Inquiry Project: Finding and Using Internet Information

1. Inquiry Project:Finding and Using Internet Information Bridget Burke CEP 806 Professor Wong September 2007

2. Ideas, Predictions, andExplanations With the abundance of information found on the internet it can be very difficult for anyone from children to adults to locate accurate information on good sites to use as a reference. The World Wide web is growing rapidly, unpredictably, unevenly, and without the familiar guideposts of established publishers and vetting procedures. As the web assumes ever greater importance in education, research, and daily life, these phenomena deserve more critical examination (Bertram, Bruce – Credibility of the Web).

3. In Bruce’s article, Digital Content: The Babel of Cyberspace, he goes on to say, “The Web today hides its precious treasures behind a greater mass of semiprecious or junk-grade texts. Moreover, it holds worse than useless works. As Borges would surely have surmised, it contains libelous portrayals, pornography, hate sites, and simple falsehoods.” Thus I wanted to conduct this inquiry to take a closer look at how we as adults do this. I then can conduct a similar inquiry once I am teaching to compare adults with children.

4. Can taking a collection of both good and bad websites under close evaluation lead to a better understanding of what a good sites look like for use in future research? How do people categorize and sort through information on websites to determine its validity and credibility?

5. I predict that… • After looking at a supplied collection of what is believed to be good and bad sites, the participant will come up with his or her own list to determine a website’s credibility. I am predicting this because when trying to organize or sort through information everyone will come up with their own way of doing it. Each individual brings their own background knowledge and experience. Thus individuals will have their own reasons for grouping and reasoning.

6. Each participant will pick sites with more words or graphs as good sites as opposed to those sites containing more pictures or graphics. I am predicting this because most textbooks, research books, and newspapers all contain more print than pictures. Lots of pictures or graphics are often found in children’s literature and thus can be skipped over by adults and could be considered childish.

7. After being presented with an article on how to evaluate good from bad websites, the participants will change their original groupings. I am predicting this because often in school students will change their answers or ideas to reflect those thought to be correct or more commonly accepted by the teacher and peers.

8. Description of Inquiry Plan Since I am not currently working with elementary students, I will take an elementary science topic and conduct my inquiry using adults. I will be selecting four participants for this study to look at examples of good and bad websites regarding an elementary topic, “why does it rain?”. Data will be collected through my observations and discussions with participants during the project. I will also have participants complete a survey during the project.

9. I hope to be able to answer some of these questions… • What characteristics do participants feel are necessary in order to determine it is a good website? A bad website? • Will the participants struggle to determine which sites are good or bad? • Will the participants engage in internet searches to help validate the information on the sites? • Will the participants change their original thoughts based on the mini lesson on quality sites or will they remain the same?

10. Plan Details: My inquiry plan will start with a pre –survey to get some background information about the participants prior thoughts and ideas. I will then observe participants and discuss their ideas as they look over chosen websites and document which sites they feel are good or bad. I will then present participants with the John Hopkins article on evaluating internet information and the criteria they suggest using when evaluating the internet . I will then conduct a post-survey in which participants will revisit the websites and their thinking.

11. According to the Sheridan Libraries at John Hopkins University, the following criteria can be used when evaluating the internet. • Authorship • Publishing Body • Point of View or Bias • Referral to Other Sources • Verifiability • Currency

12. Interesting Patterns in My Data One of the things I found interesting was how different everyone placed sites into a good and bad category.  Only 2 of the sites were categorized as good by all four participants.  The remaining 8 varied from good to bad and even questionable in some cases.  

13. Pre-Survey Results… Participants stated that good websites are ones that include the following: • Active links • Easy to navigate • Looks appealing Participants stated that bad websites are ones that include the following: • Confussing • Messy or poor quality graphics • Unactive links • Unorganized

14. Surprisingly all the participants stated they rarely used the web for science related searches. When asked what science related searches were conducted… • one participant stated it was usually for a class • two conducted medical related searches • three searched for weather related topics • one stated they searched science topics for fun.

15. Observations… While observing the participants I saw each participant move quickly through the websites provided. • One participant moved very quickly through the websites as though they could be considered “good” as long as it contained science content. • Another participant assumed websites other than (.com) to be considered good. • Sites made for a younger age audience were ruled out as bad websites more often than considered good. • Website with ads were considered good. • Not one participant conducted a search to check the validity of a source or author.

16. Post –Survey Results I asked the participants at the end of the survey if they would change any of the websites from good to bad or form bad to good after I presented them with the John Hopkins article of qualities found in "good" websites. Every participant said they would have changed their responses from their personal good website criteria after seeing the article’s criteria.

17. Participant 1 said they had not thought about looking at the dates that any of the websites had been published or updated (currency). This is an important idea when searching for and looking at WebPages you will be using as references. As the article, “Searching the Web: New Domains for Inquiry” references: The Web search engines are very important and useful resources, and they are playing a major role in the information age. However, they currently lack comprehensiveness and timeliness. The current state of search engines can be compared to a phone book that is updated irregularly, and has most of the pages ripped out (Lawrence & Giles, 1999).

18. Participants 1 and 4 stated that checking the author would have changed their good and bad websites (Authorship). • Participants 2 and 4 mentioned that looking for accuracy in the details of the WebPages would have been a good determination of a good website (Accuracy). • All participants stated that after looking at the John Hopkins article they would have added more criteria to their search for good websites.

19. Emergent Ideas The sites that I found to be categorized as good or bad were not identified the same by any of the four participants. Although there are guides of criteria available for what makes a good website, the criteria may not be as well known. Each individual will take the criteria and use the parts that are hold significance to them.

20. I question whether my asking participants to place sites into a good or bad category strayed their decision making? Did they feel as though their lists should include close to an equal number of both good and bad sites?  Did the sites I used force them to group similar ones into the same category? Perhaps if participants had to look at sites first and describe what they see without grouping them into categories, I could get a better feel for if they felt it was valid or not.

21. Could it be that everyone brings their own ideas and misconceptions to evaluating websites like our students bring to our lessons? All of the participants changed how they would have classified the websites after being presented with new information. But the question still remains if they will continue to look at the web as they have in the past, or if they will look at it through new questioning eyes. After watching all the participants not question the websites provided very critically I have to wonder if we are too quick to assume information is valid when shown in a professional resemblance. I now see how important it is to use a questioning approach to information on WebPages.

22. In conducting this inquiry project I have found that it is important that we try to be more conscious of the credibility of websites we use to research information. Ultimately each person is going to make the final decision on how they classify websites and where they find good information based on our own experiences and knowledge .

23. References Bertram, Bruce. "Credibility of the Web: Why We Need Dialectical Reading." Journal of Philosophy of Education 34.Feb (2001): 97-109. 10 Sep. 2007 <http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/%7Echip/pubs/credibility.shtml>. Bertram, Bruce."Digital Content: The Babel of Cyberspace." Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy (1999). 10 Sep. 2007 <http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/JAAL/April_Column.html>. Bertram, Bruce."Searching the Web: New Domains for Inquiry." Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy (1999). 10 Sep. 2007 <http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/JAAL/April_Column.html>. John Hopkins University: The Sheridan Libraries. Ed. Elizabeth Kirk. 1996. Sheridan Libraries. 21 Sep. 2007 <http://www.library.jhu.edu/researchhelp/general/evaluating/>. Lawrence, S., & Giles, C.L. (1999). How big is the Web? How much of the Web do the search engines index? How up to date are the search engines? http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/websize.html