Media, Civic Participation, and

Humanities Education

HSSE SymposiumRedesigning Pedagogy Conference, Singapore

4 June 2013

Mark Baildon, Re-thinking Social Studies Source Work in the Digital Age

Li-Ching Ho & Mark Baildon, The Online Citizen: Youth, Civic Participation & Social Media

National Institute of Education, Singapore

Jeremy Stoddard, Using Film in Historical Inquiry & for Engaging in Controversial IssuesCollege of William & Mary, USA

Re-thinking Social Studies Source Work in the Digital

Age

Mark Baildon National Institute of Education,

Singapore

Redesigning Pedagogy Conference, Singapore

4 June 2013

Introduction

Explore source work with digital sourcesEvaluate reliability of Facebook pageChallenges Implications for teaching

Background Research study: source work with online sources

Critical Web Reader http://www.delvelearning.com/wordpress/?page_id=47

Inquiry: “How Affordable is Healthcare in Singapore?” MOH YouTube video Nicole Seah Facebook page The Online Citizen Ron Paul website

Lenses/scaffolds Inference of purpose Evaluating usefulness Evaluating reliability

Task (with a partner)

Evaluate the reliability of Nicole Seah Facebook page, “Is Healthcare Affordable in Singapore? Here is My Take” (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=139911682746578)

Use Worksheet Context: How Affordable is Healthcare in

Singapore?” Your evaluation of reliability Challenges Similar/different to print sources? 15”

Discussion Share your evaluation of the reliability of Nicole

Seah’s Facebook page, “Is Healthcare Affordable in Singapore? Here is My Take” To what extent reliable? Why? How did you evaluate its reliability? What did

you do and/or discuss? What helped you evaluate reliability?

What challenges did you encounter? Similar/different to evaluating print sources?

1o”

Study findings

Students more motivated, engaged, resourceful working with online sources

Use of procedural scaffolding (i.e., steps)

All students found source unreliable because it had purpose (i.e., purpose = unreliable)

Lack of understanding about why they perform steps/procedures & how helps them evaluate reliability

How reliable is Nicole Seah’s FB page?

Here’s my takeProcedures Understandings

 

Evaluate provenance

1. Author background, expertise, experience affect competence to “speak” about issue (depends on issue & experience with it).

2. All authors have bias or limited views but we must determine if bias is acceptable or if it should “disqualify” them.

3. “Disclosure” which states one’s background, interests and positions is important. If not stated do “background check.”

 

Assess purpose

1. All sources written/created with some purpose in mind.2. Some purposes explicitly stated while others may be vague,

implied, hidden or not easily discerned.3. Some purposes more trustworthy (e.g., inclusive, sincere,

respectful, balanced purposes more trustworthy than efforts to mislead, deceive, promote self-interest).

 Analyze content & cross reference

1. Claims and evidence must be evaluated for accuracy & reasonableness (e.g., if content fits with what is already known, what other sources say).

2. Need to check for errors, bias, tone (e.g., if emotive, one-sided, advocacy-focused, etc.) to determine if reliable as information.

3. Need to corroborate information, check to see if it’s consistent with other sources or refuted by other sources.

 Make determination of reliability

• Factors must be weighed together to make overall judgment of reliability.

• Judgments can be evaluated & compared according to criteria.• Informed conclusions & decisions require reliable information.

How reliable is Nicole Seah’s FB page?

Here’s my takeProcedures Understandings

 

Evaluate provenanceShe discloses who she is; she cares about issue & Singapore; although young and inexperienced, she (& NSP) disclose background/interests and makes case for young people having voice. As opposition member, bias is acceptable.

 

Assess purposeWhile she is trying to persuade readers (and is member of opposition party), she presents her views in a straightforward, honest way. She is explicit in her purpose and respectful to readers (e.g., asks sincere questions about role of gov’t.).

 Analyze content & cross reference

She presents a reasonable argument. Although not backed up with “hard empirical evidence” her argument is consistent with findings from others’ work (e.g., TOC; Barr’s (2001) study of Singapore’s healthcare system found certain procedures and conditions prohibitive for those at lower income levels).

