View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
1
SUCCESSFULSTUDENTS,ENLIGHTENEDCITIZENS:ACALLFORDEVELOPING
INFORMATIONANDDIGITALLITERACYINFIRST‐YEARCOURSES
KeriLeeCarterMiddleTennesseeStateUniversity
keri.carter@mtsu.edu
Abstract
Strategiesforteachingcollegestudentstoevaluatesourcesforresearchhaveevolved
dramaticallyasinformationliteracyhasexpandedalongsidetheever‐changingroleof
digitalinformation.First‐yearcollegeinstructorsaretaskedwiththeresponsibilityof
introducingbestpracticesincollege‐levelresearchbutfacemountingchallengesasdigital
nativesentercollege.Thisarticlecallsforallhighereducationinstructorsandothersto
recognizetheirindividualandcollectiverolesinequippingstudentswiththetoolsthey
needtoensurethatdigitalinformationliteracyisestablishedinthefirstyearofcollege,
scaffoldedthroughoutallyearsofcollege,andembeddedthroughoutstudents’lives.
Additionally,thisarticlepresentsfirst‐yearinstructorswithstrategiesforintroducing
criticalthinkingregardingsourceevaluation.
Keywords:Informationliteracy,Digitalliteracy,Lateralreading,Researchwriting,Source
evaluation,First‐yearcourses
Introduction
Collegeinstructorswhohavetaughtafirst‐yearcourserequiringresearchinthelast
decadehaveseenthechallengesourstudentsface.Thetasksofevaluatingsourcesand
developingahealthyperspectiveondigitalinformationliteracyhavebecomeproblematic
forstudentseventhoughtheyareimmersedinaworldofinstantinformation.Educators,
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
2
whoknowthatthisopenaccesstoinformationisbothwonderfulanddaunting,musthelp
studentsnavigatethedigitalrealmofinformation,equipthemwiththetoolsnecessaryto
becomeenlightenedcitizensandstudents,andaidintheirabilitytodismissmisleadingor
falseinformationoftenreferredtoas“fakenews.”Inthisarticle,wewilldefineinformation
anddigitalliteracy,discussresearchoncollegestudentinformationliteracyskills,and
provideseveralstepstointroducinglateralreadingandequippingfirst‐yearstudentswith
informationanddigitalliteracyskillsforthetwenty‐firstcentury.
TheRoleofInformationandDigitalLiteracyinHigherEducation
TheAmericanLibraryAssociation(ALA)(“InformationLiteracyCompetency,”
2018)definedinformationliteracy(IL)in1989asanindividual’sabilityto“recognize
wheninformationisneededandhavetheabilitytolocate,evaluate,anduseeffectivelythe
neededinformation”(InformationLiteracyDefined,para.1).Thissimpledefinitionrings
truetoday,andstudentswouldlikelyechothattheyneedthisabilitytonavigateand
survivetheiracademiccoursework.Likewise,Lokse,Lag,Solberg,Andreassen,and
Stenersen(2017)claimthatILishavingtheskilltofind,evaluate,anduserelevant,
available,qualityinformationforone’sownpurposes,whethergeneratingnewknowledge
ordevelopingfurtherunderstandingofexistingknowledge.Althoughthedetailswithinthe
definitionsofILvary,acommonthemeemerges:Studentsshouldbeabletoproductively
navigatetheworldofinformation.
Thesimplicityofthatstatement,however,exposesacriticallimitation.Absentisthe
conceptofstudents’awarenessoftheirownroleinconversationsofscholarship,andin
2016,theAssociationofCollege&ResearchLibraries(ACRL)constructedthe“Framework
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
3
forInformationLiteracyforHigherEducation”(2016),whichhashelpedreformulatethe
basicconceptsassociatedwithinformationliteracy.TheFrameworkincludesa
multifacetedperspectiveonliteracyandintroducessixthresholdconcepts:AuthorityIs
ConstructedandContextual,InformationCreationasaProcess,InformationHasValue,
ResearchasInquiry,ScholarshipasConversation,andSearchingasStrategicExploration.
AsnotedbyFulkerson,Ariew,andJacobson(2017),theACRLfilledasignificantgapinthe
conversationaboutliteracybyrecognizingmetaliteracyandmetacognition,notingthat
studentsmustunderstandtheirrolesas“informationcreators”aswellas“participantsin
researchandscholarship”(p.22).Thus,theconceptofILhasevolvedintomorethanjust
findingandusinginformation;itasksstudentstobecomeactive,mindfulparticipantsin
thecreationanddisseminationofinformation.Therefore,theconceptofsourceusagehas
nowexpandedintoamorenuancedconversationaboutwhatresearchactuallyisandthe
students’rolesandresponsibilitiesinthisprocess.
Moreproblemssurfaceforstudentsasdigitalliteracybecomesanobstacleintheir
researchprocesses.AsnotedbyClarkandVisser(2011),theFCCbelievesthatdigital
literacyincludestheinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICT)skillsutilizedto
acquire,appraise,andmakeuseofinformation(p.38).Thisincorporatesbothtechnological
skillsandcognitiveabilitiesaswellascommunicativemeasures—beingcapableofsharing
ideasthroughdigitalmedia.Consideringthedefinitionsabove,thetwenty‐firstcentury
learner’sroleinbecomingdigitallyinformationliterateisnoteasy,evenforthose
designatedasdigitalnatives.Infact,accordingtoSorgo,Bartol,Dolniar,andPodgornik
(2017),digitalnativeswithICTexperiencesdonotdevelopbetterinformationliteracy
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
4
skills.Furthermore,ownershipofsmartdevicesandcomputershadnoeffectonIL,except
thattabletownershipwasanegativepredictorofIL,andowningthesedeviceshadno
effectotherthanconfidenceinwebusage(p.764).Inotherwords,digitalnativeshada
falseperceptionoftheirabilitytonavigatedigitalinformation.Alloftheseelements
illustratehowtheskillsinvolvedinILaremuchmorecomplexthanjustfindingandusing
information;studentsmustnavigateanelusiveandevolvingsituationthatrequires
continualawareness.
