WWWDOTStrategyforEvaluatingWebsites.pdf
The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 2 pp. 150–158 DOI:10.1002/TRTR.01016 © 2011 International Reading Association
150
R T
T H E W W W D O T A P P ROAC H T O IMPROVING STUDENTS’ CR I T IC AL E VALUAT ION
OF W E B SI T E S Shenglan Zhang ■ Nell K. Duke ■ Laura M. Jiménez
Shenglan Zhang is an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of World Languages and Cultures at Iowa State University, Ames, USA; e-mail [email protected].
Nell K. Duke is a professor of teacher education and educational psychology and codirector of the Literacy Achievement Research Center at M ichigan State University, East Lansing, USA; e-mail [email protected].
Laura M. Jiménez is a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology and Educational Technology at Michigan State University; e-mail jimene28@ msu.edu.
This article presents a framework for increasing students’ awareness of
the need to and skill in critically evaluating websites as sources of
information.
P eter (all names are pseudonyms), a fourth
grader, was assigned to write a report on
the respiratory system. He did a quick
search through Google and identified two
websites to read. One was a three-page website with
many color drawings by a child for a class project,
and the other was a comprehensive website by the
American Lung Association. After spending half an
hour reading the one with many drawings and a few
minutes browsing the comprehensive one, he started
to write the report.
The Importance of Website Evaluation The Internet has increasingly become one of the most
widely used information sources in people’s daily
lives. As of 2003, nearly half of all children used the
Internet to complete school assignments (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2006), and the
percentage has likely grown since then. One common
use of the Internet is to search for information for
school projects such as reports (Eagleton, Guinee,
& Langlais, 2003)—and rightly so, as there is an
enormous amount of valuable and timely information
on the Internet on any number of topics. However,
there is also a great deal of untrustworthy and
outdated information on the Internet, even more than
with printed text. Unlike printed text, information on
the Internet is unfiltered. In theory, anyone can put
anything on a website. Students need to learn how to
critically evaluate websites to increase the likelihood
TRTR_1016.indd 150TRTR_1016.indd 150 10/14/2011 1:53:35 PM10/14/2011 1:53:35 PM
T H E W W W D O T A P P R OAC H T O I M P R O V I N G S T U D E N T S ’ C R I T I C A L E VA L UA T I O N O F W E B S I T E S
www.reading.org R T
151
that they are drawing on high-quality
information.
Peter in the preceding scene
did not know how to evaluate the
trustworthiness of a website. He
chose a website with little evidence of
trustworthiness, written in fact by a
child, as the main source of information
for his research project. Studies show
that most students do not take a
critical view toward information on
the Internet (e.g., Killi, Laurinen, &
Marttunen, 2008; Kuiper, Volman, &
Terwel, 2005; New Literacies Research
Team & Internet Reading Research
Group, 2006).
When students do evaluate websites,
they do not have appropriate criteria
to use (Lorenzen, 2001). For example,
some students equate quantity with
quality (Agosto, 2002), and some judge
a website’s trustworthiness on the basis
of whether the website is attractively
presented (Lorenzen, 2001). As more
and more students are using the Internet
as an information source, it is crucial
to teach students how to evaluate the
trustworthiness of websites as sources of
information.
Many scholars have offered valuable
suggestions for improving students’
website evaluation skills (e.g., Bailbon
& Bailbon, 2008; Coiro, 2003; Eagleton
& Dobler, 2007; Graesser et al., 2007),
mostly, although not exclusively, with
students of middle-school age or older.
For example, some have suggested
particular dimensions on which
websites should be evaluated, such as
the authority of author, the website
content, evidence of bias, evidence
of the authenticity of information,
quality of presentation, and currency
(e.g., American Library Association
[ALA], 2002; Fitzgerald, 1997; National
Educational Technolog y Standards
Project [NETS] & Brooks-Young,
2007).
