Keywords

Academic Bildung; academic integrity; moral code of academia; research integrity; critical thinking; Self-Determination Theory; SDT

5.1 Introduction

What are the learning outcomes we want students to achieve when we teach information literacy? We want them to have skills in finding, evaluating, and citing sources, we want them to learn how to write in accordance with academic standards, to have acquired strategies for their own learning, to be familiar with digital tools that will be helpful in the process, to have developed academic attitudes and an ability to act according to norms, and we want them to understand why all of this is important, and we ultimately want them take a reflected stand against bad academic conduct.

Naturally, we believe in the importance of being information literate. On the one hand, it is important for the individual student, for being able to take informed academic decisions, and for achievement of intended learning outcomes in their disciplinary and professional courses in higher education. On the other hand, it is important for the future production of new knowledge, and thus for both work and society at large, that students upon graduation have the academic skills and attitudes that are required. On a general basis, it is also vital that citizens know how scientific knowledge is reliably produced, that they know how to take a critical stance on the validity and reliability of information.

This chapter deals with the normative and attitudinal side of information literacy, and thus with the values and norms that we want students to consider taking to their hearts. We want students to know the formal and informal rules and regulations for production of academic knowledge, and for academic writing in particular. We want them to develop familiarity with different kinds of situations that we deem crucial in order to understand how and when to apply the rules. Together, the knowledge of general rules and the ability to understand the normative complexity of particular situations will be the basis for the kind of judgment students need in order to develop academic integrity.

However, being familiar with the rules and being able to “read” the normativity of situations are in itself no guarantee for good academic conduct. Students need to be emotionally involved and motivated in order to act according to their own good judgment. We believe that knowledge of the core values and knowledge of the reasons for the rules, the regulations, and the norms of academia are important for being motivated. Seeing yourself as part of a larger whole and as a participant of the enterprise of producing new knowledge makes a difference. This is why we believe in communicating the normative basis of information literacy to the students, and it is also why we believe in initiating them into the practices of the academic community. Offering instruction with the aim of acquisition of skills in information literacy courses and programs is important, but not in itself sufficient.

Also, approaching the normative basis of information literacy through a focus on misconduct and dishonesty, thus making the topic carry negative and punitive implications may not be productive. Rather, when dealing with plagiarism, for instance, a negative and moral stand can be a “distractor from dealing with plagiarism as a teaching and learning issue” (Carroll, 2009, p. 121). In order to approach the normative basis of information literacy in an educative, preventative, and positive manner, we need to look at the value base and the practices where these values have emerged.

What is then the normative basis for information literacy? From where do the core values of information literacy and good conduct in academia come? The set of attitudes and values and competences that we find in successful research communities is a particularly important source. Research integrity thus is a vital source of academic integrity. However, the way towards academic integrity as well as research integrity goes through a formation process, and in higher education we call this process “Academic Bildung” (Solberg & Hansen, 2015). German enlightenment thinking, in particular Immanuel Kant (1724–1824) and Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), has had great cultural influence on the conception of Academic Bildung in the Scandinavian university tradition. The concept of Bildung itself stems from the German enlightenment, and it does not presently have a direct English counterpart. However, the contents of the concepts “education,” “formation,” and “edification” come close to the content of the concept of Bildung. Before we go further into the normativity of academic integrity, we take a look at the particular formation processes that are desired in academia.

5.2 Academic Bildung—The Formation Processes of Academia

The concept of Bildung generally describes a personal development process, more precisely a reciprocal process of formation where the individual meets the world actively. This means that the individual takes part in forming the world, as well as being formed by it, and this makes the process different from the process of socialization. The context of the notion of Academic Bildung is the practice of research in academia, and the notion points at a set of values that has arisen in this practice over time. Academic Bildung involves a strive for autonomy as well as a strive for authenticity (Solberg & Hansen, 2015).

Autonomy means self-rule (auto—self, nomos—law), as opposed to heteronomy (other-rule, hetero—other, different, nomos—law) and it points to a specific form of independence where the individual makes judgments and decisions on the basis of his or her best knowledge and his or her own core values. In the context of higher education, autonomy is connected to both skills in critical thinking, as well as a will to exercise critical thinking. The critical attitude that is expected of the university graduate presupposes a basis in disciplinary or professional knowledge and general competence.

Authenticity means in this connection to be true to your own personality or values, and being faithful to your own internal rather than external ideas (auto—self, hentes—doing, being). It is connected to ethical dimensions of self-formation, to existential and being-oriented reflection. In the context of higher education, authenticity is about the identity-formation and the meaning-making processes that are specific for higher education, and it points to exercise of the subjectivity and personality of the individual.