TheALA(“InformationLiteracyCompetency,”2018)alsorecognizesthe
complicationofinformationliteracyinthedigitalage,notingthe“rapidtechnological
change”and“proliferatinginformationresources”thataffectstudentsduringtheresearch
process.Lokseetal.(2017)agreethatfewerthingschangefasterthandigital
environments.Theynotethatanarrowedfocusontechnologicalskillswillbeunsuccessful
inprovidingourstudentswithdigitalILskillsfortheirfutures;instead,educatorsmust
teachstudentsabouthowtoconnectpriorknowledgetonewinformation,discovernew
solutionsthroughinformation,andproducenewlycreatedinformationbasedondiverse
sources.Thetruetaskofhelpingstudentsbecomeinformationliteratedemandsamove
beyondsimplisticexercises.Lokseetal.(2017)providetheexampleofteachingstudents
howtociteanarticleorbook.Thisroteskillmayseemacceptabletohelpstudentsbecome
informationliterate;however,teachingstudentshowtohavearesearcher’smindsetis
morechallengingandimportant.Inconsideringthis,instructorsmustnotonlyaskstudents
toclimbBloom’sTaxonomybutalsoshowthemhowtodoso.
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
5
Beyondacademics,digitalinformationliteracyiscrucialinstudents’dailylivesand
futurecareers.TheALA(“InformationLiteracyCompetency,”2018)concursthat
informationoverloadtestswhatstudentscometoknowintheircareersandpersonallives,
expressingthatwithouttheeffectiveILskills,citizenswillnotbeabletoeffectivelysift
throughtheabundanceofunfilteredinformation.ClarkandVisser(2011)alsoremarkthat
ILis“akeystoneforcivicengagement…andeconomicgrowthandinnovation”(p.39).
MalitaandGrosseck(2018)furtherthisideaintheirstudyon“fakenews,”inwhichthey
cautionthatmoststudentsareconfusedabouthowtoconnectdigitalmedialiteracyin
theirdailylivestoacademicsandbeyond.Theyfindstudentshavetroublemeshingdigital
“know‐how”withacademicprocedures,whichhasadirectimpactontheirsuccessinany
occupation(pp.344‐345).ThisconceptisalsoechoedinresearchconductedbyTony
Wagner(2008)inTheGlobalAchievementGap.Throughhisstudyonwhatleaderslookfor
inemployees,Wagnerrevealsseven“SurvivalSkills”neededforsuccessbeyondthe
classroom,oneofwhichisaccessingandanalyzinginformation.TheleadersWagner
(2008)interviewedremarkedthatemployeesmustbecapableofprocessinglarge
quantitiesofinformation,findingdetailsthatmatter,andthenapplyingthosedetailsto
theirwork(p.36).MuchliketheALA(“InformationLiteracyCompetency,”2018),Wagner
(2008)stressesthechallengeofinformationrapidlyevolvingandhowthelackofILskill
canaffectastudent’sabilitytobecomeanengagedcitizenandlifelonglearner.Henotes,
“[A]ccesstoinformationisoflittleuse—andmayevenbedangerous—ifwedon’tknow
howtoevaluateit.Thustheimmediateavailabilityofinformationplacesanevengreater
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
6
premiumoncriticalthinkingskills”(p.37).Educators,therefore,mustscaffoldstudent
learninginILskillsandhelpthemseetheirimpactonlifelonggoals.
Askingstudentstoperformonahigherleveloflearning,though,canbedifficult,
especiallyinfirst‐yearcourseswherestudentsarejustbeginningtonavigatetheworldof
academe.Howcaninstructorsleadstudentstodevelopdigitalinformationsavvywhenthe
sheerquantityofeasilyaccessibleinformationisoverwhelming?Howcanwehelpstudents
avoidthetemptationofusingthefirstpieceofinformationofferedbyasearch?
Furthermore,howcanwehelpstudentsseethemselvesasapartoftheacademic
conversationamongstscholarsandresearchers?Highereducationhasaresponsibilityto
helpstudentsdiscoverhowdigitalinformationcanbemanipulative,howsearchengines
processandpresentinformation,howdigitalmediaproduceandshareinformation,and
howstudents’roleamongstitallisacrucialone.Mostimportantly,educatorsmust
convincestudentswhyalloftheseinformationliteracyskillsmattertotheirlivesinand
beyondtheclassroom.
ItisessentialtoemphasizethattheresponsibilityofILbelongstoallstakeholdersin
highereducation.AsnotedbytheALA(“InformationLiteracyCompetency,”2018),
informationliteracyisconnectedtoeverydisciplineandshouldbeincorporatedacrossthe
campuscommunityfromcurriculatoadministrationandbeyond,whichrequiresdedicated
collaboration.Anexampleofthiscross‐disciplinecollaborationistheLearningInformation
LiteracyAcrosstheCurriculumproject,whichwasformedbyagroupofhighereducational
stakeholdersacrossseveralinstitutions.Theprojectaimstostudystudents’currentIL
skills,suchashowtheyperformresearchindigitalspaces,andproposesinterventionsto
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
7
helpstudentsimproveandenhancetheseskills(Bohannon,Arnett,&Greer,2017).This
projectisapositiveinitialstep.Ifthemissionofhighereducationgenuinelyistodevelop
lifelonglearnersandengagedcitizens,educatorsinalldisciplinesmustensurethat
studentscanthinkcritically,andinformationliteracyisclearlyanextensionofthis
mindset.
