Archive:Stories: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 -->
+{{cquote|At Portland State University's Intensive English program, I teach ESL and American Culture to students from 50 nations. After completing their American college and graduate studies, most of these students will return to leadership roles in their home countries.
+In the adult ESL classroom, we use Wikipedia to learn quick facts and also to learn about English writing. We start with Simple English pages, when available, and move into the full English  ASAP.
+Students who hail from countries where information is tightly controlled are often surprised by how easy it is to answer a question. Of course now they get Wikipedia on their phones; it is absolutely instant gratification. And because they find it so easy to use, Wikipedia has evolved into a major teaching tool for me.
+In a recent class on adjective clauses (not normally an exciting subject) students had to fill-in-the-blanks of a "which" clause:  "We took the road from Amman to Riyadh, which is [-] kilometers long." OK, get on Wikipedia and find out. Or, "we heard an address from the current Prime Minister of Japan, whose name is [-]." Again, the race for the answer!
+Also from the English Wikipedia, my students learn writing: vocabulary, paragraph structure, organization of information, and how to follow the references at the bottom of each page in order to cite those original sources. If a page flagged for lack of evidence or bias, we discuss those flags -- students learn research-culture values from seeing the comments of editors too.
+Thanks Wikipedia, from a grateful teacher of academic ESL!}}
+<hr>
 {{cquote|Wikipedia is the go-to source for answers to virtually any question and is a triumph of the internet age. For some reason it is popular for people, especially teachers and professors, to seriously doubt the authenticity of wikipedia to the extent that I often hear assignments which explicitly bar wikipedia as a source. They seem to ignore the fact that the majority of wikipedia articles have copious citations to back up their claims: in fact, it is more odd to notice a claim that needs a citation than one which has links to one or more online resources. These same people presumably trust a handful of editors printing paper encyclopedia for profit more than individuals so invested in their areas of expertise that they take time out of their lives to share knowledge with the entire world for free. The rest of us know better and are that much more informed for visiting wikipedia whenever the occasions presents itself. Here's to another year of the world's information for free at the fingertips of the world.}}