ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C & R L N e w s ■ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 1 / 141 C o l l e g e & R e s e a r c h L i b r a r i e s n e w s Teaching students to evaluate Web sources more critically Implications from a faculty w orkshop by Janet R. Cottrell Uncritical u se o f Web resources b y students is o n e o f the chief com plaints o f both librarians a n d classroom faculty m em bers. O n m any cam puses, library instruction includes inform ation and exercises to h elp students evaluate Web sites m ore critically. But an anecdote from a faculty w orkshop con ducted at a m id-size university indicates that we may n e e d to e x p a n d o u r efforts to reach another audience: th e faculty. In tro d u ctio n Librarians a n d classroom faculty alike decry the uncritical u se o f W eb reso u rces b y stu dents at all levels. Students m ay fail to dis tinguish b e tw e e n v e ry d iffe re n t ty p e s o f sources o n the Internet, from a ra n d o m W eb page to a full-text article in a re fe re e d jo u r nal. As Thom as Kirk notes, “…th e u ser m ust work harder to detect th e clues that will help evaluate the [Web] texts. … As m any have pointed out, th e u n ev en n ess in th e quality and nature of resources fo u n d o n th e Web has m ade instruction ab o u t h o w to evaluate these resources essential.”1 Similarly, J. K apoun identifies com m on in structional n eed s an d provides a checklist of evaluation criteria to help students judge Web resources m ore carefully.2 This co m m o n interest in im proving stu d e n ts’ use o f th e Web serves to bring class room faculty an d librarians together. Dickstein a n d McBride describe h o w o n e librarian and instructor team ed u p to d ev elo p instruction a n d a ss ig n m e n ts a im e d to im p ro v e W eb evaluation.3 T hey rep o rt a n u n e x p e c te d b o nus: n o t only did students select an d assess W eb sites m ore critically, they also b e g a n applying the sam e critical skills to reference m aterials, journal articles, a n d books. F o c u sin g o n W eb u se a n d e v a lu a tio n p ro v id e s a n o p p o rtu n ity fo r lib ra ria n s to d e v e lo p fa c u lty w o rk s h o p s in a d d itio n to s t u d e n t in s tru c tio n . H all r e p o r ts a c a se w h e re m o re th a n o n e -th ird o f th e faculty h a d b e e n at th e in s titu tio n fo r 25 y e a rs o r m o re .4 C learly e x p e rts in th e ir fields, m an y o f th e s e facu lty w e re q u ite fam iliar w ith jo u r n a l re s e a rc h , w h ile q u ite u n fa m ilia r w ith te c h n o lo g y . H all d e s c r ib e s fa c u lty w o r k s h o p s i n c o r p o r a t i n g a d is c ip l in e - b a se d a p p ro a c h to o n lin e searching, so th at th e in s tru c tio n c o u ld b e m o re easily in te g ra te d in to th e s tu d e n t cu rricu lu m . Hall notes, how ever, th at th e w o rk sh o p s d esig n ed for classroom faculty w ere n o t ea s ily a d a p te d fo r students: th e faculty already k n e w m any basic c o n cep ts a b o u t using in d ex es an d just n e e d e d u p d a te d m eth o d s for A b o u t th e a u t h o r Janet R, Cottrell is d irector o f Inform ation Access in Library a n d Inform ation Services a t K enyon College in Gambier, Ohio, e mail: cottrellj@kenyon.edu mailto:cottrellj@kenyon.edu 1 4 2 / C 8 R L N e w s ■ F e b ru a ry 2001 using technology-based resources, while stu dents n eed ed more fundamental instruction. Underestimating the level of training that students need is a common problem. Pixie Anne Mosley reports that while many fac ulty now understand the need for informa tion literacy instruction, they are not clear about how to incorporate it into their courses.5 The faculty in Mosley’s w orkshops found it difficult to rem em ber that students d o n ’t ar rive at college w ith an innate understanding of effective library use, Gloria Leckie reports a similar disjuncture, noting that faculty as sume that students are already aware of vari ous kinds of sources and how to use them.6 Faculty also assumed that students probably w ouldn’t need much help from librarians. A faculty w orkshop at a mid-size state uni versity points out a related mistaken assump tion. Conducted primarily by library and com puting center staff, the four-day w orkshop for classroom faculty from various disciplines focused on using technology to address peda gogical challenges, including ways to help students find, assess, and use information more effectively, improve student participa tion, facilitate learning across distance and time, and so on. Faculty w ere accepted into the w orkshop based on proposals in w hich they identified challenges en countered in their teaching, explained how a technology-based interven tion might help, and proposed a tentative plan. Participants w ere aw arded a moderate e q u ip m en t allow ance after the w orkshop to h elp im plem ent their plans. The workshop it self is described in d e tail elsewhere,7 but one u n e x p e c te d ou tco m e holds implications for li brarians w orking with faculty to improve stu dents’ Web use. What the faculty said . . . and didn't say T he first d ay o f th e w orkshop focused on information literacy. At the en d of a full day sp en t studying topics related to finding and assessing information, the participants w ere divided into small groups of three-to-five people and asked to generate a list of criteria for