WhatOurStudentsAre(andAreNot)DoingDuringtheResearchProcess
Inordertoteachinformationliteracyskills,wemustconsiderwhat“digitalnative”
studentsbelieveaboutsourceevaluationversuswhattheresearchshowsabouttheirIL
ability.MuchliketheworkofSorgoetal.(2017),LanningandMalleck(2017)revealthat
studentsofallachievementlevelsgraduatehighschoollackingsufficientILskills,andthat
theneedforformalILinterventionincollegeiscritical.Furthermore,GrossandLatham
(2011)studiedtheacademicandpersonalinformationseekinghabitsoffirst‐yearcollege
studentsandfoundthat,regardlessofILskillproficiency,studentsperceivedfindingand
usingsourceinformationtobeintuitive,notaskillthatneedsrefining.Thesestudents
believetheinternetgenerationholdsagreateradvantagewhengatheringinformation,and
theirself‐perceptionofbeinggoodwithtechnologyequatedtoaninflatedsenseofIL
ability.Infact,belowproficientstudents,whohadhigherperceptionsoftheirILabilities,
notedthatcomputersandGoogledotheworkforthemandthateducatorshavenothingto
teachtheminthisarea;thosewithhigherabilitiesalsofelttherewasnotmuchtolearn
beyondbasicskills.Studentswereskepticaloftheirinstructors’warningsaboutthe
internet;infact,studentsfounditeasytocomplywiththesimplisticmantrathatsiteslike
Wikipediaare“bad,”yetalsoexpressedthattheyhavenothadpoorexperienceswith
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
8
findinginformationfromsuchsitesingeneral.Theyprioritizedfindinginformationover
theinformationquality,whetherintheirpersonaloracademiclives.Theybelievedthat
recognizingbadinformationwasnotonlyintuitivebutalsoapersonalchoice.Grossand
Latham(2011)warnthatcallingthesestudentsthe“digitallyliterate”generationisaclear
misnomer.
WhileGrossandLatham’s(2011)researchrevealsanover‐confidenceintheability
tofindappropriatesources,Insua,Lantz,andArmstrong’s(2018)researchrevealsthat
almosthalfofstudentswhowroteinresearchjournalshadfeelingsofbeingunpreparedfor
college‐levelresearchandfearedcitingsourcesandplagiarism(p.147).Whilemanyofthe
studentsworriedabouttheabilitytofindsources,morepressingproblemsemergedfor
themafterthesearch:incorporatingtheresearch,understandingscholarlyworks,having
difficultyworkingwithlongertexts(e.g.,books),andexpressinganxietyaboutneedingthe
“perfect”sourcefortheirtopic(pp.149‐150).Thesestudentsalsorepeatedsimplehigh
schoolrulesforworkingwithsourcessuchasavoidingWikipedia,andInsuaandcolleagues
(2018)notethesemantrasstickwithstudentsbecausetheyareeasilyrememberedand
digested(p.152).Criticalthinkingisnotneededwhenateacherforbidsusingasource.
Ofimportanceinchangingstudentperceptionsisearlyinterventionandtimeto
developmorecomplexILskills.Bonnet,Herkova,andMcAlexander’s(2018)research
offersahopefulperspective:intheirstudy,studentsinallacademiclevelshadstatistically
significantgainsinILscores(p.505).TheirfindingsspecifythatILgainscanbeachieved
throughmanymeansofinstruction;whileactivelearningisvaluable,itismoreimportant
thatILinstructionbethoughtfullyalignedwithlearningoutcomesandthatitbeintegrated
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
9
throughmeaningfulways(p.507).Insuaandassociates(2018)suggestapproaching
sourcevaluethroughmorenuanceddiscussionsuchashavingstudentscontemplate
popularandscholarlysourcedifferencesandconsiderhoweachtypecontributestothe
topic’sconversation.Theynotethattheseactivitiescanbuilduponpreconceivedhigh
schoolideasofdo’sanddon’tsandaskstudentstoponderdifferingviewpointsand
sources,someofwhichmaybeintimidating(p.152).Sorgoetal.(2017)emphasizethat
educatorsshoulddevelopcoursesthataddressILwith“hands‐onandminds‐onactivities”
(p.764).MackeyandJacobson(2004)takethisastepfurtherinexpressingthateducators
mustbeawareofdifferentiatingILinstructiontoadapttotheneedsofstudentsatdifferent
timesintheiracademiclives.Accordingtotheirresearch,studentsgrowfrustratedwhen
theyareforcedtorepeatedlyperformsimilarassignmentsthatfosterILskills.Mackeyand
Jacobson(2004)notethatasstudentsprogressinclassandmajor,theyneedmorefocused
ILskillwork.ThisisespeciallyimportantsinceInsuaetal.(2018)notethatstudentsmay
believethatresearchisthesameregardlessofdiscipline(p.149).ByscaffoldingIL
throughouteachyearofcollegeandacrossdisciplines,studentswillbeabletogradually
developandeventuallymastertheirresearchskillsandbecomemoreindependentintheir
researchprocesses.
