Unit 2: Students and Sources
Thinking Like A Student
Searching for the right sources is a demanding task, so proper scaffolds will need to be addressed in order for students to grab the right information. When students open a new webpage and are scanning for useful content, the searcher’s prior knowledge comes into play that helps distinguish what is important from the text. (Kiili, et al. 2008). It may be vital to start the activity by activating students’ current understanding of the subject so they can grasp what is known and what needs to be found. If the class is not on the same page before looking on the internet, they may be confused about what information they find or believe anything to be true as they do not know any better.
Isn't all news the same?
Start off the lesson with this icebreaker and ask your students why it matters where you get your news:
After having students volunteer their answers, this will get the ball rolling on not everything on the internet is true and you have to be careful where you get your sources from. You can use my examples from looking up Octopus in the Pacific Ocean or the ones you found in your Unit 1 activity. The reason I appreciate my example is that the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus shows up on the 1st page when searched on Google, proving that the first 5 search results could come with inaccuracies (the results may be the same or different on you depending on the algorithm that Google uses to populate your search queries). Go back and forth between the sources looking for how author, date of publication, and motivation can lead to trustworthy and untrustworthy sources.
Conquering the Question
Coming up with a good question is tough, make it too easy and the students will answer the question quickly but make it too hard and the students will get confused which leads to many different problems. You should not frame a question that is looking for a fact or include specific keywords that will lead them to the answer way too fast; instead, the end goal must be able to argue a claim based on the content each student found. The type of evidence that students acquire should be made of identifiable factors (person, goal, cause, effect) and the point of view gathered from analyzing the sources (explanation, opinion, inference). Locating identifiable factors allows students will take the time necessary to gather documentation on the correct aspect(s) and the POV proves to the instructor that the student understood the material and is able to use their own critical thinking to put the pieces together. (A. Walraven et al., 2009). There is no magic combination of words that will create the perfect question to ask every time, it truly depends on the subject matter and the grade level, how to format the inquiry to lead to the best results.
Strategies for Success
When looking at search engine results that can take one down many avenues, the user has to evaluate the sources which can vary by age group, so it is important to get the class on the same page. Young children tend to believe that everything on the internet is factual and teenagers only look for the answer without thinking of the purpose of the site or to check the information in another source. Titles, summaries, and sometimes visuals usually draw in web users, but they’re no gatekeepers to keep out the uncredible sources (A. Walraven et al., 2009).
Prior Knowledge: Have students brainstorm as a class what they already know about the topic from what they learned in class and what they picked up outside of school (a great time to debunk inaccurate perceptions so students do not end up on the wrong path when searching the web)
Metacognitive Strategies: Prepare a think-pair-share where students discuss effective procedures they partake in when trying to find a credible source online. From rewording/rephrasing your search to get better results to quitting the site when the information you are looking for is not there, talking about these strategies out loud will get the students thinking about approaches they can take to discover the right sources.
(Mason et al., 2014)
CARP Chart
The CRAP Test was developed by Molly Beestrum who developed a graphic organizer for college students so they could identify if the website found was trustworthy enough (Stephens, 2016). Check out CRAP in action below:
Universities across the nation have adopted this format to their own libraries, but a version has not been created for grade school students. The original graphic organizer asks a lot of questions and may prove to be difficult for students who need clear-cut directions. I modified the CRAP Test to the CARP Chart to be simpler and still ask the hard-hitting questions (“crap” is considered a taboo word for children of some ages so to avoid possible conflicts I switched the R and the A in the acronym). Let’s break down what CARP stands for:
- Currency: This section wants the student to find out how recent the source is today as it may not be as relevant depending on how long ago it was written as new information can change the narrative. If the topic covers science, technology, or recent events it needs to be very current. If it is a humanities or historical document, these documents can be decades old and still relevant.
- Authority: The student should act similar to an interrogation; the student should be pulling out cold hard facts to determine if the author is innocent or guilty of fraudulent evidence. Job occupation and expertise do hold weight when comparing authors discussing the same subject but on different sides of the argument. Bonus points if the source is provided with hyperlinks so it will take you to the evidence mentioned.
- Reliability: If the student digs into where the source was posted, it may help he/she understand why it was posted in the first place. All websites may be found on the internet, but that does not mean all websites are of equal value, these questions help determine if the source is worthy enough to be included.
- Purpose: The student should be sniffing out if bias is involved by analyzing the intentions of the source. Good, credible sources are not aligned to stick to one side of the argument but paint the whole picture in order to educate the reader.
To those that completed Unit 1: Searching for Sources, this content should sound familiar as they are similar principles you were looking for in your activity. Currency is examining the Date of Publication, Authority deals with the Author and Purpose is the Motivation behind why this source was written. I did not align an aspect with Reliability as I found it to be a combination of a few characteristics. Having students break down the Date of Publication, investigate the Author, and discover the Motivation of a source is a big ask for grade students. A structured approach like CARP will help guide the children to distinguish if a source is credible or not by providing the right questions to answer so it becomes clear to the student how dependable the source truly is.
I should note, this is not a foolproof solution, it will require some digging and critical thinking to decipher the credibility of a source. An article may lack an author but comes from a very trustworthy source which happens often so it should not be discredited as an untrustworthy source. Meanwhile, if the currency, authority, and reliability are all sound yet bias has taken hold of the author's point of view, emotions may distort the truth and must deem the source as untrustworthy. It is up to user discretion based on what is found in the source is enough to sway the evidence towards being credible or not credible.
Unit 2 Activity
You are going to be filling out a CARP Chart like you are a student to prove that your source isn’t fishy! (by fishy I mean unreliable)
Begin by coming up with a compelling question that students can not solve in a single source but one that will require the class to pull together multiple sources (Conquering the Question section in this Unit may push you in the right direction). By writing the research question down, it will keep the eye on the prize on what information the source should consist of.
After writing down your research question, find a source on Google that is worthy enough to be included in your evidence then record its title and URL. You will be filling out each section of the CARP Chart based on your one source. Each letter has an Explain question and a YoN question. Questions in the chart that start with Explain, you must describe your answer in detail. For questions that start with YoN, write an x in the yes or no column based on the source, explanation is optional.
There is no benchmark to what a source needs in order to be used as acceptable evidence so it is up to the user based on what is found. The more “Yes” answers and the more details you can find for your explanation should lead to a more credible source to help answer the question.
Construct a question, locate a source and test your source to see if it is credible by one of the CARP charts in the Google Doc below! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RkSINzRtNE_47Vs28mObzdEMHamAOJmfr6hdK9-piCQ/edit?usp=sharing
References:
Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.39.1.e
Mason, L. Junyent, A., & Tornatora, M, (2014). Epistemic evaluation and comprehension of web-source information on controversial science-related topics: Effects of a short-term instructional intervention. Computers & Education,Volume 76, 2014, Pages 143-157. ISSN 0360-1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.016.
Stephens, S. (2016). Evaluating sources toolkit: Crap test. LibGuides. Retrieved December 3, 2021, from https://ccconline.libguides.com/c.php?g=242130&p=2185475.
Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the world Wide web for information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.003
On to Unit 3?
Click here: Unit 3: Synthesize your Sources