Some have suggested techniques for
teaching critical evaluation; for example,
teaching students to ask a series of
questions about the website, such as
who are the authors; where do they
work; what organization, business, or
school do they represent; what agenda
(if any) does the author have; and so on
(e.g., ALA, 2002; Hawes, 1998; NETS
& Brooks-Young, 2007). However, until
recently none of these suggestions had
been tested in an experimental study
with elementary-age students.
Recently, we tested the impact of a
specific framework—the WWWDOT
framework—designed to increase
elementary-age students’ awareness of
the need to critically evaluate websites
and improve their ability to do so. In the
following section, we briefly describe
that study (for a detailed report of the
study, please see Zhang & Duke, 2010,
2011). We then describe the WWWDOT
framework and how it can be taught
through a series of four 30-minute
lessons.
A Brief Summary of Our Test of the WWWDOT Framework Our study involved 12 fourth- and
fifth-grade classes from an urban, a
suburban, and a rural school district,
for a total of 242 students taught by
6 teachers: Two computer teachers
(one with four classes, one with two
classes), two full-day classroom
teachers, and two classroom teachers
who switched students for some
subject matters (having two classes
each). Six classes received instruction
in the W W WDOT framework,
and six classes did not receive
instruction in the framework. In the
experimental group, teachers taught
the W W WDOT framework in four
30-minute lessons, described in detail
later in this article.
Students who received instruction in
the WWWDOT framework became more
aware of the need to evaluate information
on the Internet for trustworthiness.
Many came to realize that information
on the Internet is not necessarily accurate
or trustworthy. Because this insight is
fundamental to students’ future learning
about and disposition toward website
evaluation, we believe this is the most
important outcome for elementary-age
students.
But notably, students’ website
evaluation skills also improved in
that they took many more factors
into consideration when evaluating
websites than students in the control
group. Experimental group students’
Pause and Ponder ■ There is an enormous volume of
information on the Web, which many
students have become accustomed to
viewing and using for their own
education. What is your assessment
of the quality of this information?
■ When on the Web, there is a temptation
for students to grab any content they
can use to complete a report or other
school assignment, or to jump from
page to page, without taking the time
to evaluate content. How can we help
students to recognize that it is
sometimes important to carefully
reflect on the trustworthiness of what
they are watching, reading and hearing
on the Web? How can we help
students to recognize times when
this is not so important?
■ How do you or will you engage your
own students in developing critical
evaluation skills for Web content?
TRTR_1016.indd 151TRTR_1016.indd 151 10/14/2011 1:53:36 PM10/14/2011 1:53:36 PM
T H E W W W D O T A P P R OAC H T O I M P R O V I N G S T U D E N T S ’ C R I T I C A L E VA L UA T I O N O F W E B S I T E S
The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 2 October 2011R T
152
overall judgment about whether a
specific website was trustworthy did not
improve—we believe more practice is
needed for that—although it did improve
for a subset of students (those identified
by teachers as being well suited to serve
as website evaluation tutors for younger
students). Again, more details about the
study are available at Zhang and Duke
(2010, 2011).
The WWWDOT Framework The WWWDOT framework was
designed to teach students to attend to
at least six dimensions on which that
they can collect information to help
them evaluate websites:
1. Who wrote this and what
credentials do they have?
2. Why was it written?
3. When was it written?
4. Does it help meet my needs?
5. Organization of the site?
6. To-do list for the future.
These dimensions are consistent
with expert recommendations in the
literature. We chose these specific
dimensions over others because we
thought they were most appropriate
for, and most likely to be useful to,
elementary-age students. For example,
we have observed that elementary-age
students often forget to think about
whether the website is a good fit in terms
of providing the particular information
they need, so we have included the
dimension “Does it meet my needs?”
Similarly, we chose not to include a
dimension on checking the site against
background knowledge because we
thought that many elementary-age
students’ background knowledge is not
yet extensive enough to serve as a good
check against information on a website.
