The Blurred Lines of Cheating


Crap Detection PART I: Reflection

In Rheingold video, his purpose is to teach audience how to determine credibility of websites. This video concentrates on five literacies: attention, participation, cooperation, critical consumption (crap detection), and network awareness. He also addresses that internet can be unsafe, but people nowadays questions information that they are given on the internet more than they questioned it before. This questioning and awareness that consumers have nowadays leads to the idea of ‘crap detection.’ And idea of ‘crap detection’ does not require a college degree, it is simply asking questions about the information you find online and about determining an attitude that requires you to question information that you are given.

The way presents and explains this idea of ‘crap detection’ made it easier to understand. It was easily visible that the man deeply understood what he was speaking of and felt strongly about it. And even though he clearly showed an understanding of his topic, he did not pretend to know all the answers, and left quite a few points to the consumers interpretation.

My ‘crap detection’ is pretty high because every since we were able to use computers in school, our teachers have constantly been telling us that we must look for certain things to know whether the site is worthy.

When looking at the other sources to explain ‘crap detection’ I chose the link Can You Spot the Fake Scientific Studies? For this resource we are given six options, three of which are actual studies that scientists have done and three were made up. We were then asked to determine which three were fake. I chose “Robotic squirrel models: study of squirrel-rattlesnake interaction in laboratory and natural settings” and “Using holographic simulations in crowd control: a case study” and “Are ironic acts deliberate?” I got two out of the three correct (Robotic squirrels and ironic acts). The reason I chose holographic simulations instead of the mummy cat was because it seemed harder to perform that experiment and more unrealistic, but I guess it really was done.

“Your Brain on Google”

Dr. Gray Small investigated how the internet effected our brain. In 2008, the scientist and his  colleagues did a study of brain activity when reading compared to when on the internet. On the internet, you use your decision making part of your brain. When reading, it appears that not as much activity is going on but that is not always bad.

“Are they as savvy as they seem?”

This professor explains the idea that my generation is very tech savvy and that helps them in school because they don’t need to learn how to use it, they come into the classroom and are ready to go. He also said that a study was done where they determined that our time on the internet compared to our time doing homework is 9 hours:1 hour in a week. This difference is significant.

“Diving In”

This professor says that when Google searching students tend to not look past page of results. He thinks that we need to look farther than that. He also says that kids are so consumed with technology that they barely pay any attention to books or outside activity. Library amount of check outs have gone down.