Seeking Knowledge: Student
Judgment, Epistemology, and
First Year Writing
Troy Swanson
Teaching & Learning Librarian
Moraine Valley Community College
swanson@morainevalley.edu
http://troyswanson.pbwiki.com
Information Literacy and the
Knowledge-Based Society


Peter Drucker (Post-Capitalist Society 1993)
indicates that the knowledge economy needs
individuals that can think across disciplines.
This would require “a methodology for
problem definition—even more urgently
perhaps than it requires the currently
fashionable methodology for ‘problem
solving. It requires systematic analysis of the
kind of knowledge and information a given
problem requires...”(p.193)
“Source-Based Writing Project”
(Critical Approach to Information Literacy)

Problem (circa 2000): Students were
making uninformed choices when selecting
sources for papers and tools to use in
research.

Class: First-Year Composition, COM 101
Novice vs. Experts

Novice





Knows comparably little
about topic
Unaware of existing
sources, experts, or search
tools
Has little to no experience
interpreting metadata
(publication, type of
information, etc)
Does not make Predictive
Judgments
Expert





Internal Knowledge-base
Has expectation for existing
knowledge
Collects Most Information
from colleague or citations
When searching, evaluates
results with past knowledge
using metadata (publication,
type of information, etc)
Makes Predictive
Judgments
Difference Between Novice and Expert

Expert can more clearly articulate an
Information Need





Expectation for level of credibility for desired
information
Recognition of possible points-of-view to consider
Definition of various topics that might be relevant
to the topic
Consideration of timeliness of needed sources
Use this understanding to select tools to use
to search for desired information
Sections of ACRL Info. Literacy Standards
Emphasizing the Understanding of Information

Standard One: The information literate student determines the
nature and extent of the information needed.
 Performance Indicator 2: The information literate
student identifies a variety of types and formats of
potential sources for information.


Outcome C: Identifies the value and differences of potential
resources in a variety of formats (e.g., multimedia, database,
website, data set, audio/visual, book)
Outcome D: Identifies the purpose and audience of potential
resources (e.g., popular vs. scholarly, current vs. historical)
Sections of ACRL Info. Literacy Standards
Emphasizing the Understanding of Information

Standard Two: The information literate student accesses
needed information effectively and efficiently.
 Performance Indicator 4: The information literate
student refines the search strategy if necessary.


Outcome A: Assesses the quantity, quality, and relevance of
the search results to determine whether alternative information
retrieval systems or investigative methods should be utilized
Outcome B: Identifies gaps in the information retrieved and
determines if the search strategy should be revised
Sections of ACRL Info. Literacy Standards
Emphasizing the Understanding of Information

Standard Three: The information literate student evaluates
information and its sources critically and incorporates selected
information into his or her knowledge base and value system.
 Performance Indicator 2: The information literate
student articulates and applies initial criteria for
evaluating both the information and its sources.




Outcome A: Examines and compares information from various
sources in order to evaluate reliability, validity, accuracy, authority,
timeliness, and point of view or bias
Outcome B: Analyzes the structure and logic of supporting
arguments or methods
Outcome C: Recognizes prejudice, deception, or manipulation
Outcome D: Recognizes the cultural, physical, or other context within
which the information was created and understands the impact of
context on interpreting the information
Our COM 101 Objectives

Students will:




Be able to identify the information type of a given
source.
Be able to select search tools and sources for
information based on their information need.
Be able to locate, evaluate and select sources
that satisfy their information need.
Assignment: 2 Papers
1.
2.
Paper about 2 sources
Paper about a problem in a community
3 Class Sessions

Session 1: Types of Information



Session 2: Defining an Information Need





How are information sources different?
How do we define credibility?
What is my task?
What do I know about a topic?
What predictions can I make about what I need?
How do I link my results with Information need?
Session 3: Searching for Information


What tools have the needed information?
How can I use them to access this information?
Linking Needs to Outcomes





Relevance topics, search terms
Credibility type of information, who should I
listen to?
Point-of-View recognition of bias, seeking
balance
Timeliness answering the when question
Durability here today, still here tomorrow?
Understanding the Process
1.
2.
3.
4.

Idea (thesis statement)  Info need defines
Test (find outside sources)
Learn (consider new knowledge to modify
your thesis)
Use How will you use what you find and
learn?
Answers the “Standard #4 Question”
Personal Epistemology

Nature of Beliefs




Self Reinforcing
Established Early in Life
Classroom Setting Not Conducive to Change
Lisa Bendixen (UNLV)





Simple Knowledge
Certain Knowledge
Omniscient Authority
Quick Learning
Fixed Ability
Assessment


Sources of Student Papers
Surveys




Bendixen Survey
Information Use Survey (MVCC)
Project SAILS (Kent State)
Focus Groups
Key Leanings







Students understand they need to recognize
good vs bad information
Students are more savvy than anticipated
Should vs. Actual is different
Students base views of research process on
style of paper they are writing
“Used to Just Throw Things Together”
The “library Web thing”
Growth in conceptualization about
expectations and research process
Selected Readings








Bates, M., (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking
techniques for the online research interface. Online Review 13, (5):
409–10.
Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: a venture in
social forecasting. New York: basic books.
Bendixen, L. and Rule, D. (2004). An integrative approach to
personal epistemology: Educational Psychologist. 39, 1, 69-80.
Drucker P. (1993). Post-Capitalist society. Harpercollins.
Kuhlthau, C. (1993). Seeking meaning: a process approach to
library and information science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Rieh, S. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive
authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology. 53(2): 145-161.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief
system: introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated
research approach. Educational Psychologist. 39, 1 19-29.
Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge. Westport, CN:
Greenwood Press.