Thus independence and personal engagement are the character traits connected to Academic Bildung. Without these traits of the individual, it is hard to imagine academic integrity. However, the ability to act with integrity is dependent upon the ability to make reasonable, rational, or good judgments. Good judgment does not come out of the blue. When we deem someone to have acted from good judgment we take it that they have acted from nonarbitrary decisions. This means that good judgment demands justification (Fossheim and Ingierd, 2015, p. 10). Giving reasons for actions, and the habit of asking for reasons, is a central virtue in critical thinking (Opdal, 2008). Consequently, development of good judgment and development of critical thinking are related processes, in the sense that both will be involved in decision making. Discussing and choosing between different alternatives for action for, e.g., avoiding plagiarism, is an example of a process where both forms of competence are involved.

5.3 Academic Integrity—The Moral Code of Academia

5.4 An Empirical Basis for Relating to Norms and Values in Information Literacy Teaching

The character trait of academic integrity, as well as the trait of Academic Bildung, implies a person’s ability to resist temptations for quick personal gains at the expense of other researchers, the research community and society at large. This means that both traits point at regulative ideals rather than necessarily pointing at descriptions of actual conduct in the everyday life of academia.

Teachers and supervisors are vital in the formation processes of the students in higher education. It is first and foremost they who are the visible and legitimate academic authorities for the students, as it is they who most frequently interact with the students. However, if we, as teachers of information literacy, whether we are disciplinary teachers or library teachers, avoid digging into the value base of academic research, we may not reach the hearts and souls of our students. And the students may ultimately be unable to see themselves in the bigger picture of the strive for a better world through the production of new knowledge. We believe that students knowing the reasons why they follow academic conventions will be more motivated students. We believe that knowing that your personal conduct is directly related to an overall better good is motivating for most of us. This is also empirically validated in motivation theory, in particular in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as it is developed by social psychologists Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan and colleagues. This theory works in the interplay between the extrinsic forces acting on persons and the intrinsic motives and needs inherent in human nature.

Intrinsic motivation is generally thought to give spontaneous and self-determined behavior, where something is done because it, in itself, is seen as interesting, challenging, entertaining, or generally rewarding. Extrinsically motivated action is generally thought of as action done in spite of inner resistance, and it is seen as action done because it leads to a specific desirable result, for instance a reward, or freedom from punishment. If there are no external forces working on the agent, extrinsically motivated action can be done because it is considered a duty. Deci and Ryan have pointed out that extrinsically motivated action also can be exercised on the basis of free will, exactly because of acceptance and understanding of the value of the duties they are expected to conduct. As educators, it is important for us to know how we can stimulate and advance extrinsic motivation in students. Much of what they need to do in order to learn and acquire the knowledge, skills, and competences we intend as their learning outcomes is neither always fun nor interesting in itself.

The overall theory of self-determination contains a Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT), where three specific evolved psychological needs are identified: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The theory applies to the intrinsically, as well as the extrinsically motivated. The need for competence implies that we seek to control the outcome of our actions and experience mastery. In short, it is the need to master. The need for relatedness is the universal want to interact, be connected to, and experience caring for others. In short, it is the need for belonging. The need for autonomy is the universal urge to be causal agents of your own life and act in harmony with your integrated self. In short, it is the need for independence.

We see this validated approach as an empirical and descriptive counterpart of the normative pedagogical–philosophical theory of Academic Bildung. In this connection, that is, teaching the value base of academia and the historical and present reasons for it, it is first and foremost the psychological need of relatedness that is relevant. Relatedness, here understood as being connected to others in the strive for a better world, through production of new knowledge, is validated as a motivational effect. Whether we rely on descriptive or normative theory in this question, the following applies. In order for students to feel relatedness, someone, and preferably legitimate academic authorities, has to show students this bigger personal and societal context. We believe that students who are getting the bigger picture, who are able to see their own role as students at a university and as future producers of knowledge, also have a better potential for being responsible learners. However, the two other evolved psychological needs, autonomy and competence, are still vital to count in when we are teaching information literacy, as we shall see in Chapter 6, Teaching It All.

Thus we have here given an argument for the benefits of teaching academic values to students, and thus making them familiar with the academic moral code—academic integrity—as part of our teaching of information literacy. But why do we also need to focus on Academic Bildung and critical thinking? What difference can it make? The concept of academic integrity does not connote to the process that needs to lie behind any acquisition of such norms. As teachers of information literacy in higher education, we should take an active and reflected part in the formation processes of the students, and seek to contribute with our input and our facilitation of the learning process. In Chapter 6, Teaching It All, we explain and give examples of how we think teaching and learning should proceed in order to accommodate development of Academic Bildung, critical thinking, as well as academic integrity.