Twogroundbreaking,ongoingstudiesthatareinvestigatinghowstudentsconduct
researchareProjectInformationLiteracy(PIL)andTheCitationProject.Project
InformationLiteracy(2018)beganin2006asawaytostudycollegestudents’research
habits.Nowanextended,continuingstudyasapublicnon‐profit,PILcollectsdatafroma
varietyofcollegecampusestoexaminestudentviewsofresearch.Theyseekanswersto
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
10
questionssuchashowadultspracticeILinthedigitaleraregardlessofskill,howtheyseek
anduseinformationfromonlineresources,andhoweducatorsteachandtransferILskills
forlifelonglearning(ProjectInformationLiteracy,2018).Clearly,thesequestionsare
significanttohighereducationstakeholderswhoaretaskedwithhelpingstudentsnavigate
theworldofresearch.Sinceinformationiscreatedanddeliveredsoquickly,educators
mustpreemptivelybuildstrongresearchhabits.However,reminiscentoftheexample
providedbyLokseetal.(2017),teachingcriticalthinkingshouldbeattheforefrontofthis
battle.Any“do’sanddon’ts”oftodayintheresearchprocessworldmaynotexist
tomorrow,andany“do’sanddon’ts”thatwillendure,suchasthebasicsofcitinganarticle,
areseparatefromtheconceptsofbecomingtrulydigitalinformationliterate.Furthermore,
educatorsmustacknowledgethatthisever‐changingworldofdigitalinformationliteracyis
newtothem,too.InconsideringPIL’smainobjectives,onecanseethatresearchersarein
thediscoveryphaseofunderstandinghowtoteachdigitalinformationliteracy.
PILhasalsospawnedmoreresearchonstudentviewsofinformationliteracy.For
example,inonesuchstudy,Head(2013)examinedtheresearchhabitsofstudentsasthey
transitionedfromhighschoolintofirst‐yearcollegecourses.ThestudentsinHead’s(2013)
projectnotethatcollege‐levelresearchis“exciting,”“overwhelming,”andintimidating
consideringthequantityofinformation,evenwhenusingacademiclibrarysearches(p.2).
Studentsstruggledwithmappingoutkeywordsforsearchesand,afterfindingsources,
struggledwithunderstandingandweavingtogethersources.Whilesomestudentsstill
reliedonGooglebytheendoftheirfirstyear,manyalsotriedtoadoptbetterresearch
practices.First‐yearstudentsexpressedthatlibrariansandEnglishcompositioninstructors
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
11
werethemosthelpfulresearchguides(p.3).However,onemustnotethatasemesteror
twoofEnglishcompositionisnotenoughtoensurelife‐longinformationliteracyskills.
Englishcompositioninstructorsoftenlamenttheycannotdoenoughtochallengeand
changepreconceivednotionsaboutresearch.Again,astheALA(“InformationLiteracy
Competency,”2018)insists,allstakeholdersmustbeapartofdigitalinformationliteracy
education.
Anothercurrent,prominentstudyofhighereducationstudents’useofsources
originatesfromJamiesonandHoward’s(2013)TheCitationProject.Duringtheinitial
study,JamiesonandHoward(2013)examinedfirst‐yearstudentresearchpapersfrom16
highereducationinstitutionstogainabetterpictureofstudents’experienceswithand
perspectivesofsourceusage.Thefindingsrevealedthatstudentsdonotshowmasteryof
skillsassociatedwithfirst‐yearcoursesthatincludewritingandthattheyneedspecific
instructioninnavigatingtheresearchprocess.Forexample,theyfoundthatthe
overwhelmingmajorityofcitations(70%)stemmedfromthefirstpageortwoofsources.
Overhalf(52%)oftheresearchpapersincludedpatchwriting,aformofplagiarismin
whichattemptedparaphrasingonlyincludesmoving,deleting,orreplacingafewwords
andphrases.
Furthermore,Jamieson(2017)exploreswhatTheCitationProjectmeansfor
informationliteracyinherlongitudinalresearch.ImportantfindingsofJamieson’sstudy
includehowweteachstudentstoviewsources.Forexample,Jamiesonfindsthat
discussingandpresentingresearchas“formulaic,demandingparticulartypesofsources
and‘killerquotes,’whichcanmostlybeextractedfromthefirstpageofthesource”will
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
12
leadto,asnotedbyKleinfield(2011),researchpapersthatare“informationdumps”rather
thanacademicconversations(Jamieson,2017,p.133).Jamiesonfoundthatstudentsalso
overusesourcetypetodecideauthority(p.129).Evenwhenstudentsutilizethe“right”
typesofsources,onesthatfitdesiredrhetoricalgoalsandneeds,studentsareoftenunable
toshowhowthesourcesspeaktooneanother(p.133).Whenstudentsdofindappropriate
sources,theyofteneithercannotdoitaloneoraredoingsomostlyforcompliance(p.128).
WhilethefocusofherresearchisonEnglishcompositionstudies,onecanarguethat
Jamieson’s(2017)findingsrevealtoallcollegeanduniversityeducatorswhatmustbe
donetobetterstudents’digitalinformationliteracyhabits.Sheasks,amongstmanyother
pertinentquestions,“[I]finstitutionsrecognizethatILcannotbe‘delivered’inonelibrary
visit,assignment,orevensemester,howcanitbeadvancedprogrammaticallyor
throughoutastudent’seducation(andbeyondtolifelonglearning)?”(Jamieson,2017,
p.134).IfhighereducationinstructorsrecognizetheirindividualrolesinIL,thereishopein
helpingstudentsgrowinformationliterate.
