Patrick Carmichael, Ph.D. Department of General Studies
Department of Sociology and Anthropology Institute for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Research in Progress
How do students learn to evaluate websites,
and what impacts the process?
The Problem
Evaluating the validity and biases of
Web sources:
How do students learn to evaluate websites?
Positive and negative impacts on the process.
Objectives
1. To understand student perceptions of the Web
source evaluation process.
2. To understand how students acquire and apply
evaluative skills.
3. To understand barriers and facilitators affecting
outcomes.
The Plan
1.
Establish a Baseline:
Web source Reflection 1; Web Source Critique 1
2. Students attend a workshop on objective criteria for
evaluating the reliability of Web sources.
3. New Skills:
Web Source Critique 2; Web Source Reflection 2
4. Application:
Data Gathering Methods
Six assignments
Three Web source reflections
(100-word paragraph each)
Three Web source critiques
(150-250 words, each item)
Web Source Reflection #1 (100-word paragraph)
How do you evaluate the credibility of Web sources? (How can you tell if it’s good or bad? Why?) 1.How did you learn to do this? Examples: I figured it out for myself; my sister/brother told me; classroom instruction.
2.How would you rate your current ability to accurately evaluate Web sources?
On a scale of 1-5, where 1=no confidence and 5=complete confidence, circle one of the following:
1 2 3 4 5
Web Source Critique #1
This take-home assignment requires the student to evaluate four assigned Web postings in terms of their utility as appropriate sources for a university research paper.
The first two instruments (Reflection #1 and Critique #1 are completed at the beginning of the Course and prior to formal instruction. They document what a student brings to the course (prior skills) and what criteria are important to them. This establishes a baseline.
Ba
se
li
Web Source Critique #1
DeHaan, P. (2003) The Truth About College. Connections Magazine. (online magazine for out-sourcing call centers)
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. (2007) Pan-Canadian Study of First Year College Students – Report 1 Student Characteristics and College Experience. (Government of Canada)
Kang, J.H., & Chen, S.C. (2009) Effects of an irregular bedtime schedule on sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and fatigue among university students in Taiwan. BMC Public Health, Vol.9., Doi:10.1186/1471-2458-248.
(peer-reviewed medical journal)
Cammer, M. (2005) “Toll House” Recipe Cookies Do Not Maintain Their
Morphology Under Heat Stress Conditions. Annals of Improbable Research, July-August. (scientific parody and entertainment)
Workshop on Web Sources
Who wrote it? Professional? Student? Researcher?
Who was it written for? Students? PhD's? Members of a particular group?
When was it written? Date? Is it important?
Why was it written? To inform? To persuade? To advertize?
What's behind it? Fact? Opinion? Rumour?
What steps did it go through before being made public?
Spell check? An editor? Peer review?
Hallmarks of quality: content and appearance Symptoms of shame: content and appearance
Web Source Critique #2
DeHaan, P. (2003) The Truth About College. Connections Magazine. (online magazine for out-sourcing call centers)
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. (2007) Pan-Canadian Study of First Year College Students – Report 1 Student Characteristics and College Experience. (Government of Canada)
Kang, J.H., & Chen, S.C. (2009) Effects of an irregular bedtime schedule on sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and fatigue among university students in Taiwan. BMC Public Health, Vol.9., Doi:10.1186/1471-2458-248.
(peer-reviewed medical journal)
Cammer, M. (2005) “Toll House” Recipe Cookies Do Not Maintain Their
Morphology Under Heat Stress Conditions. Annals of Improbable Research, July-August. (scientific parody and entertainment)
Web Source Critique #2
This take-home assignment requires the student to re-evaluate the four web postings from Critique #1.
Web Source Reflection #2 (100-word paragraph)
Critique #2 is marked and returned. In class, students compare it with their copy of Critique #1.
Reflection #2 asks: What changed between your first and second critiques? Why?
Ne
w
Web Source Critique #3
For the term paper (and in addition to other bibliographic requirements) students will select two web postings not pertaining to peer-reviewed, academic journals. A 150-250 word critique of each source will be handed in a week before the term paper is due.
Web Source Reflection #3
(100-word paragraph after term papers are handed in)
1.How do you evaluate the credibility of Web sources? (How can you tell if it’s good or bad? Why?)
2.How would you rate your current ability to accurately evaluate Web sources? On a scale of 1-5, where 1=no confidence and 5=complete confidence, circle one of the following:
1 2 3 4 5
Applic
Data Analysis Methodologies
Domains
1.Author/Source
5. Objectivity
2.Audience
6. Purpose
3.Accuracy
7. Process
4.Currency
8. Appearance
1.2 Does the site/page represent a group, organization, publisher, corporation, or government body? 1.3 Contact information?
2.0 Audience
2.1 Who was it written for? General public, university students, academics? 2.2 Language and level of reading comprehension.
3.0 Accuracy
3.1 Methodology/sample
3.2 Footnotes, bibliographies, references, links? 3.3 Graphs, charts, tables, statistics, pictures?
4.0 Currency
4.1 When was it written, posted, last updated? 4.2 Is the date important? Why?
5.0 Objectivity
5.1 Is advertising present/subscription offer? 5.2 What’s behind it? Fact, opinion, rumour? 5.3 Does it display a particular bias?
6.0 Purpose
6.1 Why was it written? To inform, persuade, sell products, have fun?
7.0 Process
7.1 What steps did it go through before being made public? Editor only, spelling/grammar check, in-house vetting, peer-review?
7.2 Digital Object Identifier (doi) 7.3 Copyright
8.0 Appearance
8.1 Format, layout, organization, structure
8.2 Colours, serious fonts, pop-ups, over-size pictures 8.3 Length
