Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Road mapping the digital jungle - Pickard, Walton, Dobbs & Hepworth


Published on

Presented at LILAC 2016

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Road mapping the digital jungle - Pickard, Walton, Dobbs & Hepworth

  1. 1. British Academy / Leverhulme Small Research Grant PI: Dr Alison Jane Pickard CI: Dr GeoffWalton RA: Lara Dobbs Dr Mark Hepworth, Professor, Loughborough University, UK
  2. 2.  Problem:  The emblematic role of children and young people as discursive sites for adults to conceptualize societal change - ‘the digital native’ ?  A myth that gathered momentum between 1996 – 2000 and is only recently being widely refuted.  Information discernment / self-regulation / meta cognition  Proposed solution:  Internal, transferable ‘firewalls’
  3. 3.  Access to e-resources and learning opportunities (AHRC 1996-2000)  JISC User Behaviour in Information seeking: Longitudinal Evaluation of EIS), (1999-2004)  “If we are opening the floodgates of information we have to provide our young people with suitable survival equipment to help them navigate their way around” Pickard, BBC News: Monday, 21 July, 2003.  The role of effective intervention in promoting the value of electronic information services in the learning process (2005-7)  JISC Users’ trust in information resources in theWeb environment. (2010)  Toolkit – Meta-evaluation / ‘Understanding the trusting self’
  4. 4.  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)  Participative Action Research  Walton & Hepworth.
  5. 5. ▪ The aim is to empower school children to make informed judgments of online information resources. ▪ Focus on encouraging proactive skepticism that allows for rational judgments of the trustworthiness of online information.  Objectives  Create a practical digital literacy toolkit methodology. – Road mapping the digital jungle!  Evaluate the methodology using pre- and post-intervention observations on a sample of 16-18 year old students.  Redesign the digital literacy toolkit via participatory research methodology to be offered to schools at a variety of educational levels.  Consider the potential of this methodology for application with a wider population to encourage empowered citizenship.
  6. 6.  Source Evaluation Framework  Used to assess the quality of the source  Meta- Evaluation Proforma  Used to reflect on the value of each criterion to the situation  Encouraging ‘personal’ models of information literacy  “Understanding the trusting self”  Questionnaire and app  In a participative action research setting.
  7. 7.  The toolkit was constructed and tested using Participative Research and Action (PRA), in- situ with an initial case study of 16-18 year old students in a UK school.  Context…EPQ.
  8. 8.  The future for these children and young people ‘will be characterised by an increasingly complex and constantly evolving information landscape’ (Coombs, 2013)  …which requires a level of cognitive interaction that goes beyond the use of digital tools and becomes a metacognitive activity of self-regulation (Walton and Hepworth, 2011).
  9. 9.  A School Librarian who grabbed the opportunity offered by the Extended Project Qualification  When there was a gap in how this could be ‘taught’Andrew stepped in and said it was his job…  We joined him and used this as the context for developing our methodology.
  10. 10.  We asked students taking the EPQ (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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12.  Head of 6th form:  The quality of their log books compared to last year was so obvious  ‘we were seeing new words and phrases in their projects like ‘questioning the information’ / ‘evidence’ / ‘authority’ ‘credible’  A lot have really embraced, including those who weren’t that ‘academically’ orientated, this but there are still those who don’t have the motivation.  The difference after this intervention;  This time last year we had 10 students who had successfully completed the planning review of the EPQ  this year we have about 40 2,500 words and they know what they’re talking about  quality of their reflection is so much better  Level is dramatically different, rapid change  Gap between last year and this is fantastic, can’t find the words in an education sense to say this.  100% were using only the internet…type in to Google and didn’t think beyond.  Now, they’re still doing that but they’re questioning what they find, I supervise 8 but coordinate them all, I’ve read all log books.Their attitude is so different.  Major change in their approach  A warm feeling when we’re reading their work – referencing!!!
  13. 13.  1 EPQ supervisor  ‘they talked about bias – ‘checking the credibility of the information and the sources’  ‘they don’t often have to make a choice about the information they use, this was challenging’.  ‘they are cross referencing their sources, totally new’
  14. 14.  External firewalls create a fortress and false security  Abdicating responsibility  Reclaiming responsibility - Internal firewalls: ▪ Proactive scepticism ▪ Meta-evaluation ▪ Self-regulation ▪ Meta-cognition ▪ Self-efficacy  All need scaffolding
  15. 15. ▪ Pickard, Alison J., Shenton, Andrew K. & Johnson, Andrew (2012)Young people and the evaluation of information on the web: principles, practice and beliefs. Journal of Library and Information Science (Doi 0961000612467813, Sage OnlineFirst) ▪ Pickard, Alison J., Shenton, A. K. & Furness, K. (25th- 28th June 2013) Educating young people in the art of distrust: Meta-evaluation and the construction of personal, agile models of web information literacy. ‘i3: Information, impacts and interactions.’ Robert Gordon University June 2013. ▪ Shenton, Andrew K. & Pickard, Alison J. (2014) Evaluating Online Information and Sources. Minibook Series: UK Literacy Agency. ISBN-13: 978 1 897638 86 6 ▪ Shenton, A. K. & Pickard, A. J. (2014) “Facilitating PupilThinking About Information Literacy”.The New Review of Children’s Literature and Librarianship. 20 (1) pp64-79 DOI 10.1080/13614541.2014.863671 ▪ Shenton, Andrew K. & Pickard, Alison J. (2012)The evaluation challenge. Creative teaching and learning.Vol 3.2 pp 22-28 ▪ Walton, G and Hepworth, M. (2011).A longitudinal study of changes in learners’ cognitive states during and following an information literacy teaching intervention. Journal of Documentation 63 (3), 449-479.