OneapproachintacklingILthathasemergedistheconceptoflateralreading.In
2017,WineburgandMcGrewconductedastudycomparingthedigitalsourceevaluation
processesofthreegroups:factcheckers,historians,andcollegestudents.Theyfoundvastly
differentprocessesamongthesegroups.Whenfacedwithdiscerningthereliabilityof
digitalinformation,collegestudentsshowedthefollowinghabits.Studentstendedtoread
vertically,stayingonapageandonlyreadingupanddownasonewouldabook.They
mightalso“flutter,”hoveringthemouseacrossthescreenwithoutactuallyclickingand
withoutaclearplan.Theyoftendidnotinvestigatethepersonsororganizationsbehindthe
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
13
sourcesbeingevaluated(p.28).Additionally,studentstendedtoacceptwhatwasonthe
screenasfactifsomethingcouldbelocatedandverifiedwithoutcheckingforpoliticalslant
ortrustworthiness(p.32).Studentsoftenbasedevaluationsonsurface‐leveldistinctions,
suchasthenamesoforganizations,thelayoutanddesign,andtheabsenceof
advertisements.Thisledmanyofthestudentstobelievethatafringesourcewas,infact,
morereliable(p.18).Alternatively,factcheckingexpertsreadlaterally.Todoso,they
mightleaveonewebsite,openingothertabsinordertolearnmoreaboutwhatdrivesa
source.AsWineburgandMcGrew(2017)note,withlateralreadingonedoesnotactually
read;instead,theresearchersignoredanabundanceofirrelevantmaterialtojudgethe
reliabilityoftheinformation.Theyshowedclearknowledgeofhowsourcesare
constructed,howinternetsearchesworkandarestructured,andhowonemusthave
strategieswhensearchingandnavigatingsources(p.38).Theyhadadeeperinteraction
withthetextsathand.Thesefindingsrevealitisvitaltodiscusswithstudentsthe
importanceofmovingbeyondthecurrentpagetoassessinformation.
ChangingStudents’DigitalResearchPracticesandHabitsinFirst‐YearCourses:
ExamplesandStrategies
Forthisreport,theresearchersexaminedstudentworkfromthreesemestersof
first‐yearcompositioncourses,whichfocusondevelopingresearchskills.Intheseclasses,
ILskillswerepurposefullyscaffoldedandfullyintegratedinlearningprogressions,as
researchsuggests(Bonnet,Herkova,&McAlexander,2018;Lowe,Stone,Booth,&Tagge,
2016).Atthebeginningofeachsemester,ILinstructionbeganwithclassroom
conversationsaboutthedifficultyofassessingonlineinformation.Intheawarenessphase,
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
14
studentsreadDomonoske’s(2016)NPRpiece“StudentsHaveDismayingInabilitytoTell
FakeNewsfromReal,StudyFinds”asanintroductiontotheinvestigationofstudents’IL
abilities.Thearticlebrieflydiscussestheresultsofa2016Stanfordstudy,“Evaluating
Information:TheCornerstoneofCivicOnlineReasoning,”byWineburg,McGrew,
Breakstone,andOrtega.Domonske’sarticlerevealsthatintheStanfordexperiment,
studentsatalllevelswereeasilyfooledaboutsuchthingsasnativeadsasrealnews,fake
pictures,verifiedversusfakeaccounts,activistgroupbias,andmainstreamversusfringe
sources(Domonoske,2016).Afterreading,studentsdiscusstheirownexperienceswith
beingdupedbyorsharingfakeinformationandtheimpactthathashadontheirlives.
ReflectingthefindingsofGrossandLatham(2011),studentsfirstexpressedthatbad
informationisjustthenatureoftheonlineworld,thatfakenewsisnormalwithouthaving
muchimpact,andthatconsumingbadinformationissimplyapersonalchoice.Becauseof
theseresponses,studentswereledintoconversationsthatchallengedthesepreconceived
notions.
Inthenextphase,inordertoattempttorejectoversimplifiedhighschoolrules,such
asthosediscussedinGrossandLatham(2011)andInsuaandassociates(2018),students
wereaskedtodiscussformermethodsofsourceassessment.Forexample,manystudents
believedtheycouldassessawebsitesimplybasedonitstop‐leveldomain(i.e.,.edu,.org,
.com,.gov).Onceshownthatmanyreliablenewssources,forexample,oftenhavea.com
attribution,thestudentswereforcedtoconfronttheideathatasimplisticassessmentis
notaccurate.Thestudentscontinuedcreatinglistsofthedo’sanddon’ts,andfromthelist
theyproduced,itbecamemoreapparenttostudentsthatcriticalthinkingwasmissing.
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
15
Thus,thenextpartofthisprocessisdiscussingwhysuch“rules”existandhowthelist
mightlimittheresearchprocessorhinderthinking,especiallyincertaincontextsor
disciplines.Thesefirstphasesemphasizethateducatorscannotexpectfirst‐yearcollege
studentstoteardowntheiroldframeworkforconductingresearchandbuildanewone
instantlyandalone.StudentsmustbeawareoftheenduranceneededtodevelopILskills.
Moreover,readingaboutanddiscussingdigitalinformationliteracyisjustthefirststep
towardsthisfoundationalwork.Studentsneedtomakedistinctionsbetweentheirdaily
interactionwithinformationandresearchingforacademicpurposes.Asstudentsmove
intotheresearchprocess,theymustbecoachedintoworkingwithsourcesthatbestfit
rhetoricalsituations.Insteadofdiscussingsourcesassimply“good”or“bad,”studentscan
begintodiscusswhichsourcesfitbestwithwhichrhetoricalsituationandwhy.
Evenafterdiscussingthewayspeopleprocessdigitalinformation,deliberating
formersourceassessmentdo’sanddon’ts,andabandoningtheideathatsourcesmust
eitherbe“good”or“bad,”agapstillremainsinstudents’criticalthinkingduringthe
researchprocess.Howexactlycanlateralreadingbetaught?Indoingso,itwouldbeeasy
toleavetheimpressionthatstudentsshouldthrowawayallformerinformationevaluation
processesthattheyhavedeveloped.Instead,onemustwalkwithstudentsthroughtheir
criticalthinkingprocessinconductingresearch.AsnotedbyBonnetandcolleagues(2018),
variousinstructionalmethodscanleadtogainsincludingthosethatbuilduponprior
knowledgeandareadaptedtolearningandcourseoutcomestoclimbBloom’sTaxonomy.
