《评估网络内容规则策略基本概念英文版.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《评估网络内容规则策略基本概念英文版.doc（16页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、Evaluating Content on the Web: Rules, Strategies, and Foundational ConceptsAbstractIn this paper I will outline the beginnings of a general method for evaluating Web sites and their content. The method of evaluation is presented as part of a simple, interactive question method for learning on the We
2、b. The learning method, in an effort to appeal to the average Web learner, focuses almost exclusively on how to learn and critically evaluate Web sites and content found with conventional search engines. Many useful guides for how to evaluate Web sites and their content have been published by librar
3、ies at reputable institutions. This method is offered as a supplemental resource treating some aspects of evaluation that are sometimes overlooked in standard evaluation guides. These aspects include how to approach the evaluation of the truth or plausibility of claims on a Web site as opposed to me
4、rely evaluating the credibility of the site and how to relate Web site evaluation to the general development of learning and the acquisition of knowledge.Finally, the method will discuss presumptive reasoning as a useful tool for Web evaluation and present some simple examples.IntroductionIn this pa
5、per I will offer a very broad outline of a method for how to evaluate Web sites and their content that, it is hoped, will prove useful to teachers, librarians, students, and perhaps to the average Internet user. But, before we get to that, we should confront the obvious and rather troubling fact tha
6、t attempting to formulate such a method is, strictly speaking, quite absurd. There is no method that would allow a person to evaluate all Web sites and their content. A more reasonable approach, one might argue, is develop ones knowledge and critical abilities as best one can, that is, get a good ed
7、ucation, learn something about how the Internet works, how to use it, and then get on with learning and the critical evaluation that goes with it. There is wisdom in this advice and it may suffice to some degree for many of us, teachers, students and general public alike. But, a couple of facts abou
8、t the Web and its influence have prompted educators not only to flirt with the impossible task of putting together general guides for evaluating the Web, but to present these guides in simple, user-friendly packages . First, the nature of the Internet and its almost overwhelming power to supply us w
9、ith information, service, entertainment, friendship, and just about anything else one wants, appear to be fundamentally altering how we access information, acquire knowledge, interact with others, and, some argue, how we think, how we conceptualize about what is it is to know something. See Alex Bur
10、ns, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage (New York: Peter Lang, 2008). And in this new world there are great benefits and great dangers. Information, as encountered on the Internet, appears to have its own distinctive characterit can come easy with a click and a vi
11、ew, and yet often we do not know from whence it came and whether or not it can be trusted. The Internet lives with us as our constant, intimate companion, and yet it forever resides in a shadow of suspicion, like a dear friend or close family member that cannot be entirely trusted. Educators and oth
12、ers have entered the fray of this cognitive discord as therapists and counselors trying to reconcile concerned parties and make sense of it alland one aspect of this therapy is learning how to evaluate the enormously valuable information that the Internet provides. And this brings us a second genera
13、l fact that should trouble us a little more: studies show that the Internet makes its users extremely confident in a variety of ways, and, the younger users are the more confident they become. Many studies could be referenced here. See especially Deborah Fallow, “Search Engine Users: Internet Search
14、ers Are Confident, Satisfied and TrustingBut Are They Also Unaware and Nave,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington D.C. Available at (last accessed, March 14, 2010). Also see, Neil M. Browne, Kari E. Freeman and Carrie L. Williamson, “The importance of critical thinking for student use
15、 of the Internet,” College Student Journal 34, no. 3, 2000: 391-398. Users tend to believe what is presented to them because it is presented on the Internet; users tend to almost exclusively use conventional search engines, like Google, and believe that these search engines will bring to them all wo
16、rth knowing on a question, despite the fact Google, as of early 2010, searches a fraction of the sources available; and users tend to feel quite confident in their abilities to evaluate what they find on the Internet. See Julian Griffiths and Peter Brophy, “Student searching behavior and the Web: Us