5.5 Critical Thinking—A Goal of Academic Formation Processes

We have said that development of good judgment and development of critical thinking are, and should be, related processes. Before we take a closer look at two different phases in the progress of students’ relation to higher education that are relevant for their development of academic integrity, we need to take a look at critical thinking. Critical thinking is an educational ideal, an ideal we want students to strive towards and to rise towards. It is of particular importance in research-based higher education, and it might indeed be considered one of the overall goals of higher education as it commonly is regarded as a tool of the researcher. Critical thinking is furthermore a notion that describes an activity; it is something that individual persons do. Critical thinking is also a particular set of skills, something that can be taught and learned, and something that we like to regard as a habit of the academic mind. It does not necessarily follow, however, that acquired skills of a person turn into habits.

Thus persons who are critical thinkers must also have an inclination towards using the skills, in order for them to turn into habits. When this has happened, critical thinking becomes almost like a personality trait. What we have said about critical thinking thus far can, however, be regarded as controversial, albeit different parts of it in different camps. In a report from the American Philosophical Association, called “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction,” critical thinking is defined in the following way:

Still, in spite of efforts to consensus, there are many different conceptions of critical thinking around, and we have chosen to look closer into one of them, Harvey Siegel’s reasons conception (Siegel, 1988). The basis for this is that this conception of critical thinking is, as is the APA report, connected to goals of formal education, and also that it rhymes well with the kind of general competence that we can see across the disciplines in higher education. On this conception:

Reasons, and the act of seeking out valid and justified reasons, thus play the central part here. This conception admits that all critical thinking must have subject-specific content but proposes that “Skills such as identifying assumptions, tracing relationships between premises and conclusion, identifying standard fallacies, and so on do not require the identification of specific subject matters…” (Siegel, 1988, p. 20). This means that critical thinking involves subject-specific as well as subject-neutral principles in the assessment of reasons. The subject-neutral principles are in general the principles of formal or informal logic. When we teach students with the goal of helping them become critical thinkers, the skills intended as learning outcomes thus need to be developed both in relation to specific subject matters and on a general logical basis.

When we value critical thinking as of specific importance in higher education, and ultimately, in the production of new knowledge, it is according to Siegel because it is related to values “such as truth, intellectual honesty, and justice to evidence” (Siegel, 1988, p. 9). This means that critical thinking on the reasons conception is a normative enterprise. It should be noted that critical thinking also can be studied on more descriptive terms, in the sense that we research into the manifestations of critical thinking in the actual thinking of specific persons. In cognitive psychology, a descriptive approach will be more common, while a normative approach as ours will be more common in educational philosophy. In our normative approach, the critical thinker is a person who has “rational passions,” a person who has developed a critical attitude (Siegel, 1988, p. 40–41). This means that the emotional and attitudinal dimensions of critical thinking are a vital part of our conception.

How can we then go about teaching critical thinking in a way that fosters both reasoning skills and a critical attitude? How must we teach in order to initiate the students into one of the constituting practices of the academic life? We come back to these questions in Chapter 6, Teaching It All.

5.6 Developing Academic Integrity and Critical Thinking

Let us ask you three questions: Do you believe that students in your university typically pick up academic values through lectures, seminars, supervision, writing tasks, and assignments? Do you experience that students in your university on a regular basis learn how to recognize credibility in the work of others? Is it your impression that students are familiar with critical thinking as an expected outcome of their higher education? If your answer to one or more of these questions tends towards a “no”: How can we then start supporting students in familiarizing themselves with the value base and standards of credibility? How can we facilitate their development of skills and attitudes in critical thinking, so as to acquire and maintain good academic conduct in their own work?

We believe that teacher led and collaborative learning activities can play an important part. This is so, partly due to “relatedness” being a basic human need (SDT), partly due to the effect that discourse and dialog with peers and academic authorities can have on development of Academic Bildung, critical thinking, and rationality. Such an approach can be quite demanding on the teacher and on the facilitation of the students’ learning activities. We argue that it requires time, knowledge of the values, knowledge of what has brought these values about, knowledge of the specific rules and regulations at the local institution, that it requires facilitation of dialog and discussion of the values related to specific relevant and typical situations where decisions are up. Ideally, this should all also be related to the students’ writing and other learning activities in the specific disciplines, not just something that goes on in library courses. It is anyhow all about teaching so that students learn to make ethically sound and thoughtful decisions in their work, and it is about leading them into good academic practice.