Developmentalism: Learning as the Basis for Evaluating Information

Lenker, Mark

doi:10.1353/pla.2017.0043

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Ad Fontes Media Bias chart uses a similar approach, applying an ideal conception of journalistic objectivity as a baseline to classify outlets as left/center/right (Ad Fontes Media, 2021). Both checklists and charts have been criticized for their reductive takes on a complex process (Benjes-Small & Elwood, 2021;Lenker, 2017).…”

Section: Non-balance Baselinementioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking down bias

Burkholder

Phillips

2022

JIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is bias? A review of the library literature reveals no attempts to define the concept. Nor does it reveal systematic attempts to develop interventions that teach the identification and evaluation of bias. Current pedagogical approaches (checklists and bias charts) tend to assume a self-evident definition that categorises bias as unquestioningly bad and disqualifying. Current approaches, however, fail to recognise the cognitive complexity of decoding bias within a source. A decoding process includes identifying the type of bias, determining an objective baseline, recognising biased features, and analysing bias’s impact. Based on work done from several fields—argumentation theory, media bias, media literacy, and history education—this paper proposes an operational definition of bias and a practical framework for conceptualising a process to identify and evaluate bias. This paper will explore the limitations of this framework, as well as existing source evaluation paradigms. If librarians want to prepare individuals to participate in a post-truth society, where disinformation weaponises bias by appealing to emotions and beliefs rather than facts, an inclusive and nuanced conception of bias is a necessary component of library instruction.

show abstract

Section: Non-balance Baselinementioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking down bias

Burkholder

Phillips

2022

JIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While memorable, checklist methods have come under criticism as not being adequate for the current information landscape (Caulfield, 2017;Crum, 2017;Ostenson, 2014). They require a binary "good" or "bad" mindset without allowing for nuance (Lenker, 2017;Meola, 2004). Additionally, although they have catchy acronyms, they are not easily remembered (Lenker, 2017;Radom & Gammons, 2014).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They require a binary "good" or "bad" mindset without allowing for nuance (Lenker, 2017;Meola, 2004). Additionally, although they have catchy acronyms, they are not easily remembered (Lenker, 2017;Radom & Gammons, 2014). To address these deficiencies, Lenker (2017) proposes combining these methods with a developmentalist approach, so that students learn through the evaluation process, questioning sources and not just looking for sources to support their position.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, although they have catchy acronyms, they are not easily remembered (Lenker, 2017;Radom & Gammons, 2014). To address these deficiencies, Lenker (2017) proposes combining these methods with a developmentalist approach, so that students learn through the evaluation process, questioning sources and not just looking for sources to support their position. Wichowski and Kohl (2013) refute claims of inadequacy and argue that the CRAAP checklist is useful for students new to research.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Questioning CRAAP

Lowe

Macy

Murphy

et al. 2021

JoSoTL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Librarians and instructors see college students struggle with evaluating information and wonder how to best teach source evaluation in a one-time course integrated library research session to ensure understanding and improve student performance. This research compared multiple sections of first-year students over two semesters taught two evaluation methods: the CRAAP method, and the six journalistic question words. Results indicate that students taught to evaluate information using the six question words produced better end-of-semester papers. Results of the pre-, post-, and end-of-semester quizzes were less conclusive, but do highlight some of the challenges first-year students face when determining credibility. Results have the potential to inform instructional practice.

show abstract