17、e of academic resources and Google,” Library Trends, 53, no. 44, 2005: 539-554; Leah Graham and Panagiotis Takis Metaxas, “Of course its true: I saw it on the Internet! Critical thinking in the Internet era,” Communications of the ACM 46, no. 5, 2003: 71-75. This overconfidence is better viewed as i
18、rrationality, and it is an irrationality that seems to be inspired by the power and influence of the Internet itself. These awesome powers at work on the minds of people have called for some response from educators, and one aspect of this response has been a call to mission impossible: teaching how
19、to evaluate Web sites and their content. Libraries and librarians have taken the lead in addressing this problem and have published many useful Web evaluation guides that treat the Web as an information source analogous to traditional information sources but with certain distinctive characteristics
20、that require special evaluation techniques. A useful bibliography of evaluation guides and other resources for Web evaluation is provided by Alistair Smith, (last accessed, March 14, 2010). These evaluation guides, checklists, techniques provide a novice learner (I will consciously shift from talkin
21、g about users to talking about learnersdoes the way we conceptualize ourselves and our relation to the Internet influence our attitudes and thoughts?) with at least some strategies for navigating Web sites and general criteria for evaluation with the general aim of assessing the credibility of the W
22、eb site or content on the site. These guides have many virtues. An especially useful source for evaluation of documentation on the Web is, Elizabeth K.Kirk, “Evaluating Information Found on the Internet,” Johns Hopkins University, The Sheridan Libraries, (last accessed Feb. 25, 2010). Also, a curren
23、t web evaluation guide that includes evaluation criteria for blogs and social networking sites is, University Libraries, University at Albany, State University of New York, Evaluating Web Content, (last accessed March 14, 2010) But, just a cursory look at a few reveals limitations and inadequacies,
24、which their authors would surely acknowledge. Consider these very common general categories for evaluation offered by Jim Kapoun, reprinted by the Cornell University Library: “accuracy, objectivity, authority, currency, coverage”. See Jim Kapoun, Teaching undergrads web evaluation: A guide for libra
25、ry instruction, C&RL News (July/August 1998): 522-523. Reprinted by Cornell University Libraries, (last accessed, March 11, 2010). Also, see Susan Beck, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, last updated April 27, 2009, (last accessed March 3, 2010). Under each category are listed useful questions for con
26、sideration. For instance under objectivity one finds, “determine if a page is a mask for advertising; if so information might be biased.” This is a valuable recommendation, but how would a learner determine this? If advertising and commercial purpose exist on the page it should certainly throw up wa
27、rning flags. But, where do we go from there? How do we determine bias and to what degree does this bias corrupt the content of the site?These kinds of limitations can be noted in most Web evaluation guides. Consider recommendations on credentials and authorship in a very useful guide published by UC
28、 Berkeley libraries: University of California Libraries, Evaluating Web Pages: Techniques to Apply and Questions to Ask. (accessed Feb. 22, 2010)“What are the authors credentials on this subject?. Is the page a rant, an extreme view, possibly distorted or exaggerated? If you cannot find strong, rele
29、vant credentials, look very closely at documentation of sources.”This is, of course, sound advice, but does a learner know how to evaluate credentials? How would a learner know if the views expressed or information presented are distorted? But, one may reply, Web evaluation guides are not intended a
30、s comprehensive guides for the acquisition of content knowledge and the analytical abilities one needs to evaluate what is found on the Web. These guides are merely intended to provide some useful markers, questions, techniques, and things to be on the lookout for; the development of knowledge and c
31、ritical abilities belongs to ones general education. Nevertheless, as the authors of these guides will surely admit, there are risks in using these guides without clear provisos of incompleteness. Our audience should be expected to take what we say at face value and run with it. Learners are looking
32、 for quick answers-they are in a hurry. Information is demanded. And so is evaluationstudies show that many already think they do just fine on that score. Nor can we assume that the audience possesses developed critical abilities or even a little relevant knowledge of content. Are Web evaluation gui
33、des in their current form in their focus on assessment of credibility adequate to the task of teaching Web learners what they need to know to resist the gravitational pull of appeal to authority and ad populum reasoning so prevalent on the Web, that is, reasoning which is satisfied with justificatio
