Alright, so a random series of events and no class meeting and some changes to the reading assignments this week. But I still ended up learning many good things this week through the YouTube video. I can critique articles in a hundred different ways, but most of them are probably not academic in nature. I used to work for an educational publishing company, so most of the ways that I learned to critique were probably economic in nature (or to be graded in college). So now to add another method that is academic in nature.

But the method of critique that has been touched on a few times in class and expanded upon in the video makes a lot of sense. You get to know first if the study/article itself was even formed correctly before you really invest in reading the whole thing. But I guess one of the things I am now pondering is if I need to spend so much time writing the intro to my papers… seems like people reading them might be skipping past that part to get to the meat. But, anyways – I also haven’t really considered that I need to check to make sure that the “big names” are mentioned or covered properly in the appropriate areas.  Know your stuff if you want people to take you seriously. I still need to learn many of those big names, but that will be helpful to think of. I also look for certain names (like Prensky) that raise red flags. If any article mentions “digital natives” as a serious label, I would seriously wonder what else could be wrong in there.