mark baildon , re-thinking social studies source work in the digital age
DESCRIPTION
Media, Civic Participation, and Humanities Education HSSE Symposium Redesigning 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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Media, Civic Participation, and
Humanities EducationHSSE Symposium
Redesigning Pedagogy Conference, Singapore4 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
IntroductionExplore 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 provenance1. 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 purpose1. 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 tensions
Social 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)