research shmee-search

Below is my first draft of a conversation outline I plan to use when talking with my students about researching (a word - I fear- will soon be entirely archaic, replaced by "googling"). I think the following points should be presented to learners in a two-way discussion about online "researching."

If you're interested in why I have developed these guidelines, please read my previous post, "Don't let google take the learn out of learning!".

Evaluating information requires critical thinking, skeptism, and sound judgment. Knowing how to accurately and quickly determine the authority and relevance of information is of the utmost importance. The cartoon on the right is a spoof subtly alluding to the fact that the answers to everything, cannot simply be found by googling.

Unlike information published by publishing houses, the web is not facilitated for accuracy. Now, this is not to imply that all things published are true, not at all. But there is a big difference between the process of getting something published by a publishing house and publishing something on your own on the internet. When a publisher accepts ones work for publication they are in effect endorsing the product by putting their name brand on it. This acts as a (perhaps, increasingly thin) level of security as publishers don’t want to have their name next to untruths. To publish something on the internet, however, one needn’t apply to a publishing house, or even give their name!

To further complicate matters, lines between information and advertising are increasingly blurring. Hence, it is important to have a basis from which you can assess information.
Topics to consider when assessing internet sites’ credibility:

AUTHORITY – assess the official body responsible for the information on the site. Check whether or not the body can be confirmed off-line? Do they have a real address, phone number? Are they cited in scholarly works (one way to check is thru google scholar… if you find that the author is cited by reliable scholars, you can start assuming it is reliable)
* who manages this site? (This can sometimes be determined by the extension, like .edu) Consider if site include an official insignia of the organization sponsoring it? Also, can you contact the webmaster or sponsoring organization from within the site? Do they reply?
· an individual, what is there agenda? If there is no name associated with the content, this should throw up a red flag.
o is the author a professional in the field? (this must be diligently researched and not just checked by a google search)
o a non-scholar?
o an advocate? Check for persuasive language.
o Etc.
· an organization- what are their motives?
· A company-what are their motives?
· An academic organization
· Is the site a wiki??? If so, jump ship!

DEPTH OF COVERAGE/BALANCE/TONE - does this seem like a reliable site? Are there lots of typos? Is persuasive language employed?
* Does the author display an in-depth understanding of the topic which demonstrates the author's familiarity with the subject?
* Does the site correctly cite other sources? Are they linked?
* Perspectives
· Does the site include alternative ideas, philosophies, or perspectives?
· Can you identify the goals of the site?
· Are these goals clearly stated? If not, this may be an important indicator.

ACCURACY
* Is the material comparable to related sources?
* Does the source include a bibliography and/or citations that can be used for comparing or verifying data and other information?
* Is the information in the text poorly presented, consider associated graphics as well.
* Do many mechanical errors (e.g., grammatical errors, typos, etc.) appear in the text? Errors suggest the author might be careless in presenting information.
* Did you discover the site via a search engine? If so, how does the search engine you used look for information and, if relevant, rate the sites it retrieves?

Kathy Shrock has developed some excellent worksheets and guides to this end for students of all ages. Her site is here.

A revision to the TIP model

As I am interested in integrating technology into “no-excuses” curricula I am absorbed with the issue of how to bridge the gap between the (mostly) older, (mostly) traditional, (mostly) technologically-challenged teachers whom I cater to and their tech savvy students.

Students are easily distracted by the excitement of a new classroom technology and therefore miss out on the larger educational opportunity. I am additionally weary of the danger of students being distracted by their teacher’s tech ineptness. How often is a class delayed until a student comes to the front and aides the teacher with the TV/DVD player/ computer? So, ease of use would be my number one consideration before integrating a new technology into a lesson. In the first phase of the TIP model (to learn about the TIP model, please visit this site), one is supposed to “determine relative advantage” when considering employing technology in the classroom. At first glance this seemed reasonable to me. But, upon reading the description I was very disappointed that the phase is referring to the teacher’s relative advantage and doesn’t even consider the students'.
Although I agree that compatibility, complexity, triability and observability are all important factors when considering employing a new classroom technology, I also think that the students’ perspective benefit is important.

For example, if – when considering the criteria in phase one- a teacher realizes he/she is unfamiliar with a microscope and doesn’t have the opportunity to try or observe someone else instructing with one, he/she will decide not to employ the microscope. I think phase one should be expanded to also consider the student’s potential gain. Shouldn’t teachers consider students, even when considering technology?

Check out Jose Bicarlo's top 10 tips for using technology in the classroom.

Don't let google take the learn out of learning!

I have very savvy 8th graders. I have caught them using their iPhones in class to get answers! Whenever I have assigned them research topics and allowed them to use the internet I am disappointed. Instead of researching, I catch them checking their Facebook pages or the sports scores.

When I do get them on task I find they only know the very first step of internet research: They know how to google. After they press enter, they think they are done. They have a very minimal capacity for figuring out which sources are at their level, which ones are appropriate (not Wikipedia!!!), and which ones will best help them in their specific quest.

This concerns me deeply as I have spent most of my professional life as a Research Coordinator. Luckily, for me, I feel I learned how to research first, and then later, when google came into the picture, I was able to integrate it into my research methods. My students, however, grew up on google. .


When you google, you google for the answer. Rarely does one google to learn. That is to say, if I ask, what is the capital of X, most people I know would google “capital of X,” and read the first entry’s summary to give me the answer. Back in the olden days, you’d have to get an encyclopedia, or a map, to find the answer, or maybe you’d call a friend who has visited X. You’d probably learn something else about X in the process. Like, where it is in the world, or what it is most well know for, etc. Unfortunately, google has cut out the process of research and this is truly a shame for it is in the process that the memorable things are discovered.