In fact, students’ misconceptions (e.g.,
that the Earth is closer to the sun in the
winter) might lead them to erroneously
conclude that a website is inaccurate
and thus untrustworthy. We thought
that corroboration with other websites
(“To-do list for the future”) would be a
better framework to emphasize in the
elementary years.
We chose to use an acronym,
WWWDOT, in hopes that it would help
students remember the dimensions on
which to evaluate websites, although
we also have a sheet they can use that
reminds them of those dimensions.
Acronyms are commonly used as heu-
ristics to help students remember steps in
a reading or writing process (e.g., Graham
& Harris, 2005). The following is a
justification for each of the six dimensions.
Who Wrote This and What Credentials Do They Have? It is very important to identify authorship
and the author’s or the organization’s
credentials when reading on the
Internet, where filtering or sanctioning
bodies for publishing often do not exist
(Burbules & Callister, 2000; Burke, 2000;
Eagleton & Dobler, 2007). Examining
what perspective(s) the author holds
and by what funding source he or she is
supported is also crucial.
There are occasions when no author
or organization can be identified. In
this case, the website content itself
could indicate whether the author or
organization is qualified to write this.
For example, self-contradictions and
spelling and grammatical errors on a
website may indicate an unqualified
author, or at least that the author was
not serious in providing the information.
Why Was It Written? It is important to judge whether the
information on the Internet is objective
(to the extent that this is ever possible)
and accurate (Burbules & Callister,
2000; Hawes, 1998). Identifying the
author’s writing purpose is crucial
because writing purposes to a large
extent affect the thoroughness and
accuracy of the content.
When Was It Written and Updated? Information and works can be different
in terms of timeliness. Some information
and works are timeless, such as classic
literature. Some have a limited life
because of rapid advances in its field
or discipline, such as psychology and
biology. Some require quick updates,
as with news and technology (Harris,
2007). It is important to attend to the date
of the information when its timeliness
is important (ALA, 2000; Eagleton &
Dobler, 2007). Asking “When was it
written and updated?” is especially
relevant when news and technology-
related information is searched.
Does This Help Meet My Needs (and How)? Readers could spend a number of hours
reading on the Internet, but not get
“Findings show that students who received
instruction in the WWWDOT framework
became more aware of the need to evaluate
information on the Internet for
trustworthiness.”
TRTR_1016.indd 152TRTR_1016.indd 152 10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM
T H E W W W D O T A P P R OAC H T O I M P R O V I N G S T U D E N T S ’ C R I T I C A L E VA L UA T I O N O F W E B S I T E S
www.reading.org R T
153
what they originally wanted to find.
One reason can be that they do not
evaluate the websites they are reading
in terms of whether and how they meet
their information needs (Choo, Detlor,
& Turnbull, 2000; Henry, 2007). Of
course, readers first need to know what
information they are looking for and
then need to evaluate the likelihood
that the website will provide that
information.
For elementary school students,
an additional but important step in
evaluating whether a website meets
one’s needs is to judge the reading level
of the materials (Henry, 2007). It can
be challenging for elementary school
students to locate websites that are
written at appropriate reading levels;
a question that students should ask as
a part of evaluating whether a website
meets their needs is, “Is this too difficult
for me?”
Organization of Website One of the challenges of accessing
information online is navigating within
sites. Not surprisingly, given that
text structure knowledge facilitates
comprehension of printed text, being
aware of the organization of the website
helps readers navigate the site, find
useful information, and understand
the content (e.g., Calisir & Gurel, 2003;
Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Rouet & Levonen,
1998). Being aware of where graphs
and photos are can also potentially
enhance readers’ understanding of the
information on the website (Baskin,
1997; Card, Mackinlay, & Shneiderman,
1999).
To-Do List for the Future Good Internet readers employ multiple
sources to verify the information they
find on the Internet (Zhang & Duke,
2008). Comparing the information a
website provides with information from
other websites or print sources is crucial
in evaluating the trustworthiness of
information. Furthermore, there is often
a great deal of information available on
any given topic on the Internet.
