*************************
The Internet brings a world of information to your fingertips. Some information is accurate, and some is not. The trick is to discern credible sources from distorted or inaccurate ones. Websites have different purposes--some want to entertain, others want to inform. Many websites make their money based on their popularity, which often is spurred by fantastic, extraordinary topics and images. Therefore, a website may claim to inform its readers, when actually its purpose may be to entertain them, shock them, or persuade them to spread the content.
For example, three sources addressing the same topic have different functions. When I did a google search for "mouse ear" the first three hit were wikipedia, abc.net, and bbcnews. From those sources I learned different aspects of this unusual topic.
First, Wikipedia is an open-source, free online encyclopedia written by volunteer contributors around the world. It is one of the largest reference websites, and its accuracy is kept in check by readers and collaborators. Because it is based on public knowledge, I am sometimes hesitant to accept all of the information as hard fact. The Wikipedia article about "the Vacanti mouse" gives an overview describing what the "earmouse" is and how it came to have an ear on its back. It also mentions in a brief paragraph the controversy of the mouse image regarding protests against genetic engineering, and clears up the argument with, "no genetic engineering was involved in growing the ear." The purpose of this article is to briefly inform the reader.
The next article is from www.abc.net.au. I have heard of this source before and read articles from it. This tidbit is important. A reader's familiarity and exposure to a website may affect his/her trust in it. My impression is that this website's purpose is both to inform and to entertain. It seems this is a scientist's websites-- the science may be credible. But it also seems to report on unusual topics that spark readers' interest like, "Snakes light up the monkey brain" and "Men don't want funny women." The ABC article about the ear mouse explores the claims surrounding the genetic engineering controversy. A particularly outraged group ran an ad in New York Times with the picture of the mouse stating it was, "a genetically engineered mouse with a human ear on its back." The author refutes the claim as the mouse was not genetically engineered, and the ear is has no human cells, rather cow cells. Further the article explains the scientific implications of the study. It tells of a successful case where this method was used to produce a cartilage plate which was implanted into a boy's chest. The purpose of this article is to inform readers about a "great moment in science".
The third article is from BBC News. I tend to accept BBC news with the same (dis)trust as American equivalents NBC or CNN. This article about the Vacanti mouse in under the "Health" section because it focuses on the possibility that the study's findings will lead to growing artificial livers to alleviate transplant demands. The author explains in dizzying detail the process by which the ear growth formed on the mouse's back, and then explains the obstacles still blocking the prospect of growing artificial livers. It seems that this article is less about entertaining or clearing up misconceptions than it is about reporting on scientific progress.
I'm not sure which of these three articles is most credible. The Wikipedia article cites credible sources. The ABC article outlines the science in layman's terms. The BBC article quotes primary researchers. To find out the articles' credibility I would search google and read more articles to get a sense of what information is available, and how it measures up to what I have read. One thing is for certain, I definitely wouldn't believe this "Ear mouse" article from Uncyclopedia.
Based on your own research and experience, discuss what you have learned in this activity about credible information and how you might teach your students to evaluate websites and other online resources.
From this activity I have learned that seemingly credible sources may not give the complete picture. I believe it is even more challenging for young students inexperienced with internet research to navigate through the plethora of online resources. I know that some students use the first-hit-on-google tactic to conduct research. I also have seen students turn in assignments copied straight from Wikipedia. Because education's relationship with technology is changing so rapidly, educators must address the arising challenges of internet research.
Suggested Website List - In Angela Bunyi's mini-lesson from scholastic.com, I really liked how the school librarian assisted the students in their search. If students can start out searching on a focused list of websites, they can gain confidence in their ability to find information in an age-appropriate place. I remember searching through scientific journals as a middle school student to find information about my science fair projects, and the frustration I felt because I couldn't understand the content. Although accurate and credible, it wasn't age-appropriate material for me. In my classroom, sometimes I have asked students to search for a specific topic, and recommended parent help. Other times I have provided the websites to search.
Website Evaluation Criteria - It is also important to give students the tools they need to evaluate a website's credibility on their own. I really like the Criteria for Evaluating Web Sites from classzone.com. This is useful information for all teachers using internet research to share with students.
Even with these guidelines, sometimes internet searching is a challenge. But with practice and guidance, our students will learn to successfully navigate the sea of information out there.