Onesuchfirst‐yearinstructionalstrategyattemptedintheseclasseswastheSourceVetting
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
16
System(SVS)project.ThisprojectembodiesSorgoetal.’s(2017)notionofa“hands‐onand
minds‐on”approachtosourceevaluation(p.764).
TheSVSprojectasksstudentstorethinkhowtheyreadthroughsourcesto
determineasource’svalue.PriortotheSVSproject,studentshavealreadyparticipatedin
thereadingsanddiscussionsabove.Additionally,studentsareaskedtodiscussthe
limitationsofformulaicchecklists,suchaswhatonemayfindonalibrary’swebsite,and
theideasofwhatonemightdointheprocessoflateralreading.Studentsbegin
brainstormingingroupsabouthowtheyneedtonavigatetheworldofonlineinformation.
Throughthisprocess,studentscreatesystemsthathelpthemappraiseasourcewithout
readingit“vertically,”orbeginningtoend.Anymethodorsystemisconsideredviableifit
includesconceptsoflateralreading,andthegroupspresentfortheclasshowtheir
proposedsystemworks.Studentsinthisstudycraftedsystemssuchasflowcharts,
acronymsormnemonicdevices,metaphoricalthinkinggraphics,orpointsystems.
Occasionally,somegroupsproducedcomponentsthataretoosimplisticforreadinga
sourcelaterally,echoingsimplifiedhighschoolmantras;however,assuggestedbyInsua
andcolleagues(2018),activitiesshould“builduponbeliefsstudentsbringfromhigh
school,whilechallengingthemwhennecessary”(p.152),andinfirst‐yearcourses,this
meansexpectingthatelementsfromvariouslistsofdo’sanddon’tswillsurface.Educators
canusethesemomentsaslearningopportunitiesbyaskingstudentsrevisittheirmethod
andtothinkcriticallyaboutwhytheyfeelaconceptshouldbepartofsourceevaluation.
Additionally,studentsmaydiscoveranymisleadingorsimplisticconceptsthrough
anothercriticalstep:testingtheirsystems.Beforethesystemsareusedforannotated
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
17
bibliographiesandresearchpapers,studentstesttheirsystemswithpotentialsources;
however,thismustoccurinasafe,low‐stakesenvironment.Inordertodothis,students
areaskedtousetheirSVSprojectlateralreadingguidestoprescreenpotentialsourcesfor
ahypotheticalresearchproject.Theinstructorpresentsstudentswitharesearchquestion;
inthiscase,studentswereaskedtoresearchFinland’sandtheUnitedStates’education
systems.Studentgroupswereprovidedwithfivesourcesfoundviathewebandlibrary
databasestoevaluate.Sourcesfoundviathelibrarysearchenginemustbeincluded,as
researchindicatesthatstudentsoftenthinksourcesfoundthiswaycome“pre‐vetted”
(Gross&Latham,2011).Thefollowingsourcetypeswereprovided:anewsarticle,apeer‐
reviewedjournalarticle,aneducationalhistorian’sprofessionalblogpost,aYouTubevideo
ofaHarvardlecture,andaWordPressblog.Byexaminingonesourceatatimetogether,the
studentsarefreetodiscussingroupswhetherornotthesourceswouldbenotonlyreliable
butalsousefulconsideringtheproject’srhetoricalsituation.Thisiswherecriticalthinking
blossoms.Classmatesworktogethertoscroll,click,talk,askquestions,argue,anddiscuss
thesourcesathand.Additionally,studentshavetimetotestandreevaluatetheirsource
vettingsystemsasproblemsarise.Intheend,thewholeclassconvenestodiscussthe
sourcesanddefendhowtheywouldorwouldnotbegoodchoicesfortherhetorical
situation.Additionally,theclassdiscusseswhystudentsmightchoosethelessappropriate
sourcesforaprojectandsolutionsforavoidingthisdecision.Thevisibilityand
transparencyofthissourceevaluationprojecthelpsstudentstounderstandthetime
intensivedemandsofsuccessfullyevaluatingsources;itisnotaneasyprocessbutisaskill
thatcanbedevelopedwithpracticeandeffort.
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
18
AnotherpositiveaspectoftheSVSprojecttestingperiodishelpingstudents
determinehowsourcesworktogether.AsnotedbyJamieson(2017),studentsneedhelp
seeinghowsources“speak”toeachotherandrecognizingthatthey,thestudents,areapart
oftheprocessofsharingandcreatinginformation.Asstudentsexaminethesources
providedforthetesting,theybegintoseethewebofrelationshipsbetweenandacross
sources.Forexample,studentsrecognizedthatseveralsourcesinthetestingprocessofthis
studymentionedthesamescholarinthefield,PasiSahlberg.Additionally,theYouTube
videopresentedwasaHarvardlecturefeaturingSahlberg.Oncestudentslookedup
Sahlbergthroughevaluatingthefirstsource,theywereabletoseehowhisrecentlecture
mightberelevanttotheprojectwithoutneedingtoviewthewholevideo.Sahlberg’swork
alsoledstudentstoothertexts,authors,andideas.Thisallowedforaconversationabout
howsourcesarenotindividualpiecesofinformationbutratherarepartofamuchlarger
conversation.