Readers can easily get disoriented
or forget other sources and activities
that could help them learn the topic
(McDonald & Stevenson, 1996, 1998).
Developing a to-do list for future
activities while reading on the Internet
may help readers manage their
learning. The to-do list can include
additional websites and other texts to
read, and it can also include activities
that do not involve further reading,
such as asking a librarian a question,
sharing what they learned with a family
member, and so on.
Teaching the WWWDOT Framework In our study, the WWWDOT
framework was taught in four
30-minute lessons. More instructional
time would likely result in stronger
website evaluation skill, but, of course,
there are many demands on teachers’
time. As you are considering how
much time to devote to teaching this
framework, keep in mind that students,
and by extension, teachers, are likely
to waste a lot of time and learning
opportunities if they are not critically
evaluating websites.
In the following sections, we describe
four 30-minute WWWDOT lessons
as taught by one teacher (not involved
in the study), Ms. Kate Thompson, to
fourth-grade students.
Teacher Preparation Ms. Thompson arranged for each of her
students to have access to a computer
with a fast Internet connection during
the lessons. She also made sure that a
working Internet browser was installed
on the computers to which the students
had access and bookmarked a few
websites she was going to use. For
example, she planned to use websites
that focused on immigration, an
important topic commonly taught
in fourth or fifth grade, and to use
some websites that were relatively
trustworthy and others that were
less so, based on the dimensions in
WWWDOT.
The Four 30-Minute Lessons An Overview. Ms. Thompson spent
two lessons explaining why students
should evaluate websites and teach-
ing the WWWDOT framework. In the
other two sessions, students were asked
to apply what they learned by eval-
uating authentic websites using the
WWWDOT worksheet and by prepar-
ing for and holding a debate about the
trustworthiness of specific sites.
Session One. Ms. Thompson began by
asking her students “Have you read on
the Internet before?” Most of her stu-
dents said yes. Then she asked, “Who
can tell me the difference between
the Internet and the books you find in
the library?” Ava said reading on the
Internet needs a computer. Jay said that
the stuff on the Internet is free. No one
talked about differences in the quality of
information.
“Good Internet readers employ multiple
sources to verify the information they
find on the Internet.”
TRTR_1016.indd 153TRTR_1016.indd 153 10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM
T H E W W W D O T A P P R OAC H T O I M P R O V I N G S T U D E N T S ’ C R I T I C A L E VA L UA T I O N O F W E B S I T E S
The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 2 October 2011R T
154
Ms. Thompson next told them that
they were going to explore a few issues
about reading on the Internet. She
wrote down the acronym WWWDOT on the blackboard and told the students
it is important to know whether the
information they read on the Internet
is accurate. Ms. Thompson asked her
students why that is important. Kevin
said, “I want to know what I know
is true, like with the election stuff.”
Ayesha commented on Kevin’s answer
by saying “but even then, do you
know it’s true? Can’t anyone lie?’ Ms.
Thompson chimed in and said, “Right,
Ayesha, it is important to know that
the information on the Internet is not
regulated by anyone. The information is
sometimes unsanctioned. That means
there isn’t anyone out there making
sure things are true.”
Many students were surprised. They
talked with each other, trying to find
someone who is responsible for the
trustworthiness of web content. Some
were wondering whether government
or courts regulate that. Ms. Thompson
stood back and allowed her students
to talk among themselves for a few
minutes. Then she said,
If we know that there are no rules on the Internet and no one is regulating what people write or say on the Internet, then how can you be sure the things you read on the Internet and the things you put in your school reports are true, and how can you trust what you find on the Internet? I want everyone to think about that and talk to your partner and then share one way that you can make sure what you use can be trusted.
The students talked about strategies
such as asking parents and judging
whether it makes sense. Selena said
information found on Google is good
information. Ms. Thompson then
introduced the WWWDOT framework
and let the students know they were
going to use this system/framework
to think through how they can trust
or identify credible information on the
Internet. (At this point, some teachers
who have taught the WWWDOT
framework use hoax websites to
underscore the importance of critically
evaluating information on the Internet.
