I was listening to podcasts this afternoon while I drove to the lake for a little R&R. The podcasts orignated at NECC. One speaker expressed a familiar concern regarding the development of student “information literacy skills’, related these concerns to the variability in quality of what students encounter on the Internet, used the bogus Martin Luther King site as an example, and offered some familiar solutions. For some reason, perhaps because the words were coming from someone else, I thought about what was being described and decided I was not impressed. This is a personal insight because I have written things that were very similar to what was said. I am not impressed because the concerns are typically described in terms of issues I am not certain are serious problems and because the solutions provided deal with superficial techniques.
The description of the problem:
Perhaps you have seen the Martin Luther King site that was used as an example. It looks good, but further analysis reveals it originates from a white hate group and has a tainted message.
The solution:
Check the URL to determine where the site orignates.
My concern:
I am trying to imagine the reaction of a typical middle school student when encountering this site in order to complete a class assignment. I cannot seriously reach the conclusion that the student would select this site as the source for his report and ignore other sites that had been encountered. It occurs to me that the student may be infuenced by the site and identify some of the stereotypic themes promoted. If disposed by personal history, the student may agree with the comments unlikely to be discussed in the classroom. If more mainstream, the site may raise a certain curiousity because it demonstrates to the reader that there really are people out there who believe such things. I do not think recognizing the perspective/bias of the authors would be the problem.
Consider the type of things we ask students to do when selecting web information for careful consideration and use. What organization does the author work for? Was the author paid in one way or another for producting the site? Are the links out of date? Are there spelling and grammatical errors in the resource (supposedly as a sign of uneducated thinking, lack of review)?
I think my concern is that this checklist addresses the obvious and the issues of real concern are more about subtle bias. Maybe bias is not even the correct way to think about the real issues. We all are biased by what we already know and believe. This is a fundamental principle of constructivism or cognitive psychology. We understand in terms of what we already know. Simply put – how do you tell someone to think carefully about what you encounter in the world and about what you already believe?
A first step may be the use of some new examples. The bogus Martin Luther King web site is not what we should worry about. I am much more worried that a student might sit down beside his father who happens to be watching Bill O’Reilly and accept this as a model of how adults educate themselves about the world. Perhaps we should develop a checklist for the “No Spin Zone” or whatever a comparable CNN program might be (I don’t want to offend Bill). Perhaps instead of assuming learners should avoid slanted sites or television programs we should send students to several of these locations with different perspectives, ask them to identify key ideas in the information, and identify inconsistencies in what they encounter.
Remember, if you should find yourself in the no spin zone, think carefully and keep one foot on the floor.
Blogged with Flock
