the elearning 2.0 survival guide - assessing the credibility of web sources
DESCRIPTION
I delivered a presentation on The eLearning 2.0 Survival Guide – Assessing the Credibility of Web Sources at the Brandon Hall Innovations in Learning 2008 conference which was held in San Jose, September 2008. Presentation Summary It is no surprise that integrating Web 2.0 tools to learning is an innovative practice that is catching on quickly. Pushing the Web’s potential for democratizing information, Web 2.0 social computing practices are well aligned with constructivist learning strategies. Enabling learners to develop multiple perspectives can foster analytical and critical thinking. What is worrisome is the transition from a spoon-fed model of education to a self-discovery and self-directed model without reconfiguring the approach to learning. Are individuals applying fact-checking rigour to the content they access? What criteria are they using? What do they consider to be expert knowledge? Are they simply looking for other sources to confirm what they’ve found or are they actually analysing the source of the information? Are they aware that information, correct and otherwise, spreads like memes on Web? My presentation was largely be based on research I have done for my M.A. in Educational Technology thesis which is a qualitative study of people who write blogs on training to be used in the professional development of people who work in the field. The question lies in the authority and credibility of these blogs, and by extension Web content in general.TRANSCRIPT
Innovations in Learning 2008Brandon Hall Conference
Assessing the Credibility of Web Sources
The eLearning 2.0 Survival Guide
Kristina Schneider, M.A. Educational TechnologyKristina Schneider, M.A. Educational TechnologyDirector of Blended Learning Strategies, Documedia Inc.
Assess a Web SourceAssess a Web Source
Find an online source that you go to regularly and assess that source according to regularly and assess that source according to the following criteria:
1. Identify whether or not you find it to be a credible source and why/why not
2. Identify whether or not the author writes with authorityy
Write down the name of the source on a piece of paper to be collectedpiece of paper to be collected.
How Do You Assess Content Sources?How Do You Assess Content Sources?
Your trusted ?
Your criteria for ?sources?
Common craft
new sources?S diblCommon craft
Wikipedia
Seems credible
Referenced by people who New York Times
MSN.com
you trust
Tested theories presented by it
Caesar Milan
site
Content appearing in other sourcesCaesar Milan sources
What is Credibility?What is Credibility?
• Can be verified by an objective ( i h k )What is credibility? source (without a stake)What is credibility?
• Pragmatism as a sign, both sides of the coin
How can you tell if a source is the coincredible?
• By referencing, especially outside network
• Citing other sources corroboration
How does one gain credibility? • Citing other sources, corroborationy
What is Authority?What is Authority?
• Vested in stakeholders, might come from position as opposed to
How does authority differ from position as opposed to
credibility from reputationauthority differ from credibility?
• Clarity, confidence and differentiate from arrogance, fact-based
How can you tell if a source is written from arrogance, fact based
with authority?
• Deep knowledge of a topic, recognition by others, new insights, connect the dots between sources
How does one gain authority? connect the dots between sourcesy
Integrating Web 2 0 Tools to LearningIntegrating Web 2.0 Tools to Learning
Democratizes Can foster Democratizes information analytical and
critical thinkingcritical thinking
Aligned with Enables constructivist
principlesmultiple
perspectives principles perspectives
Transition of the Way of ThinkingTransition of the Way of Thinking
spoon-fed spoon-fed model of education
a self-discovery d lf di t d education and self-directed
model
i h fi i h h l iwithout reconfiguring the approach to learning
Kristina Schneider M A Ed TechKristina Schneider M.A Ed Tech
M.A. Thesis
10 years d i &
M.A. Thesis on the authority &
dibilit
Ed i l
designer & consultant in blended
credibility of bloggers & their
Educational Technologist learning blogs
Background of the ProblemBackground of the ProblemA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Research questions
• Who are the bloggers in the field? That is, what motivates them to blog and what qualifications do they believe they bring to the task?believe they bring to the task?
• What is their purpose in blogging? That is, what do they hope to accomplish? What influence do they hope to
hi if ? achieve, if any? • What do professionals in the educational technology
who choose to blog choose to write about? g• How do they select the content to report? How do they
verify the content, if at all? • What evidence do the bloggers have of their influence? • What evidence do the bloggers have of their influence?
