Are you using credible sources when conducting research online? How do you know? What characteristics should you be looking for?
One of the cornerstones of being an instructional design (ID) professional, is that one must engage in an endless pursuit of learning for success. Moreover, it is imperative to understand that technological advancements, such as the internet, have become the essential learning tools of today. The good news in this is that individuals now have access to enormous amounts of valuable information at unprecedented speeds; however, the potentially bad news is that these same learners will often be exposed to inaccurate and unreliable sources perceived as truth, ultimately establishing an erroneous knowledge base to build upon. Therefore, Leu and Zawilinski (2007) urge online researchers “to be “healthy skeptics” while reading online, always checking first to see who created the information at a new web site they encounter” to better examine one’s credibility (p. 2). Purdue Owl (n.d.) offers the following five criteria for analyzing source credibility:
1. Consider the author.
2. Determine the recency of the work.
3. Determine the author’s intent.
4. Determine the kinds of sources your audience will deem credible.
5. Thoroughly examine internet sources.
This blog post will feature two credible sources that offer unique perspectives about how neuroscience directly correlates with intelligence levels, and how information processing theory needs revision to best understand the human learning process.
The meticulous cognitive processes often described in information processing theory are said to have little value in the context of instructional design; however, this theory is significant to our industry in that it helps ID professionals to better understand how end users think about and interpret content, as well as how to effectively engage these individuals (Laureate Education, n.d.). Though useful in this sense, information processing theory, “which explains human cognition like computer processing has limitations” (Gurbin, 2015, p. 2332).
The peer-reviewed scholarly article, located in the 7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences academic journal, is a credible source titled: Enlivening The Machinist Perspective: Humanising The Information Processing Theory With Social And Cultural Influences. Herein, author Tracey Gurbin posits that information processing theory is a machinist, and overly generalized view of learning and that teachers and ID professionals must instead acknowledge cultural and social differences and create inclusive learning environments, ultimately facilitating better connections for learners (Gurbin, 2015). This is a quality source because it is peer-reviewed, recent, located in a credible database, and sites credible sources within. The next source to be evaluated comes from a blog.
Learningandthebrain.com/blog is a credible public information resource, that features a blog entry by Rebecca Gotlieb, a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, who reviews a book with the blog title: “The Neuroscience of Intelligence by Richard Haier”. Haier is a “professor emeritus at the University of California… a former president of the International Society for Intelligence Research, and a pioneer in the use of neuroscientific methods to study intelligence” (Gotlieb, 2018). This is an exceptionally dependable source in consideration of these author’s respective levels of expertise and experience, as well as the recency of this post. Most notably, Haier posits that, “the vast majority of variability in intelligence is due to genes, rather than environmental factors… [and] that many genes influence intelligence”; he further exhibits optimism that an increased knowledge of genes will eventually allow learning professionals to heighten one’s level of intelligence, irrespective of any environmental limitations that exist (Gotlieb, 2018).
These are both riveting and trustworthy accounts, despite their opposing views. What do you think fellow ID superstars? Does information processing theory need to be modified? Should we be examining the brain, or considering the environment (social and cultural) when trying to understand the learning process? Maybe both? I would love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below. As always, thanks for joining me!
-Ahisha, The Ecstatic Learning Addict
References
Gotlieb, R. (2018, March 14). The Neuroscience of Intelligence by Richard Haier [Web log post]. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from https://www.learningandthebrain.com/blog/intelligence-haier/
Gurbin, T. (2015). Enlivening the machinist perspective: Humanizing the information processing theory with social and cultural influences. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197(7th World Conference on Educational Sciences), 2331-2338. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.263
Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Information processing and the brain [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Leu, D. J., & Zawilinski, L. (2007). The new literacies of online reading comprehension. New England Reading Association Journal, 43(1), 1-7.
Welcome to the Purdue OWL. (n.d.). Retrieved March 16, 2018, from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/02/
The Ecstatic Learning Addict: An Exploration of ID with Ahisha 