34、n by appeal to credible experts or by appeal to what everybody believes?The method offered below will also prove equally inadequate to the task at hand, but I hope that the approach taken, the questions, rules, and concepts discussed, present useful supplemental material for teachers, students and o
35、ther learners in their efforts to evaluate content on the Internet.Procedural Rules and StrategiesThe method is presented as a series of procedural steps or phases. These are general phases in the process of Web learning, and in an effort to relate to the average Web learner, the method will focus a
36、lmost exclusively on learning with conventional search engines (although questions in Phase II attempt to lure learners away from this path). Each step or phase is open-ended, that is, it may lead to any other step or phase. The method is also conceived as a process of interactive dialogue. The lear
37、ner is encouraged to follow the phases as a series of questions, which should prompt research and further questions. Neither the questions nor the rules are intended as procedural necessities for Web learning and evaluation. They are offered to merely as guides for the novice that, it is hoped, lead
38、 along a fruitful path. Finally, a comprehensive method of Web learning is, of course, far beyond what can be accomplished here. Our primary focus here is evaluation. Nevertheless, we can outline in the broadest fashion how evaluation may fit into a method of learning, as it must, I believe, if we a
39、re to articulate some crucial aspects of how to evaluate. Phase I: Purpose?Web learning and evaluation should begin with some identification and reflection on purpose and the simple question: What am I trying to learn?Neglecting this step can have harmful consequences for learning, particularly in a
40、n environment where learners are accustomed to multi-tasking. Focusing on ones purpose can facilitate the critical learning process just as focusing on an issue can promote effective argument analysis. Straying from an issue in critical thinking is known as the fallacy, ignoratio elenchi (ignorance
41、of the argument)for instance, one may provide an argument that citizens should vote when the issue under consideration is what the citizens should vote for. In Web learning and evaluation similar kinds of errors can be made. These errors can take the form of distractions which lead one away from a l
42、earning purpose. For instance, one may go searching for information on Java programming, get distracted, and end up spending an hour browsing the news, chatting with friends, and checking e-mail. Ones purpose in learning may be also be disrupted by a change in direction, which is not always harmful
43、to learning. For instance, one may begin looking for the best remedy for an insect bite and discover that there is also some information on how to treat skin rashes that you are interested in. There is, of course, nothing wrong with a change in purpose as long as we are aware of it and pursue our le
44、arning with some zeal. Habits that should benefit Web learners in this regard are 1) focus on purpose 2) tracking of purpose. Hence, a useful rule is: RULE: I will remain focused on my purpose and identify changes in purpose as I learn.Phase II: Knowledge?Identification of purpose and dialogues that
45、 flow from reflection on purpose are intimately related to questions about knowledge and cannot be logically separated from them. And, just as reflection on purpose should proceed research, learning and evaluation, so too should reflection on knowledge. Comprehensive treatment of the questions relat
46、ed to our knowledge is, of course, impossible. But, questions can be identified, and, most importantly, ignorance can and must be acknowledged and confronted. There are two areas of knowledge that are especially relevant to Web evaluation: What do I know about the Internet and how to use it? What do
47、 I know about the subject matter I am learning about? The question regarding Internet-related knowledge should move on to questions about at least the following areas: How does a search engine like Google work? What could I be missing in a Web search? Are there limits to what is viewable? Is there a
48、nother way to search the Internet to get better results? These questions should lead Web-learners to the investigation of the distinction between the surface or visible Web (the Web available for search by conventional search engines) and the deep or invisible Web (data on the Web that is not search
49、able by conventional search engines), and to begin investigating how to identify and search databases relevant to their purpose that are not searchable by Google, for instance. A useful source in print is Jane Devine and Francine Egger-Sider, Going Beyond Google: The Invisible Web in Learning and Teaching, (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2009). And one useful Web resource, among many, is: UC Berkeley Library, Recommended Search Engines: Teaching Library