evaluating Web sites as sources of information. The purpose of this exercise was to pro vide a chance for faculty to itemize the crite ria they hoped students would consider when evaluating Web sites as potential information sources, and to illustrate an exercise the fac ulty might in turn wish to use with their stu dents. Faculty were specifically instructed to think about how they w anted their students to evaluate Web sites as sources for term pa pers or other assignments. Each group wrote their criteria on a transparency; the transpar encies w ere then collected, projected, and discussed. During the discussion, it w as obvious that many of the criteria listed by faculty con cerned the graphic design and usability of Web pages rather than their information con tent. This was surprising, since the exercise specifically asked faculty to define how they w anted their students to evaluate Web sources before citing them in papers. After a full day working on information literacy concepts, the w orkshop organizers had expected faculty participants to have a clear idea of the concepts of authority, accu racy, currency, and so on, w hich they apply so readily to print sources. In fact, the exer cise was almost omitted from the w orkshop for fear it w ould be too e le m e n ta r y o r e v e n c o n d e s c e n d in g . B e cau se of this disparity b e tw e e n e x p ectatio n and event, the transpar encies w ere retrieved a n d s t u d ie d m o re closely after the w ork shop. As Figure 1 in d i cates, this group of par ticipants mentioned the need for an identifiable source, the n e e d for c r e d e n t ia l s o f th a t source, and the need for well-organized in f o r m a tio n . E ach o f these three criteria re- F ig u r e 1. L is t o f W e b e v a lu a t io n c r it e r ia f r o m o n e f a c u lt y g r o u p • Identifiable—accreditation of source • Needs to load quickly • Links to other sites • Accessible on older versions of browsers • Can link to other sites • G ood to navigate (back links, naviga tion bars) • Clear directions • Credentials of site or individual • Links are updated (that is, the target pages do exist) • Well-organized • Aesthetically pleasing • Letterhead/visuals are clear fleets some quality of a Web site th at co n cerns its w orth as a n inform ation source. However, the rem aining 12 item s o n their list concern the speed, layout, navigability, linkage, and similar aesthetic o r usability fea tures o f a site. The criteria listed by the o th e r gro u p s fol lowed a similar pattern. The five gro u p s p ro duced a total of 46 criteria, w ith som e d u p li cation am ong the lists. Nearly tw o-thirds o f the criteria reflect design o r usability rather than information content. Speed, presen ce of links, and navigability w ere each m en tioned by three groups, a n d aesthetics or appearance w ere m en tio n ed b y four o f the five groups. In all, 30 of th e 46 items in the total list concerned design o r usability rather than content. The rem aining criteria, a b o u t a third o f those listed, did reflect standard criteria for evaluating inform ation sources. T hese in cluded criteria such as identification o f the source (m entioned by th ree groups), cred ibility of the source (m en tio n ed b y tw o), a p propriateness o r relev an ce (m en tio n ed by two), and a few others, such as clear state ment of purpose, currency, inclusion o f ref erences, indication o f p e e r review, an d so on (each m entioned by o n e group). In all, only 16 of the 46 items reflected these an d similar criteria related to inform ation content. Furthermore, som e o f th e m ost basic tradi tional criteria for evaluating sources w ere not mentioned by any group. Accuracy o f infor mation, objectivity o f presentation, an d cov erage were omitted. This pattern o f em phasizing design over information held for all b u t on e o f the groups. That group listed only five items, co m pared to an average o f a b o u t te n items fo r th e o ther groups, but four o f their five items concerned information rather th an design. The group wrote o n its transparency: “Criti cal review o n Web does not differ from criti cal review process o f print m aterials”— a p ri mary point o f the exercise w hich w as e x pected to be obvious to participants. Although one mem ber o f the gro u p w as a librarian, she denied contributing heavily to th e items, particularly th e item quoted. In fact, th e p e r son w ho c o n trib u te d th a t p articu lar item turned out to b e the university Webmaster, a computer program m er o f m any years a n d a confirmed “techie.” Perhaps classroom faculty, like students, are simply unaccustomed to articulating inform ation-related criteria. Implications o f the workshop T he W ebm aster q u o te d ab o v e later asked, rhetorically, “W hat did th e faculty miss ab o u t that exercise? W hat p ro m p ted th em to focus so o n design?” W hat, indeed? P erhaps it is hu m an nature to res p o n d first to th e a p p earan ce o r “glitz” o f a Web page. P erhaps classroom faculty, like students, are sim ply u n accu sto m ed to articulating inform ation-related criteria. Cer tainly th e w o rk sh o p discussion revealed that these particular faculty m em bers h a d never articulated useful evaluation criteria to their students. A nd w ithout clear articulation of criteria, students are less likely to evaluate Web resources effectively. This exercise highlighted for faculty the difficulty th eir stu d en ts face in effectively evaluating Web resources. It also illustrates quite dram atically th e fallacy o f assum ing that criteria for evaluating Web resources are o b vious an d intuitive. This last point is perhaps the most telling. If nothing else, this workshop provides a useful insight to keep in mind for future conversations in which students are derided for uncritical use of Web resources. It also identifies another po tential area of instructional outreach for academic librarians: helping classroom faculty to articulate clearer criteria for their students to follow as they evaluate Web sites for use as sources. Notes 1. T hom as G. Kirk, “C ourse-related b ib liographic instruction in th e 1990s,” Reference Services Review 27, no. 3 (1999): 235-41. 