AsobservedbyBonnetandassociates(2018),ILlearningshouldbeimplementedin
meaningfulways;thismeansapplyingappropriatescaffoldingthatisnottooheavy‐handed
nora“one‐shotapproach,”asnotedbyLoweandcolleagues(2016,p.132).Forthis
project’sscaffolding,studentscontinuetousethevettingsystemstomovefromdiscussing
sourcesingeneraltocompletingresearchroadmaps(annotatedbibliographies)oftheir
own.Studentsarealsoencouragedtofusetheirownthoughtswithvoicesinthefieldof
research.TheybuildT‐chartsthatlist“WhatIbelieve”aboutoneaspectoftheirtopicon
onesideofthechart,andontheotherside,theylist“WhatOthersBelieve”inordertosee
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
19
howthesources“speak”toeachotheraswellashowtoinserttheirownvoicesintothe
conversation.
Asafinal,integralpartoftheILscaffold,studentskeepagoal‐orientedjournal
throughoutthesemester.Thesearepersonalandintentionaljournals,muchlikethose
studiedinInsuaandcolleagues(2018),torecordthoughtsaboutresearchandthewriting
process.Attheendofthesemester,andindicativeofmindfulnessandmetacognitioninthe
ACRL’s“FrameworkforInformationLiteracyforHigherEducation”(2016),students
composeareflectivelearningtestimonialwheretheydiscusstheevolutionoftheirability
tofindandevaluatesourcesandcomposeresearchprojects.Thisprovidesassessmentof
studentILprogressionsincethestudentsmustdemonstratetheirlearningthrough
commentaryaswellasexcerptsandexamplesofworkproducedoverthesemester.
StudentsoftenfocusedonILskillsandconceptsofdeterminingsourcecredibility:
Researchingsoundseasy,butI’velearnedthatI’vebeenresearchingimportantinformationthewrongway.Likemostpeople,IwouldjusttypeinwhatIwanttoknowintothegooglesearchbar,andassumealltheinformationIneededtoknowwasonthefirstpage;butthatwasn’tthecase.Ilearnedthatthefirstpageofgoogleisn’talwaysthesourcestochoosefrom…SomekeysthingsIgraspedfromthissemesterwhenlookingforagoodsourceisIneedtoaskmyselfsomekeyquestions:Howrelevantand[credible]isthesource,what’sthepurpose,whoistheintendedaudience.
Ihaveneverbeenthepersontoenjoydoingresearchtypepapersandithasalwaysbeenhardformebeingabletodolegitresearch.IthoughtGooglewasthewaytogoorevenWikipedia(eventhoughmyteachersalwaystoldmenottouseWikiinhighschool),thereasonbeingisthatitwaseasyaccesstowhateveryouneededtoresearch.ThishasbeenthecaseeversincemyfirsteverresearchpaperandithasbeenuntilItookEnglish1020.
Otherstudentsfocusedonthebigpictureoftheresearchprocessandhowitconnectsto
othercontextsanddisciplines:
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
20
Lookingbackonthislearningexperience,thewritingtechniquesthatstoodouttomeinthiscourseandstronglyemphasizedcreatingsoundresearchwerebeingananalyticalreaderandwriter.Conductingabigresearchprojectcompelledmetolookfurtherintothedifferentideasandanglespeoplehaveaboutissuesandhowtheseideascouldberelevanttomyresearch.ThepracticeofsourcevettingwasanextremelyusefultoolthatIlearnedtoutilizeduringthecourseofpickingsources.Whatreallyhighlightedtheprocessofsourcevettingwasthedevelopmentofourveryownsourcevettingsystem…Itmademethinkaboutvariousquestionstoaskmyselfwhenitcomestofindingacrediblesource.Thisprocessrequiredmetobecomemoreinvestigativeandpatientwiththeresearchandreallydigforgoodsourcematerial.
Ihavelearnedagreatdealabouthowtosearchforandproperlyusecrediblesourcesthankstoourvettingsystemprojectsandcoursereadings.IhaveevenappliedwhatIhavelearnedtoaSignatureAssignmentinmyTennesseeHistoryclass,whichearnedmeahighgradeandpraisefrommyinstructor...Withmebeingasociologymajorandawomen’sgenderstudiesminor,researchisimperativeformetoprogressthroughbothfields.
Theconceptofdigitalinformationliteracyforthisfirst‐yearcoursehasbeenpurposely
integrated,asWigginsandMcTighe(2005)wouldadvocate,intoallanglesofthecourse.
However,theconversationcannotendhere;studentsmustprogressduringtheiryearsof
college.Educatorswillneedtohelpsomestudentsmakethesebroadconnectionsbetween
theresearchprocessfromonecoursetoanother,andfurthermore,theywillneed
expandedILlearninginspecificmajorsanddisciplines,whichcanbedifficulttoachievein
first‐yearcourses(Bonnetetal.,2018,p.506).
Intheend,allstakeholdersareresponsibleforinterveninginstudents’ILskills
development.Ashortlibraryinstructionalvisitishelpful,butILmustbecomemorethana
onesessionfocus.ILmustbewoventhroughoutcoursesineachdiscipline.Educatorsin
anydisciplinecandiscusswithstudents,forexample,thereasoningbehindwhyan
assignedtextisaseminalwork.Anyinstructorcantalkabouthisorherownresearch
processandhowreliableinformationisfoundandwoventogether.Mostimportantly,any
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
21
first‐yearinstructorcanandshouldprovidespaceandtimeforstudentstosafelydiscuss
howtofindandevaluatesourcesfortherhetoricalsituationathand.Educatorsshouldlet
studentsknowthattheprocessisdifficultandrequiresongoingdevelopmentofcritical
thinkingskills;theyshouldtellstudentstheyarenotaloneinfeelingoverwhelmedbythe
researchprocessortheoverloadofdigitalinformation.Wheneducatorsdismissthefalse
dichotomyofa“goodsource”anda“badsource,”theycanaskstudentstothinkcriticallyin
eachrhetoricalsituation.Thetaskathandisclearlycomplex,butgivingstudentsthetools
theyneedatafirst‐yearlevelismerelythestartofwhatshouldbeaproperlyscaffolded
chain.Ultimately,bygivingdigitalinformationliteracyanintentionalspaceinthefirst‐year
classroom—andbeyond—weensurethatstudentsgrowintomindful,engagedcitizens.
