Advertisement

Epistemic Thinking in a Networked Society: Contemporary Challenges and Educational Responses

  • Sarit BarzilaiEmail author
  • Clark A. Chinn
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 17)

Abstract

The development and spread of new media and technologies are creating new challenges and opportunities for education. One of the key challenges, to which education needs to respond, is the wide-ranging impact of new media on people’s capabilities to engage in reliable epistemic processes for achieving epistemic aims. As a result of this impact, participation in networked knowledge societies requires a greater degree of epistemic competence in order to successfully achieve epistemic aims. Therefore, we argue that education should promote learners’ apt epistemic performance, i.e., their capabilities to achieve epistemic aims through competence, so that they are better prepared for navigating “post-truth” landscapes. We describe some educational approaches for achieving this objective. To conclude, we discuss the Knowledge Society Sandbox, a digital learning environment that supports knowledge construction from multiple information sources, and analyze how this environment is designed to promote learners’ apt epistemic performance.

Keywords

Epistemic education Epistemic cognition  Apt epistemic performance Networked society New media “Post-truth” Knowledge Society Sandbox 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Alexander, P. A., & DRLRL. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on facebook. Science 348(6239), 1130–1132.Google Scholar
  3. Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193–211.Google Scholar
  4. Barzilai, S. (2017). “Half-reliable”: A qualitative analysis of epistemic thinking in and about a digital game. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27, 353–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barzilai, S., & Eilam, B. (2018). Learners’ epistemic criteria and strategies for evaluating scientific visual representations. Learning and Instruction, 58, 137–147.Google Scholar
  7. Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12, 193–232.Google Scholar
  9. Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science, 43(6), 737–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2016). Epistemic (meta)cognition: Ways of thinking about knowledge and knowing. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 409–424). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bråten, I., Braasch, J., & Salmerón, L. (in press). Reading multiple and non-traditional texts: New opportunities and new challenges. In E. B. Moje, P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. V). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2013). Documents as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading - from words to multiple texts (pp. 160–179). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bromme, R., Stadtler, M., & Scharrer, L. (2018). The provenance of certainty: Multiple source use and the public engagement with science. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 269–284). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Caulfield, M. A. (2017). Web literacy for student fact checkers. Retrieved from https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/
  20. Chinn, C. A., & Rinehart, R. W. (2016). Epistemic cognition and philosophy: Developing a new framework for epistemic cognition. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 460–478). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the air model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information (pp. 425–454). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Chinn, C. A., Duncan, R. G., & Rinehart, R. W. (2018). Epistemic design: Design to promote transferable epistemic growth in the PRACCIS project. In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies: Theory, research, and practice for effective transfer(pp. 242–259). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Coady, D. (2012). What to believe now: Applying epistemology to contemporary issues. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Coiro, J., Coscarelli, C., Maykel, C., & Forzani, E. (2015). Investigating criteria that seventh graders use to evaluate the quality of online information. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(3), 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goldman, A. I. (1987). Foundations of social epistemics. Synthese, 73(1), 109–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldman, A. I. (2011). A guide to social epistemology. In A. I. Goldman & D. Whitcomb (Eds.), Social epistemology: Essential readings (pp. 11–37). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading - from words to multiple texts (pp. 160–179). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Goldberg, S. (2013) Epistemic Dependence in Testimonial Belief, in the Classroom and Beyond. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(2), 168–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2013). Digital inequality. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 129–150). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). The role of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1193–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lynch, M. P. (2016). The internet of us: Knowing more and understanding less in the age of big data. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Napoli, P. M., & Obar, J. A. (2014). The emerging mobile internet underclass: A critique of mobile internet access. The Information Society, 30(5), 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oeberst, A., Halatchliyski, I., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2014). Knowledge construction in Wikipedia: A systemic-constructivist analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215.Google Scholar
  43. Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., Espino, S., & Minguela, M. (2013). Integrating information: An analysis of the processes involved and the products generated in a written synthesis task. Written Communication, 30(1), 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sosa, E. (2011). Knowing full well. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sosa, E. (2015). Judgment and agency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 716–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stadtler, M., Bromme, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (2018). Learning from multiple documents: How can we foster multiple document literacy skills in a sustainable way? In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 46–61). Singapore: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Schejter, A. M., & Tirosh, N. (2016). A justice-based approach for new media policy: In the paths of righteousness. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning, Stanford Digital Repository.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Haifa, Faculty of EducationHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Rutgers University, Graduate School of EducationNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options