Information discernment, mis-information and pro-active scepticism

Dr Geoff Walton, Senior Lecturer, Northumbria University, UK Dr Ali Pickard, Principal Lecturer, Northumbria University, UK

Dr Mark Hepworth, Reader, Loughborough University, UK Ms Lara Dodd, Research Assistant, Northumbria University, UK

Information: Interactions and Impact, Aberdeen 2015

Our agenda for today • Creating a participative working

environment • Our first task is to discuss these questions

– What is information/digital discernment? – What are pro-active and passive scepticism?

• Our second task is to explore Participative Research and Action (PRA) – Discuss PRA – Examples

• Using and critiquing the source evaluation tool • Our approach at a high school in the North East • Some results to discuss and evaluate

• Our third task is to address this question – Is PRA suitable for eliciting information

capabilities such as information discernment?

• Concluding remarks

Creating a participative working environment

• In your groups agree on how you are going to work together

– What is important?

– Why?

– Draw up some guidelines

Collaborative agreements

Lower sixth formers Information professionals

What is information discernment? • I’m guessing you all have

an idea of what information discernment as a concept might be

• Discuss this concept, draw on your own experience and agree on a group definition

• Why is it important?

Definition of information discernment

“The ability to use higher order thinking skills to make sound and complex judgements regarding a range of text-based materials”

(Walton & Hepworth, 2013, p55)

Can we use this as a foundation for digital discernment?

Does it need to be extended or is it different?

• We think that information discernment might be better understood in terms of proactive and passive scepticism

But…what is the difference between passive and pro-active scepticism?

• Discuss these ideas Without referring back to the abstract

• Define what these terms might mean

Our working definitions of pro-active and passive scepticism

• Passive scepticism (default position) is defined as a person’s ability to make limited judgements about information which are heavily influenced by their preconceived notions or worldview (Lewandowsky, et al., 2012) or the worldview of others

• Proactive scepticism (special effort) is defined as a person’s ability to make balanced judgements at all times about information independently and regardless of worldview

Note on worldview

• Lewandowsky (2012) argues that this is derived largely from our parents

• Our natural behaviour, in early years perhaps before metamorphosizing into a teenager, is to trust what we hear from parents and other adults such as teachers acting in loco parentis

Findings from our project

• We asked students (n=45) who they trusted most for information, parents, teachers, peers or the media – indicated on a 6 point scale

• Our findings appear similar to Lewandowsky’s and indicate that this default trust pattern is stable in 16-17 year olds

• Ratings – Parents 4.75 (often trust) – Teachers 4.36 (often trust) – Peers 3.54 (some trust) – The media 3.22 (some trust)

Scores in detail

The Media Teachers

1 - No trust 3 1 - No trust 0

2 - A little trust 9 2 - A little trust 3

3 - Some trust 15 3 - Some trust 2

4 - Often trust 9 4 - Often trust 17

5 - Generally trust 8 5 - Generally trust 20

6 - Always trust 0 6 - Always trust 2

Parents Peers

1 - No trust 0 1 - No trust 2

2 - A little trust 2 2 - A little trust 6

3 - Some trust 5 3 - Some trust 11

4 - Often trust 5 4 - Often trust 17

5 - Generally trust 22 5 - Generally trust 7

6 - Always trust 10 6 - Always trust 1

Information discernment and scepticism

• If we assume there is a continuum with pro-active scepticism at one end and passive at the other

• The argument is that wherever the participant’s degree of scepticism lies will determine the level of information discernment participants exhibit when they engage in evaluating information

In summary

• It is much easier to accept what one is told on face value rather than expend effort in being critical

• School students largely accept what they are told and may find it challenging to be proactively sceptical and may tend to be passive sceptics

• Some resonance with Zipf’s law of least effort?

• How can we move people e.g., school students from passive to pro-active scepticism?

Participative Research and Action

• Anyone else used this approach?