 Make determination of reliability

Reliable in terms of providing evidence to answer inquiry question, “How affordable is healthcare in Singapore?” (i.e., it depends on one’s income level)

Why this is a complex source

Social media (i.e., Facebook) have different purposes (i.e., for relationship, self-presentation) but increasingly being used for political & commercial purposes

Use of rhetorical questions

High knowledge demands: knowledge about Singapore’s healthcare system, other policies, resource allocation, etc.

Key ideas

Citizens and consumers need reliable information to make informed decisions.

Evaluating reliability of online sources more challenging.

Need conceptual understanding of reliability and reliability evaluation (how and why).

Web can be used to manage these challenges.

Reliable info needed for informed decisions

Greater burden on individuals to get reliable information and assess its meaning and relevance accurately

Highly consequential: assessing reliability inaccurately can have serious social, personal, educational, relational, health, and financial consequences

High importance to citizenship: drives social agendas, degree & nature of engagement in public discourse, determination of public policy, etc. (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008)

Challenge of online sources

Range of complex information sources (multimodality, websites, video, social media, etc.)

Challenge of online sources

Information overload (multiple views, competing accounts, increased knowledge demands)

Greater likelihood of useless information (little relevance or use), misinformation & “doctored” information (altered/edited photos & videos clips), attempts to deliberately deceive people (e.g., Internet hoaxes)

Challenge of online sources Ill-defined criteria & standards to help us

manage complex sources & info overload New uses for online formats (e.g., politicians using

Facebook) Easy for anyone to create & disseminate Lack of vetting process Author credentials & qualifications often hard to determine

Complex, multi-faceted problems – High knowledge

demands Climate change

War & Terrorism

Inequality

Water shortages

Food crises

Ocean life destruction

Disease

James Martin (2007). The Meaning of the Twenty-First Century.

Global & local impact

Cross-disciplinary

Understand & address multiple causes political, economic, historical, cultural, etc.

Need understanding of interconnection

New thinking, new ways of acting

Understanding mediated by media, digital information sources

Using the Web to manage

challenges Online procedures to authenticate sources:

Online searches on author provenance & background

Check digital trace or history of source Use online networks & media outlets to check

authenticity (e.g., Snopes, Politfact) Engage source to request further information -

place burden of proof on source itself

Meier (2011); http://irevolution.net/2011/06/21/information-forensics/

Using the Web to manage

challenges Use Internet to track down key information, check

internal multimodal consistency (e.g., check images or links provided as evidence)

Use Internet to gain necessary background knowledge, cross reference, check & confirm information

These moves require understanding how the Internet works & how to use it strategically. New understandings and procedures to help students use Internet as a tool to evaluate the reliability of information

Meier (2011); http://irevolution.net/2011/06/21/information-forensics/

Implications for teaching Scaffolding does not mean imposition of a

structure on the student (Searle, 1984)

Scaffolding understanding: Reliability as judgment based on criteria, argument,

evidence Why important to analyze content (e.g., to check

accuracy); Why important to cross-reference (e.g., to

corroborate); Why need to determine purpose and source bias and

how this may (or may not) help to evaluate reliability; How to use Web & other resources to do this work.

Need to see source skills in broader contexts (of inquiry, of learning to live in info-rich society, etc.).

Conclusion: Managing

tensionsSocial Studies Education (2001)

21st Century Education

Exams(Standardization, accountability, control)

Innovative pedagogy & inquiry(Autonomy, variation, ‘good enough’ judgment)

Paper sources(More manageable, 50-125 words, paper, stable)

Online sources(Authentic, engaging, yet complex – multimodal, hyperlinked, not vetted)

Thinking as routines & procedures (Convergent, one approach, ‘right’ answers)

Creative & critical thinking (Divergent, multiple approaches & answers, use of criteria & evidence)

National context(NE, meritocracy, hierarchy, instrumentalist)

21st century contexts(Increasing diversity, complexity, transnational)