These days, since you can gather masses of information practically effortlessly, the initial barrier, which encouraged people to formulate research questions thoughtfully and critically and with an eye to context, is lower.

You got me!

My intention was not to get you.

Beyond that, I honestly don't get what your point is. In my view, the
article argues that the easy accessibility of little factoids and
chunks of information, usually without context, which is historically
novel and would have been almost unimaginable even twenty years ago,
has a tendency to lull people into thinking they understand complex
issues because they can Google it and get a few soundbites or
statistics.

I agree. However bad information can lead to good education if used, studied and discussed correctly. Hence....

The total effect isn't bad, nor is it good; it means that teachers have
to change their...

read more»

You got me!

My intention was not to get you.

Beyond that, I honestly don't get what your point is. In my view, the
article argues that the easy accessibility of little factoids and
chunks of information, usually without context, which is historically
novel and would have been almost unimaginable even twenty years ago,
has a tendency to lull people into thinking they understand complex
issues because they can Google it and get a few soundbites or
statistics.

I agree. However bad information can lead to good education if used, studied and discussed correctly. Hence....

The total effect isn't bad, nor is it good; it means that teachers have
to change their strategy and, to a certain extent, counteract the
influence of the broader information culture which (I think) encourages
a superficial confusion of "information" with "understanding".

This is my point. It's not bad and it is not good because sources are not education.

Certainly I see this in my students. I see it in debates that go on here.

I see it here, in the media, on the left, on the right, in the middle, at home, and at work. Also, my point.

The ultimate point is reason, validity of ideas, expression of truth, pursuit of facts, and encouragement of open discussion.

These days, since you can gather masses of information practically
effortlessly, the initial barrier, which encouraged people to formulate
research questions thoughtfully and critically and with an eye to
context, is lower.

Exactly right in my view.

All these points lead to an undersatanding of what education really is and knowing these things we can answer the question: Is the Web's easy access to information bad for education?

Answer: NO , because in your words : "The total effect isn't bad, nor is it good; it means that teachers have
to change their strategy and, to a certain extent, counteract the
influence of the broader information culture which (I th