2. Jim K apoun, “Teaching undergrads Web evaluation: A guide for library instruction,” College & Research Libraries News 59, no. 7 (July/A ugust 1998): 522-23. 3. Ruth D ickstein an d Kari B oyd McBride, “Listserv lem m ings an d fly-brarians o n the wall: A librarian-instructor team tam ing the cyberbeast in th e large classroom ,” College & Research Libraries 59 (1998): 10-17. (c o n tin u e d on p a g e 186) C&RL News ■ February 2001 / 143 186 / C&RL News ■ February 2001 tomation at the University of Ghent in Bel gium, delivered the closing plenary address on the O pen Archives Metadata Harvesting (OAMH) protocol and implications for schol arly communication. His presentation can be found on the CNI Web site at www.cni.org. Van de Sompel described the OAMH pro tocol as “a low-barrier interoperability specifi cation for the recurrent exchange o f metadata between systems.” The OAMH protocol allows for federated services such as SDI, alerting, and linking services; database synchronization; and harvesting the deep Web. The OAHM pro tocol advances the interoperability of electronic preprints as a means to prom ote their global acceptance as a “decom posed” scholarly com munication system. Van de Sompel posited that in the current scholarly communication system, it is increas ingly difficult for libraries to fulfill their funda mental role o f safeguarding equality of access to scholarly information. He encouraged librar- ( “Teaching stu d en ts.. ” continued fr o m page 143) 4. Leilani Hall, “A hom egrow n program for raising faculty information com petence,” Computers in Libraries 19, no. 8 (1999): 28- 34. 5. Pixey Anne Mosley, “Creating a library assignment w orkshop for university faculty,” The J o u rn a l o f A cadem ic Librarianship 24, no. 1 (1998): 33-41. ( “C om m unity sciences … con tin u ed fr o m page 162) • M ed L in e. This is the prim er biom edi cal database from the National Institutes of Health, w hich comprises the Index Medicus, Dental Literature Index, and the International Nursing Index. It provides the m ost com prehensive coverage from m ore than 3,500 journals in all areas o f m edicine. Access: ( “B uilding co m m u n ity … ” cont. fr o m page 167) U nderstanding our potential future users’ re sults in better programs and services. Part nerships often save m oney and labor and attract increased funding. Final recommendations A final recom m endation is the University o f ies to rethink themselves and to become pro active in exploring alternatives for scholarly communications, like the OAI (see http://www. openarchives.org/). Concluding that there are new opportuni ties for shaping a sustainable scholarly com munication system, van de Sompel outlined the advantages libraries bring to the mix. Li braries are close to authors; are in a good p o sition to archive institutional materials; are quick to embrace new technologies; have veiy knowledgable people; provide a level of re dundancy in services that is no longer required in a digital environment; and safeguard equity of access through global representation. Van de Sompel w arned that libraries as organizations are slow moving, hosted by slowly moving institutions; that libraries are slow to recognize that a new technology may allow for new m odes of operating; and that th e in fo rm a tio n w o rld ru n s o n In tern et time.-—Betsy Wilson ■ 6. Gloria J. Leckie, “Desperately seeking citations: U ncovering faculty assum ptions about the undergraduate research process,” The J o u rn a l o f A cadem ic Librarianship 22 (1996): 201-08. 7. Janet R. Cottrell, “Information literacy, com puter literacy, and good teaching prac tices: Firm foundations for faculty develop m ent.” A cadem ic Exchange Quarterly 3 (Fall 1999): 43-51. ■ h t t p : / / w w w . n l m . n i h . g o v / d a t a b a s e s / freemedl.html. • U n C over. Table of Content and fee- based fax document delivery service to more than 18,000 journal tides from 1988 to the present. Use the UnCover “Com plete service for older material. UnCover also offers articles from more than 2,500 journals via UnCover D esktop Image Deliv ery. Access: http://uncw eb.carl.org/. ■ C onnecticut Libraries Partnerships guide. It includes “Selected Examples of Current Part n e rs h ip s”; “Form ing New Partnerships: A G uide”; “Library Criteria for New Partner ships”; “Reviewing Existing Partnerships”; and a “P a r t n e r s h i p P r o p o s a l Form" ( h ttp ://s p irit.lib .u c o n n .e d u /in fo r m a tio n / PartnershipDocument.html). ■ http://www.cni.org openarchives.org/ http://www.nlm.nih.gov/databases/ http://uncweb.carl.org/ http://spirit.lib.uconn.edu/information/