last updated 11/4/2011

FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE

   The final exam will be composed of TWO parts:  A take-home essay based on the prompt listed below and an in-class exam of questions and topics taken from the material described below.  The "take-home essay is due at the start of the exam period.  Nothing will appear on the in-class test that is not mentioned on the study guide.

 
   The in-class exam will be open-book, open notes. There will be some terms to define and one, two or three essay questions. The essay questions (all questions below except # 1) will appear on the exam in the exact form they are shown here.  Because of the fact you will have resources available, I will expect your answers will be well-organized, original and thoughtful - not mere regurgitation - and I will grade accordingly.  If you just repeat information that is on the web or in the Jamieson text you will not do very well.

TAKE-HOME ESSAY Prompt:  Present and justify your definition of a "good citizen."  Then go on to explain what elements of a Monmouth College, liberal arts education contribute to good citizenship and why.  (Maximum length:  4 double-spaced pages, 12 point font (print on both sides)

In-class Exam- Potential questons.

1.  Terms to define (in one to three sentences):  deliberation, information aggregation, web 2.0, wikis, blogs, social networking, "satisficing," informational cascades, reputational cascades, groupthink, heuristics, hidden profiles, common knowledge effect, amplifying errors, heuristics, framing, anchors, polarization, information literacy, F.A. Hayek.

2.  What is the thesis of Sunstein's book Infotopia?  In what regards do you think he is correct and in what ways is his thesis off the mark?

3.  Describe in detail the first four steps in the standard problem solving agenda.  Identify the six functions that most often cause problems for deliberating groups ((highlighted in blue) and why getting those functions done well improves the quality of decision-making in deliberating groups. 

4.  Explain how the Condorcet Jury Theorem can account for both the fact that groups sometimes are more accurate than the average of the individual members of a group and the fact that groups are sometimes less accurate.  Use a concrete example to illustrate your explanation. Does this theorem undermine the effectiveness of decision-making in a democracy by voters who discuss issues with others?

5.  Discuss how correct useof the "standard agenda" can compensate for the problems Sunstein identifies (e.g. amplification errors, hidden profiles/shared knowledge effect, information and reputational cascades,  polarization, framing, undue influenceof cognitively centeral persons. [at least four of these]  )

6.  Explain what Goupthink is.  Describe some of its causes and symptoms and suggest some possible preventative measures.

8.  Reflect on  your team's Information Evaluation presentation (on the assigned article).  What did your team do well and how could that project have been done better?

9. Reflect on your team's Information Literacy program.  Explain how this program could/should lead to improved citizenship (not just better school work) by those in your audience.