Note on qualitative approaches

• Some assumptions: – Holistic and non-causal mode

– People’s reality is assumed to be informed through their interaction with the community and the world they inhabit and their shared interpretation of it

– Emphasis on various ways of being aware or conceptions of a particular phenomenon and people’s relationship with their perceived world (Hepworth, Grunwald & Walton, 2014)

My context • Learned by doing, ie,

participatory approach to PRA

• Two previous projects – AMORES www.amores-

project.eu • My role - digital literacy

upskilling for school teachers

– And the Doctor said… www.andthedoctorsaid.org • My role – website curation

• Current project Information discernment… more anon…

PRA Rationale (1)

• Important to adopt a pragmatic approach towards collaboration and power sharing

• Acknowledge that this could shift during the course of the project depending upon the nature of the work, expertise required and the requirements of each work package

PRA Rationale (2)

• Draw upon the differing expertise offered by each member of the research team and participant group

• Be sensitive to power differentials when developing collaborative approaches

PRA Rationale (3)

• Takes into consideration local knowledge and experience

• Arguably more practical and the findings may be more deliverable in the future.

PRA Rationale (4)

• Ownership of the process by school students more secure given their involvement in both the research and the outcomes of the project

• Ultimately this should improve the research process and participants’ situation (Reason & Bradbury, 2011).

PRA Rationale (5)

• The approach involves techniques associated with empowerment evaluation, where researchers and participants benefit from the research equally, learning from each other (Fetterman, Kaftarian & Wandersman (1996)

PRA Rationale (6)

• Can enable participants to identify, classify and prioritize information needs and use information in order to suggest solutions for selected problems

• The intervention can help develop collaborative problem solving skills and a heightened sense of citizenship (Tavares, Hepworth & De Soiuza Cost, 2011)

Using and critiquing the source evaluation tool

• Students were first asked to think about evaluation criteria and then given the source evaluation tool (Shenton & Pickard (2014, p26) to inform their discussions

• Discuss whether this tool contains what one might expect

in order to be able evaluate information effectively.

• What would you add?

• In what ways does the source evaluation tool encourage a shift (or not) from passive to proactive scepticism?

Results

What 16 year olds identify as characterising ‘good’ web-based information

Good information mindmap

Results What 16 year olds identify as characterising ‘bad’ web-based information

‘Bad’ information mind map

Questionnaire data

• Used a short questionnaire to gain an understanding of students current information practices distributed before session

• Problematic – some questions unanswered, where responses given they are very terse

• Possibly not taken seriously

• Sharp contrast to the PRA approach where students worked hard to address the problems we had set and they recorded their responses carefully

Your views

• To what extent do you think PRA has enriched (or not) the research process?

Concluding remarks

• PRA useful for gaining a finer grain of response from participants

• In our case far better than questionnaire tools

• Get to know participants

• Greater impact on participants?

– Our next job is to find out, we’ll keep you posted

References

Fetterman, D, Kaftarian,S. & Wandersman. (1996). A Empowerment Evaluation. California: Sage. Hepworth, M., Grunewald, P. & Walton, G. (2014). Research and practice: a critical reflection on approaches that underpin research into people’s information behaviour. Journal of Documentation, 70 (6) pp.1039-1053 Lewandowsky, S. et al (2012). Misinformation and its correction, continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3) pp106-131. Retrieved 16 March 2014 from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/journals/pspi/misinformation1.html Man Chu Lau, S. & Stille, S. (2014). Participatory research with teachers: toward a pragmatic and dynamic view of equity and parity in research relationships. European Journal of Teacher Education . 37 (2) pp.156-170. Reason P. & Bradbury H. (2011). Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. Shenton, A. K. & Pickard, A. J. (2014). Evaluating online information and sources. Minibook 42. Leicester: UK Literacy Association. Walton, G. & Hepworth, M. (2013). Using assignment data to analyse a blended information literacy intervention: a quantitative approach. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45 (1) pp53-63 [Online] http://lis.sagepub.com/content/45/1/53 (Accessed 9th April 2015)