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
22
References
Bohannon,J.L.,Arnett,E.,&Greer,E.(2017).LearningInformationLiteracyAcrossthe
Curriculum(LILAC)anditsimpactsonstudentdigitalliteraciesandlearningacross
thehumanities.IEEEInternationalProfessionalCommunicationConference
(ProComm),IEEEInternational,1.doi:10.1109/IPCC.2017.8013935
Bonnet,J.L.,Herkova,L.,&McAlexander,B.(2018).Playon?Comparingactivelearning
techniquesforinformationliteracyinstructioninthepublicspeakingcourse.The
JournalofAcademicLibrarianship,44(4),500‐510.doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2018.04.014
Clark,L.,&Visser,M.(2011).Digitalliteracytakescenterstage.LibraryTechnologyReports,
47(6).Retrievedfromhttps://journals.ala.org/
Domonoske,C.(2016).Studentshave‘dismaying’inabilitytotellfakenewsfromreal,
studyfinds.NationalPublicRadio.Retrievedfromhttps://www.npr.org/sections/
thetwo‐way/2016/11/23/503129818/study‐finds‐students‐have‐dismaying‐
inability‐to‐tell‐fake‐news‐from‐real
Frameworkforinformationliteracyforhighereducation(2016).AssociationofCollege&
ResearchLibraries.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Fulkerson,D.,Ariew,S.A.,&Jacobson,T.(2017).Revisitingmetacognitionandmetaliteracy
intheACRLframework.CommunicationsinInformationLiteracy,11(1),21‐41.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.comminfolit.org/
Gross,M.,&Latham,D.(2011).Experienceswithandperceptionsofinformation:A
phenomenographicstudyoffirst‐yearcollegestudents.TheLibraryQuarterly:
Information,Community,Policy,81(2),161‐186.Retrievedfrom
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/loi/lq
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
23
Head,A.(2013).Learningtheropes:Howfreshmenconductcourseresearchoncethey
entercollege.ProjectInformationLiteracyResearchReport.Retrievedfrom
http://www.projectinfolit.org/uploads/2/7/5/4/27541717/pil_2013_freshmenstu
dy_fullreportv2.pdf
Informationliteracycompetencystandardsforhighereducation.(2018).AmericanLibrary
Association.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=
Home&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33553
Insua,G.M.,Lantz,C.,&Armstrong,A.(2018).Intheirownwords:Usingfirst‐yearstudent
researchjournalstoguideinformationliteracyinstruction.Portal:Librariesandthe
Academy,18(1),141‐161.https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2018.0007
Jamieson,S.(2017).WhatTheCitationProjecttellsusaboutinformationliteracyincollege
composition.InD’Angelo,S.Jamieson,B.Maid,&J.R.Walker.(Eds.)Information
Literacy:ResearchandCollaborationacrossDisciplines(119‐143).FortCollins,
Colorado:WACClearingHouse&UniversityPressofColorado.
Jamieson,S.,&Howard,R.M.(2013).TheCitationProject.Retrievedfrom
http://www.citationproject.net/
Lanning,S.,&Malleck,J.(2017).Factorsinfluencinginformationliteracycompetencyof
collegestudents.JournalofAcademicLibrarianship,43(5),443‐450.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.07.005
Lokse,M.,Lag,T.,Solberg,M.,Andreassen,H.,&Stenersen,M.(2017).Teachinginformation
literacyinhighereducation:Effectiveteachingandactivelearning.Cambridge,MA:
ChandosPublishing.
Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018
24
Lowe,M.S.,Stone,S.M.Stone,Booth,C.,&Tagge,N.(2016).Impactofassignmentprompt
oninformationliteracyperformanceinfirst‐yearstudentwriting.TheJournalof
AcademicLibrarianship42(2),127‐134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.002
Mackey,T.,&Jacobson,T.(2004).Integratinginformationliteracyinlower‐andupper‐
levelcourses:Developingscalablemodelsforhighereducation.JGE:TheJournalof
GeneralEducation53(3/4).doi:10.1353/jge.2005.0006
Malita,L.,&Grosseck,G.(2018).Tacklingfakenewsinadigitalliteracycurriculum.
eLearning&SoftwareforEducation4,343‐350.doi:10.12753/2066‐026X‐18‐262
ProjectInformationLiteracy.(2018).Retrievedfromhttp://www.projectinfolit.org/
Sorgo,A.,Bartol,T.,Dolniar,D.,&Podgornik,B.(2017).Attributesofdigitalnativesas
predictorsofinformationliteracyinhighereducation.BritishJournalofEducational
Technologies,48(3),749‐767.doi:10.1111/bjet.12451
Wagner,T.(2008).Theglobalachievementgap.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Wineburg,S.,&McGrew,S.(2017).Lateralreading:Readinglessandlearningmorewhen
evaluatingdigitalinformation.StanfordHistoryEducationGroup.WorkingPaperNo.
2017‐A1.Retrievedfromhttps://ssrn.com/abstract=3048994
Wiggins,G.,&McTighe,J.(2005).Understandingbydesign.Alexandria,VA:Hawker
BrownlowEducation.
Recommended