SUCCESSFUL STUDENTS, ENLIGHTENED CITIZENS: … › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 10 › Successful...developing a healthy perspective on digital information literacy have become

Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 1, October 2018

1

SUCCESSFULSTUDENTS,ENLIGHTENEDCITIZENS:ACALLFORDEVELOPING

INFORMATIONANDDIGITALLITERACYINFIRST‐YEARCOURSES

KeriLeeCarterMiddleTennesseeStateUniversity

[email protected]

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,


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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.


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


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


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.


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


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:


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


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.


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


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.


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.

Documents

SUCCESSFUL STUDENTS, ENLIGHTENED CITIZENS: … › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 10 › Successful...developing a healthy perspective on digital information literacy have become