Ms. Thompson chose to do this at the
end of session 2.)
Next, Ms. Thompson explained
the WWW part of the framework. She indicated that the question “Who
wrote this?” focuses on the authorship
of a website. It could be a person or
an organization that wrote a website.
Sometimes, she explained, a website has
the author’s name on it and sometimes
it does not. If the website was written by
a person, the follow-up question should
be asked, “What credentials does the
author have?” Ms. Thompson explained
what credentials means. She also led a discussion with
students about where the author’s
affiliation, occupation, title, and contact
information are usually displayed. Ms.
Thompson told her students to identify
which organization is responsible for the
website if there is no author name on
the website. If no author or organization
name could be identified, she told her
students to ask this question: “Does
the website content show whether the
author or organization is qualified to
write this?”
Ms. Thompson began her
explanation of “Why was it written?”
with an introduction to different
purposes for writing, such as to
entertain, to share, to educate, to
support, to inform, to sell, and to
persuade. Ms. Thompson showed the
students several examples, each with
different purpose(s), and she asked the
students to judge for what purpose(s)
the website was written. She also
explained that some websites are
written with multiple purposes.
Regarding “When was it written
or updated?”, Ms. Thompson told
her students that the importance of
the timeliness depends on the topic.
She identified different categories of
information and told her students that
it is especially important to check on
the timeliness of news and information
on technology. She pointed out to the
students that the timeliness of a website
also reflects whether the author is still
maintaining an interest in the page or
has abandoned it.
Ms. Thompson told her students
that the last-updated date is usually
presented at the bottom of a page or at
the top of a page. Ms. Thompson used
some of the example websites
in explaining this part of the
framework. To end the session,
Ms. Thompson reviewed key points
about the importance of evaluating
the trustworthiness of information
on websites and the three parts of the
WWWDOT framework that she had
taught thus far.
Session Two. Ms. Thompson began
session 2 by telling her students they
were going to continue learning the
WWWDOT framework and then get
to apply the framework to websites.
She asked, “Does anyone remem-
ber what the letters WWW stand for?”
“Developing a to-do list for future activities
while reading on the Internet may help
readers manage their learning.”
TRTR_1016.indd 154TRTR_1016.indd 154 10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM
T H E W W W D O T A P P R OAC H T O I M P R O V I N G S T U D E N T S ’ C R I T I C A L E VA L UA T I O N O F W E B S I T E S
www.reading.org R T
155
Lauren answered, “I don’t remember
what order, but the Ws are who wrote
it, when did they write it, and why did
they write it.” Ms. Thompson praised
Lauren’s response and wrote down the
WWWDOT framework on the
blackboard for all students’
reference.
Ms. Thompson then explained the
DOT part of the framework using examples. For “Does the website
help meet my needs?”, she took three
steps in guiding students to evaluate
the relevance and trustworthiness
of websites. First, she asked students
to think about the information they
want or need from a website by asking
themselves the question, “What is it
about immigration that you want or
need to know?” Second, she guided
students to judge whether the website
had the content, accessible to them
(e.g., readability), that helped meet
their needs. Third, she reminded
students that part of what it means
for a website to meet their needs is
that its information is trustworthy—
so they need to use what they learned
about WWW to evaluate the website’s
trustworthiness.
To explain “Organization of website,”
Ms. Thompson navigated two websites
with students and called their attention
to the structure or layout of the websites.
She showed the students where the tabs
were, the sections of the sites, where
the graphs and photos were, where
the internal and external links were
located, and which parts contained the
advertisements (if there were any). Then
she asked the students to evaluate the
usability of the organization, such as
whether the website is confusing, clear,
difficult or hard to navigate, and so on.
