Habits of Mind in an Uncertain Information World

Craig Gibson, Trudi E. Jacobson

Abstract


Ours is a fraught time. We see blaring headlines about stolen elections, the questioning of scientific findings and of the scientific method itself, of mutual incomprehension across political and cultural divides, of accepted norms upended, of governing processes questioned, and of facts themselves—facts comporting with reality—doubted. The swirling cacophony of competing viewpoints, perspectives, agendas, and “facts,” accelerated by a saturating and saturated media environment, challenges anyone seeking a firm ground for reasoned debate, reflection, and discussion—and anyone commited to teaching and scholarship. As a profession with ancient and honorable roots, including exposing uncomfortable truths, teaching requires a ground of reliable factuality, a foundation for debate, discussion, and improvement, no matter the level of education, the subject, or the method of instruction.


Full Text:

HTML PDF

References


“A Wider Ideological Gap Between More and Less Educated Adults,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (blog), April 26, 2016, http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/.

Rob Faris et al., “Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election,” Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, August 16, 2017, https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud.

Sam Wineburg et al., “Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning,” Stanford Digital Repository, November 22, 2016, https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934.

“Posts from the ‘Digital Polarization Initiative’ Category,” AASCU’s American Democracy Project, accessed November 21, 2017, https://adpaascu.wordpress.com/category/digital-polarization-initiative/.

Brad Love, Michael Mackert, and Kami Silk, “Consumer Trust in Information Sources: Testing an Interdisciplinary Model,” SAGE Open 3, no. 2 (April 15, 2013): 1, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013492782.

Shawn Tseng and B. J. Fogg, “Credibility and Computing Technology,” Communications of the ACM 42, no. 5 (May 1999): 40, https://doi.org/10.1145/301353.301402.

Julian Sanchez, “Epistemic Closure, Technology, and the End of Distance,” Julian Sanchez (blog), April 7, 2010, http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/04/07/epistemic-closure-technology-nd-the-end-of-distance/.

Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You (New York: Penguin Press, 2011).

Levi Boxwell, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse M. Shapiro, “Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics,” Brown University, March 2017, https://www.brown.edu/Research/Shapiro/pdfs/age-polars.pdf.

Jacob Silverman, Terms of Service: Social Media and the Price of Constant Connection (New York: Harper, 2015); Adam Alter, Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked (New York: Penguin Press, 2017).

Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Yuval Levin, The Fractured Republic: Renewing America’s Social Contract in the Age of Individualism (New York: Basic Books, 2016).

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).

Charity Johansson and Peter Felten, Transforming Students: Fulfilling the Promise of Higher Education (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2014), 3.

Jack Mezirow, “Transformative Learning as Discourse,” Journal of Transformative Education 1, no. 1 (January 2003): 58, https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172.

George D. Kuh and Carol Geary Schneider, High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2008).

Matthew Wawrzynski and Roger Baldwin, “Promoting High-Impact Student Learning: Connecting Key Components of the Collegiate Experience,” New Directions for Higher Education 2014, no. 165 (March 2014): 51–62, https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20083.

Stephen Brookfield, “Critical Reflection as an Adult Learning Process,” in Handbook of Reflection and Reflective Inquiry, ed. Nona Lyons (Boston: Springer US, 2010), 215–36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85744-2_11.

“College Learning for the New Global Century: A Report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise” (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007), 38, https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/GlobalCentury_final.pdf.

Jayne E. Brownell and Lynn E. Swaner, “High-Impact Practices: Applying the Learning Outcomes Literature to the Development of Successful Campus Programs,” Peer Review 11, no. 2 (Spring 2009), https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/high-impact-practices-applying-learning-outcomes-literature.

George D. Kuh, “High-Impact Educational Practices: A Brief Overview,” Association of American Colleges and Universities, n.d., http://www.aacu.org/leap/hips.

“What Is WCI?,” University at Albany, 2017, http://www.albany.edu/wci/about-wci.php.

Thomas Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson, Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information to Empower Learners (Chicago: Neal-Schuman, 2014), 2.

Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, Association of College and Research Libraries, filed by the ACRL board February 2, 2015, adopted by the ACRL board January 11, 2016, http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.57.3.6603

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ALA Privacy Policy

© 2018 RUSA