Just google it! Digital literacy and the epistemology of ignorance
Open accessAbstract
In this paper we examine digital literacy and explicate how it relates to the philosophical study of ignorance. Using data from a study which explores the knowledge producing work of undergraduate students as they wrote course assignments, we argue that a social practice approach to digital literacy can help explain how epistemologies of ignorance may be sustained. If students are restricted in what they can know because they are unaware of exogenous actors (e.g. algorithms), and how they guide choices and shape experiences online, then a key issue with which theorists of digital literacy should contend is how to educate students to be critically aware of how power operates in online spaces. The challenge for Higher Education is twofold: to understand how particular digital literacy practices pave the way for the construction of ignorance, and to develop approaches to counter it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When students looked for outside sources, they favored the top search results from search engines and clicked on higher-ranked results, even if those results were less credible or relevant.
“For instance, when students looked for outside sources, they favored the top search results from search engines and clicked on higher-ranked results, even if those results were less credible or relevant (Bhatt & Mackenzie, 2019;Wineburg & McGrew, 2017).”
From Expanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy (2023) · cites this paper as Bhatt & Mackenzie, 2019
Students' research habits made them vulnerable to algorithmic ranking and filtering.
“Other studies have suggested that students' research habits made them vulnerable to algorithmic ranking and filtering.”
From Expanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy (2023) · cites this paper as Bhatt & Mackenzie, 2019
Cites
Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing
Fricker, M. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001 · Cited by 9,198 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: a critical literature review
Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2023) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
Explicating AI Literacy of Employees at Digital Workplaces
Cetindamar, D., Kitto, K., Wu, M., Zhang, Y., Abedin, B., & Knight, S. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2021.3138503 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Kelly, A., Sullivan, M., & Strampel, K. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.6.12 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Expanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy
Loyola Marymount University, & Archambault, S. (2023) · Communications in Information Literacy · doi:10.15760/comminfolit.2023.17.2.11 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Sullivan, M., McAuley, M., Degiorgio, D., & McLaughlan, P. (2024) · Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.7 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bhatt, I., & MacKenzie, A.
- Affiliations
- Queen's University Belfast (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bhatt, Ibrar
- Venue
- Teaching in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-02-20
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 302-317
- ISSN
- 1356-2517 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1294
- OpenAlex
- W2898534435
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 148.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.qub.ac.uk
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Teaching in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- The Society for Research into Higher Education
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literacy, Media, and Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Keywords
- digital literacy, epistemology of ignorance, ignorance, social practice approach, algorithms, undergraduate students, course assignments, critical awareness, higher education, knowledge production
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