To teach “To-do list for the future,”
Ms. Thompson highlighted the
importance of checking information
students find on the Internet against
other sources. She indicated that two
things they might want to do after
reading a website are (1) find another
website to verify the information on
the first website, and (2) find a book or
other resource in the library to verify the
information.
She encouraged her students to think
about other things they might want to
do next based on their website reading,
such as the following:
■ Read another part of the website
■ Go to an external link on the
website
■ Ask the librarian a question
■ Share what he or she learned with a
friend (or family members)
After she finished teaching the DOT part of the framework, Ms. Thompson
reminded the students of the fact that
anyone can put anything they want
on the Internet. She told her students
that they were going to walk through
a website and try to figure out whether
they can trust it. She next pulled up a
hoax website about “Pacific Northwest
Tree Octopus.” The students all started
talking at once, expressing their doubt
about a tree octopus.
Ms. Thompson asked, “Who created
this website? How can we tell?” Tom
said, “Go to the bottom. Usually there
is information about who and when at
the very bottom of the page.” Among
other things, the students looked up
the university the author said was
associated with the site, only to find
out that it does not appear to exist—
listings just brought them back to the
Tree Octopus site. Students ultimately
recognized that this was a hoax site,
underscoring for them how important
it is to evaluate the trustworthiness of
information found on the Internet.
Session Three. Ms. Thompson asked
her students to remind the group
what each of the letters in WWWDOT
stands for. Then she explained that
they were going to use WWWDOT
to evaluate three websites on the
Underground Railroad. She intro-
duced the Underground Railroad to
her students and asked her students to
ask themselves: “What is it about the
Underground Railroad that I want to
know?” Then, she asked her students
to evaluate the three websites using
WWWDOT sheets. (Ms. Thompson had
opened the three websites on the com-
puters the students were using before
the class started.) She said:
Use your worksheet and refer to the board if you need to. [Ms. Thompson had written WWWDOT and what each letter stands for on the board.] I will be here when you have questions, but I really want you to try this on your own. Work through the worksheet and see what you find. Remember, you are supposed to judge the websites for trustworthiness.
See Figures 1 and 2 for sample
WWWDOT worksheets.
Session Four. After the students fin-
ished evaluating the three websites and
completed a WWWDOT worksheet for
each website, Ms. Thompson asked stu-
dents to discuss which one of the three
websites was the most trustworthy and
which one was the least (some teach-
ers frame this as a debate). To make sure
the students grounded their statements
in evidence, Ms. Thompson said, “I
would like you to really think about the
three websites you visited. You can look
at your worksheets. I would like you to
discuss which are the best and which
are the worst websites. Also, try to give
specific reasons for your opinions.”
Following are some excerpts from the
students’ debate:
Cassie: I looked at the second-grade
one and it is a real school
[www2.lhric.org/pocantico/
TRTR_1016.indd 155TRTR_1016.indd 155 10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM
T H E W W W D O T A P P R OAC H T O I M P R O V I N G S T U D E N T S ’ C R I T I C A L E VA L UA T I O N O F W E B S I T E S
The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 2 October 2011R T
156
tubman/timeline2/timeline.
htm, written by a second
grader]. There is a Ms. Taverna
at that school, so I know that
information is true.
Katie: OK, it might be true. But a
second grader wrote it. How
good is it for us? We are in
fourth grade.
. . .
Cassie: Yeah, but they must have
gotten the information from
somewhere, probably a teacher.
Juan: OK, but do we know
where that teacher got the
information? What if the
teacher got it off the Internet
from, like, the tree octopus?
. . .
Paula: Does anyone find it
suspicious that there was no
date on the Rochester one?
Ms. Kate: Why does that bother you,
Paula?
Paula: If the information is
important to go through
all the trouble and money
to make the website in the
first place, they should care
enough to put the date on it.
Ava: And without the date,
we don’t know if it is old
information or new.
. . .
Jon: If I was going to vote, I
would say the one from
National Geographic.
Ms. Kate: Why is that, Jon?
