|
Users of information must evaluate it before using
it. Here are guidelines for evaluating traditional print materials
and online resources.
Traditional Print Resources:
Authority
 | Writer qualifications
| Publisher's reputation |
|
Accuracy
| Reliable
| Free from error
| Comparison to other sources
| Checked by editors |
| | |
Objectivity
| Point of view
| Minimum bias
| How much is an attempt to persuade |
| |
Coverage
| Scope
| Depth |
|
Currency
| Information up to date
| Publication date labeled |
|
[ Top ]
Web Resources
Web resources must not only meet all of the traditional information
criterion,
but also must meet criterion for quality online information. Ross Todd describes types of information found on the web:
| Information – factual, clearly sources, reliable, quality
| Misinformation – judged to be false, out of date, incomplete in a
misleading way
| Malinformation – potentially dangerous or damaging, inappropriate,
makes people uncomfortable with in openly accessible circulation
| Messed Up Information – poorly organized and presented, sloppy
design, problematic navigation
| Useless Information – appears to serve little informing purpose
(What is classed as useless may be different to different people.) |
| | | |
The traditional criteria can be adapted
to web resources (see checklists from Widener University) to deal with
these types of information. In selecting sites for curriculum units, it is
most important to consider content, but all these are important.
Authority
| Hard to determine author or qualifications
| No publisher
| URL may provide clues on source (e.g., institution, business,
organization, government) |
| |
Accuracy
| Little editorial control of web content
| Anyone can publish on the web
| Verify by comparison to other sources
| | |
Objectivity
| Objective of site may not be clear |
| May intend to make a point or advertise
| Examples for objectivity: |
|
Coverage
| Hard to determine
| May view single page out of context
| Instability of sites makes this more difficult
| Does site cover the breadth and depth it claims?
| Any content gaps?
| Are sources cited? |
| | | | |
Currency
| May or may not include date
| Not clear on meaning: first written, placed on web, last revised??
| Examples for currency and coverage: |
| |
Additional Factors
Content
| Purpose of page |
| Intended audience -- reading level, interest level, language
| Type of activities / information
| Engaging activities as appropriate
| Comparison to other resources available on the subject
| Inclusion of relevant links |
| | | |
Marketing Orientation
| Determine if information and advertising are from same
organization
|
Mix of Entertainment, Information, and Advertising
Hypertext Links
| Quality of linked pages may vary
| Evaluate each page independently (watch URL for site change) |
|
Page Design
| Motivating
| Loading time
| Purpose of graphics
| Information organization
| Navigation
| | | | |
Instability of Sites
| Pages move or disappear
| Look for pages from major organizations
| Document fully |
| |
Software Requirements May Limit Access
| Java, Javascript, ActiveX, RealPlayer,
| QuickTime
| Browser may vary appearance
| | |
Search Engines May Retrieve Pages Out of
Context
| Try to return to home page for source |
[ Top ]
When Evaluating Websites
| Determine if web is logical site for researching this topic;
indicate most appropriate resources -- both print and electronic
| Identify type of page to help determine focus (information /
reference, news, advocacy, marketing, personal)
| Use appropriate evaluation criteria |
| |
Steps to Evaluate Websites
[ Top ]
Sample Checklists and Evaluation Criteria
For Kids
Bogus Web Pages (Demonstrate Evaluation of Web Resources)
[ Top ]
|
|
Information Power
Information Literacy
Research Process
KWL
Ciardello
Evaluating Information
Lesson Design
Assessment
Collaboration
Staff Development
|
