Steve Wheeler’s keynote for the International Technology, Education and Development Conference covered many valuable idioms and concepts:
The have and have nots and the wills and the will nots
Disruptive technology: technology that redefines learning experiences
New cultural capital involves transliteracies
Rhizonomy – learning through social software
Crowdsourcing curriculum (IATED, 2015).
I see already, many connections between what he says and what was covered in my previous subject, ETL504 Teacher Librarian as Leader. I see the need for TLs to continue to support the whole school community in their digital learning endeavours. All the while remembering the seduction and bewilderment cycle of new technology. Wheeler posits that schools often buy into new technology without knowing what they want to do with them and we should instead start with the problem first, then move to how technology might solve it (IATED, 2015). While recognising and being prepared for the laggards – those individuals and groups who are averse to change. A fixed mindset, which stems from many and varying circumstances and justifications, prevents them from shifting focus, learning something new, and adopting change. In teaching in particular, change fatigue is real. We are experiencing this now with the implementation of the new senior syllabus and ATAR. Cognitive verbs, implementation of Moodle, new professional development register, new academic skills program, mentoring program, the list goes on. Teachers are overwhelmed. Laggardism is their ammunition.
How can Teacher Librarians support the community through this change? There are so many possibilities. Now is our time to shine. It was confirming to hear Wheeler speak of connectivism and its relationship with Web 3.0 and 4.0. These communities of learning can support learning experiences and inquiry across the curriculum by supporting learners through the information search process, specifically during what Kuhlthau posits as “the dip” (2016). I spoke about the TLs place in the dip here and here. In a similar way, web-based communities of learning can help learners through the affective pitfalls of uncertainty through socially constructed knowledge and understanding (O’Connell & Groom, 2010). Learning 3.0 toward learning 4.0, is connectivist and community driven, whether through learning modes, content or construct. Crowdsourcing education is possible and can enhance and redefine learning. TLs have extensive professional learning networks with which to draw from and ways to assist teachers and students in setting up their digital communities and participatory learning environments.
To thrive in these digital learning communities, students require digital wisdom; whether through mastery of the SCRAP test, enhancement of their digital reputation and digital legacy, or through other digital literacies. As Wheeler mentioned, literacies are the product of combining skills and competencies in new ways which are needed to develop mastery. TLs have a clear role to play in the support of students in these areas.
Wheeler’s reminder through his keynote was to be cognisant and considerate of the gap between those with knowledge, know-how, power, influence, potential and those without.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2016). Information search process. Retrieved from http://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/wp-content/uploads/sites/185/2016/01/ELIS-3E.pdf
The ability to read and interpret information is a fundamental skill needed to participate fully in the world. These basic skills (although actually quite complex) will continue to be as important, if not more, than the past. The information-rich world is expanding; however, algorithms are filtering the information we see. So, people’s values and beliefs are consistently reinforced, while other perspectives are left out or buried on page 3 of Google search results – an equally ominous fate. In turn, this leads to confirmation bias, which can be detrimental to those who cannot critically evaluate what they are experiencing and reading.
Algorithms present users with a calculated selection of “relevant” information; however, it is clear that users must develop and employ the necessary skills to work within these algorithms. The top search results are not always the most useful. Searchers must not ignore the other titbits of information such as Google’s snippets displayed under each search result. While Google can change the snippet from the meta description of the webpage to their own algorithmically determined snippet (Silver Smith, 2013), it is still a useful port of call that many searchers skip over. This allows savvy searchers to preliminarily assess the relevance and worth of the search results – which are not always at the top of the page (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017). But algorithms are not the only cause of confirmation bias. Ashrafi-Amiri & Al-sader (2016) suggest searchers’ assumptive search queries based on fact retrieval and verification will characteristically retrieve more bias results than if the query were non-assumptive; that is, knowledge acquisition, comparative, analytical, and exploratory in nature. Information literacy instructors must be aware of this and consider this when developing instruction for students.
TLs must address the critical thinking skills required to work with and within algorithms that reinforce bias. Maynes (2015) identifies the role of information literacy instructors in explicitly teaching students about the forms of bias, ways to identify their own bias, and skills to mitigate the potential effects of their bias. This involves teaching the metacognitive skills students need to not only know the strategies to use but how, when and why to use them (Maynes, 2015). A combination of lateral and vertical reading is useful in all information evaluation situations. While many libraries utilise a CRAP (Currency, Reliability, Authority, Purpose/Point of View) test to step students through the information evaluation process, other steps can also be considered so students tune into their metacognition and identify their bias (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017). Allan (2017) suggests incorporating some form of personal reflection into the information literacy sessions offered to students. Students must not only be taught that confirmation bias exists, they must also be taught the skills to identify it in themselves and to deal with it when it occurs. One such strategy is to identify when a source of information elicits an emotional response from the reader – Does it make you happy? Sad? Reinforce? Challenge? Developing self-regulation triggers the reader to seek additional information and reflection to consider the opposite or alternate (Hirt & Markman, 1995; Lord, Lepper, & Preston, 1984; Mussweiler, Strack, & Pfeiffer, 2000). This requires information searchers to reflect on their reactions at each step and consider whether their evaluation of the usefulness or credibility of the source would be the same if it presented the opposing viewpoint. Deliberately considering the opposing viewpoint requires the searcher to consider their bias and the bias of others. This is a powerful strategy in unveiling subconscious or hidden bias. Allan (2017) posits adding an S (Self-examination or Self-awareness) to the beginning of the CRAP test would highlight the importance of identifying and recognising cognitive and confirmation bias.
SCRAP it: Source evaluation process.
The importance of slowing down the information evaluation process by thinking effortfully and deliberately (Kahneman, 2011) and evaluating laterally (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017) is central to 21st century information and digital literacy. Evaluating laterally requires searchers to seek and consider context and perspective, which means they must seek additional information. Slowing down does not simply mean taking longer to read the article and its parts – it means careful and deliberate consideration and slowing your judgement by first taking your bearings and exploring laterally. This may mean to first leave the site or visit the About Us section to find out more about the author or the organisation, before navigating back to the original source (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017). Thinking laterally can occur in multiple stages of the CRAP test, particularly when assessing the reliability and purpose/point of view present in the source. Searchers will need to explore other sites to learn more about the information. While searchers will not always slow down and employ lateral reading, it is important to know when to slow down. High stakes situations where the searcher may possess a strong bias already or where the information may have significant consequences for the searcher or others, or a highly contested issue or topic may require more deliberate reasoning to ensure the searcher is acquiring balanced, truthful information (Maynes, 2015). Considering the opposite is another practical strategy to employ in these situations.
It is clear that information evaluation and digital literacy skills need to evolve with changing demands and issues within the information landscape. Information literacy instructors must stay abreast of these changes and adapt evaluation strategies as needed. A start might be to model and incorporate lateral reading into existing strategies and follow Allan’s (2017) suggestion and put that S at the beginning of CRAP.
References
Allan, M. (2017). Information literacy and confirmation bias: You can lead a person to information, but can you make him think? Informed Librarian Online, 2017(5). Retrieved from https://asu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346.1/30699
Ashrafi-Amiri, N. & Al-sader, J. (2016). Effects of confirmation bias on web search engine results and a differentiation [Thesis]. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43564372.pdf
Hirt, E.R., & Markman, K.D. (1995). Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1069– 1086.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231-1243.
Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9),1142–1150.
