5. 15”

6. 1o”

8. ProceduresUnderstandings Evaluate provenance 1.Author background, expertise, experience affect competence to “speak” about issue (depends on issue & experience with it). 2.All authors have bias or limited views but we must determine if bias is acceptable or if it should “disqualify” them. 3.“Disclosure” which states one’s background, interests and positions is important. If not stated do “background check.” Assess purpose 1.All sources written/created with some purpose in mind. 2.Some purposes explicitly stated while others may be vague, implied, hidden or not easily discerned. 3.Some purposes more trustworthy (e.g., inclusive, sincere, respectful, balanced purposes more trustworthy than efforts to mislead, deceive, promote self-interest). Analyze content & cross reference 1.Claims and evidence must be evaluated for accuracy & reasonableness (e.g., if content fits with what is already known, what other sources say). 2.Need to check for errors, bias, tone (e.g., if emotive, one-sided, advocacy- focused, etc.) to determine if reliable as information. 3.Need to corroborate information, check to see if it’s consistent with other sources or refuted by other sources. Make determination of reliability Factors must be weighed together to make overall judgment of reliability. Judgments can be evaluated & compared according to criteria. Informed conclusions & decisions require reliable information.

9. ProceduresUnderstandings Evaluate provenance She discloses who she is; she cares about issue & Singapore; although young and inexperienced, she (& NSP) disclose background/interests and makes case for young people having voice. As opposition member, bias is acceptable. Assess purpose While she is trying to persuade readers (and is member of opposition party), she presents her views in a straightforward, honest way. She is explicit in her purpose and respectful to readers (e.g., asks sincere questions about role of gov’t.). Analyze content & cross reference She presents a reasonable argument. Although not backed up with “hard empirical evidence” her argument is consistent with findings from others’ work (e.g., TOC; Barr’s (2001) study of Singapore’s healthcare system found certain procedures and conditions prohibitive for those at lower income levels). Make determination of reliability Reliable in terms of providing evidence to answer inquiry question, “How affordable is healthcare in Singapore?” (i.e., it depends on one’s income level)

17. Meier (2011); http://irevolution.net/2011/06/21/information-forensics/ http://irevolution.net/2011/06/21/information-forensics/

18. Meier (2011); http://irevolution.net/2011/06/21/information-forensics/ http://irevolution.net/2011/06/21/information-forensics/

20. Social Studies Education (2001) 21 st Century Education Exams (Standardization, accountability, control) Innovative pedagogy & inquiry (Autonomy, variation, ‘good enough’ judgment) Paper sources (More manageable, 50-125 words, paper, stable) Online sources (Authentic, engaging, yet complex – multimodal, hyperlinked, not vetted) Thinking as routines & procedures (Convergent, one approach, ‘right’ answers) Creative & critical thinking (Divergent, multiple approaches & answers, use of criteria & evidence) National context (NE, meritocracy, hierarchy, instrumentalist) 21 st century contexts (Increasing diversity, complexity, transnational)