Last class we had a very lively discussion about the concept of website evaluation as a checklist. We were able to chat with Debbie Abilock regarding these issues, and the conversation went in a million different (but all very interesting) directions. We discussed the use of restricting access to sources through search engines like sweet search, the idea of using language to shelter children, and badges even came up a few times. What I really took away from the conversation is that I think that website evaluation is best managed around a conversation. That's why I really resonated with the "Who? Why?" evaluation. I think that it is simple enough to reach students at multiple developmental levels and yet complex enough to really warrant the kind of discussion that can model appropriate cognitive processes/judgments. I also think that this kind of teaching takes guts on the part of the instructor-- they have to be comfortable with ambiguity and confident enough in their own content knowledge to start open-ended conversations with students. That is why, I think, checklists are so popular and will continue to be so popular in K-12 education.
It also just struck me that maybe we have to be teaching students to evaluate information the same way that we, as instructors, have to learn how to assess the students themselves. Maybe that's why it is so hard for us to teach these kinds of processes... because we aren't there yet ourselves in creating authentic assessments. Am I way off-base, or does this resonate with you guys as well?
Actually, what you say does resonate with me. I also think we have trouble with website evaluation because, for the most part, we as adults are not necessarily that confident about our content knowledge when it comes to trustworthy websites. I think, to some degree, it's something we're still trying to figure out. That makes is difficult to teach and a little scary.
ReplyDelete