Literature ReviewLiterature ReviewA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Key Themes Key Discoveries
Forms of T i i
• 3 types: structured, semi-structured or informal (H i t t l 2003 H i t H i t K i & F Training
Professional Development
(Herrington et al., 2003; Herrington, Herrington, Kervin, & Ferry, 2006; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002)
• requires self-directed participants• is about sharing of experiences
Social Computing for
• allows for enables co-creation of knowledge (Boyd, 2001)• facilitates the linking of theory to practice (Laurillard, 1999)p g
Professional Development
facilitates the linking of theory to practice (Laurillard, 1999)• enables reflective interaction (Rovai, 2000)• promotes development of critical thinking skills (Greenlaw and
DeLoach 2003)DeLoach, 2003)
Early Social Computing
• discussion boards, LISTSERVs, BBS• promoted exchange and support
Applications
Literature ReviewLiterature ReviewA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Key Themes Key Discoveries
Early Social C ti
• discussion boards, LISTSERVs, BBSComputing Applications
• promoted exchange and support
Emerging Body • focused on edublogger practices and communities (Crainer, 2002; of Literature on Blogs
Downs et al., 2002; Coates, 2003)• concern about major media publishers (Coates, 2003)• blogging as journalism—no editorial filters means potential of gg g j p
increased credibility (Lasica, 2002; Grabowicz, 2003) • 4 types of posts - opinion, vote, reaction, summation (Coates,
2003))
Credibility of Blogs
• reliability of Web-based information / credibility is given by the reader (perception/popularity) (Flanagin and Metzger, 2007)
• 4 types of credibility: presumed reputed surface experienced • 4 types of credibility: presumed, reputed, surface, experienced (Constantinides and Swenson, 2000)
Research MethodologyResearch MethodologyA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Phenomenological approach
looking for emic
perspectivepp perspective
Mixed data artifact l
interviews h Mixed data
collection methods analysis of the blogs
with bloggers
Data analysisgrounded
theory methodology
open coding technique case studies
Trustworthiness and credibility
frame interview
triangulation of data data audita c e b ty te v ew o ata
Summary of the FindingsSummary of the FindingsA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Categories How Consequences
Origin of blogging for th d bl
· Opportunities to d t h d
· ExplorationE i t tithe edublogger document, share and
promote content and ideas.· Openness to explore,
innovate experiment with
· Experimentation· Innovation
innovate, experiment with software and the Web
Motivation to blog d / P
· Share and promote and h d
· SharingF db ktoday / Purpose exchange on content and
ideas· Manage content (archiving
and indexing)
· Feedback· Promotion· Content management
and indexing)· Need to explore, innovate,
experiment· Need for feedback· Need for feedback
Summary of the FindingsSummary of the FindingsA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Categories How Consequences
Qualification to Blog / Bl b t T i
· Self-qualified as bloggers on bj t
As a content expert: W k iBlog about a Topic a subject
· Maintaining and posting regularly to a blog
· Work-experience· Formal graduate education· InformalAs a edublogger:As a edublogger:· Earned by blogging regularly
Influence the d bl h
· Generating new ideas, i d
· ReadersR fedublogger hopes to
achieveconversations and contacts
· Recognition for their contribution
· References· Recognition· Credibility
Summary of the FindingsSummary of the FindingsA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Categories How Consequences
Topic / Content l ti
· Reacting with an opinion on f ti
· Personal / professional l bl dselection area of expertise
· Reflection on topics related to their area of expertise (requires more elaboration)
realms blurred· Reaction / Reflection· Expertise· Sharing opinion / (requires more elaboration) · Sharing opinion /
perception· Need to dialogue / for
feedbackfeedback
Use of text and media · Illustrative uses of media (mainly photos, images and logos) not always justified
· Illustration· Information
Communicationlogos) not always justified· Informative uses adds
information to the post
· Communication
Summary of the FindingsSummary of the FindingsA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Categories How Consequences
Content verification · They check for form but t il t t
· OpinionsR fnot necessarily content · References
· Links· Desire for a certain non-
quantified degree of quantified degree of polished form / writing
Evidence of influence · Quantitative – number of kb k
· QuantitativeR f i hi h comments or trackbacks
· Quantitative – number of links back reported by search engines
· Reference within the edublogger community
search engines· No qualitative – rankings
about appreciation of contributioncontribution.
Summary of the ConclusionsSummary of the ConclusionsA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
• edubloggers share: benefits of the • edubloggers share: benefits of the public exchange
• edubloggers explore: discovery P t it f process and learning
• edubloggers self-promote: seriousness devotion authority
Portrait of an seriousness, devotion, authority
• edubloggers develop: learn through blogging
edublogger• edubloggers perceive: offer their
perceptions and wait for feedback
Summary of the ConclusionsSummary of the ConclusionsA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
• edubloggers discuss: generate new ideas, conversations and contacts
• edubloggers juxtapose: text/media, resources ideasP t it f resources, ideas
• edubloggers reference: but they do not verify
Portrait of an
• edubloggers quantify: awareness of traffic and contribution to blog
• edubloggers support one another: edublogger
• edubloggers support one another: comment on and refer to each other’s blogs
Suggestions for Further ResearchSuggestions for Further ResearchA Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
• Qualitative study: cannot generalize findingsLimitations of the • Throughout the study, new Web tools
emerged
Limitations of the Study
• Blogger Evolution and Self-Directed LearningBlogger Evolution and Self-Directed Learning• Gender and Social Media• Reader Participation and Contribution
Q lit ti A t f Bl C t t
Emerging Questions and
R d ti • Qualitative Assessment of Blog Content• Responsibility to Verify Facts• Value Judgments about Media and Copyright
Recommendations for Future Study
What Needs to Change?What Needs to Change?
The notion of credibility or authority?Read/write joint responsibility?Read/write joint responsibility?Looking for qualitative measurement as opposed to just quantitative
Re‐Assess a Web SourceRe Assess a Web Source
Randomly select one of the sources noted by another participant (ensure it is not the by another participant (ensure it is not the same as the one you originally assessed) and assess that source according to the following criteria:
1. Identify whether or not you find it to be a credible source and why/why notcredible source and why/why not
2. Identify whether or not the author writes with authorityauthority