Jon: I know National
Geographic. I watch them
on TV and I have books by
them. Besides, there are tons
of their magazines at school.
Mason: But couldn’t someone steal
their name and the look and
put it on the Internet? What
about the ads?
Cassie: I don’t know. I think if we
had to vote, I’d say the truest
is the little second-grade
project but the best was
National Geographic.
Ayesha: Yeah, but seriously, do you
want to trust second graders
to teach you something
that you need to get a good
grade on?
. . .
Luke: I think I would vote for
National Geographic, too.
It was written just a couple
of months ago and on their
website I can find what I
want to read.
Over the course of the debate, students
invoked many parts of the WWWDOT
Framework and demonstrated a critical
stance toward information. As noted
earlier, additional sessions beyond the
initial four would likely further strengthen
students’ website evaluation skills.
Suggested Strategies for Assessing Students’ Awareness of the Need to Critically Evaluate Websites and Their Skill at Doing So As in many areas of instruction,
assessment before and during
WWWDOT instruction may be helpful.
One area for assessment regards students’
awareness of the need to critically
evaluate websites. You may be able to
learn about this by observing students,
for example, noticing what students
look at on websites and what sites they
select for projects. Interviews or informal
conversations with students may be
revealing as well. A brief questionnaire
may also be informative. For example,
the questionnaire we used in our study
included these items, among others:
The information on the Internet is
always accurate and true.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
Figure 2 A Student’s WWWDOT Worksheet on the Least Trustworthy Website
Figure 1 A Student’s WWWDOT Worksheet on the Most Trustworthy Website
TRTR_1016.indd 156TRTR_1016.indd 156 10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM
T H E W W W D O T A P P R OAC H T O I M P R O V I N G S T U D E N T S ’ C R I T I C A L E VA L UA T I O N O F W E B S I T E S
www.reading.org R T
157
hourly Prize!, so if you click on one of those, it could mess up your whole computer.
After receiving instruction, she wrote
the following when asked to evaluate
another website:
On this website, they spell behavior two ways. The last time it has been updated is January 14, 1999, created on May 17, 1995. I have no idea what the department of EECE, UNM is [the author’s affiliation written on the website]. The person who make this website put the wrong homophone in. It should be to, not too. The organization isn’t bad, could be better. I would probably take some of this information off this website and then clarify it on a trustworthy website, like National Geographic.
A Website Ranking Task may also
be a useful tool for assessing students’
website evaluation skill. In this tool,
students are given a set of websites
and asked to rank order them for most
trustworthy to least trustworthy and then
to explain why the most trustworthy and
least trustworthy sites were designated
as such. Before receiving the instruction,
Courtney’s reasons for choosing one as
the most trustworthy were that there
were “a lot of information and a lot of
links.” Her reasons for choosing another
as the least trustworthy were that there
was “little information, only a few
links.” After receiving instruction in the
framework, Courtney provided a very
different analysis:
I trust A the most because it is created by the American Lung Association. It was created to educate, not to sell. It also says that it was updated Nov. 2006. It does meet my needs by giving me facts on the respiratory system. It is also organized nicely.
I choose this one [B] as least trustworthy because it is created by some one called Steve Paxton and it gives no information on who he is on this page. It does not say when it was updated. It has too many links and I think it is kind of hard to navigate through.
Although these responses are not ideal
(e.g., she holds on to the notion that “too
many links” is inherently bad), they certainly
reflect substantial improvement in terms of
the number and type of considerations that
went into her evaluation of a website as a
source of information.
After reading about WWDOT, how can
you quickly implement the strategies
outlined in your classroom?
1. Determine whether your students would
benefit from instruction in WWWDOT. You might
use tools such as those described in the final
section of the article, or you might ask general
questions such as, “How many of you use the
Internet at school? At home?” “How do you know
whether information is true or trustworthy?”
“What kinds of questions do you ask yourself
when reading information from the Internet?”
2. If you decide to teach WWWDOT, make sure
you have access to hoax sites (e.g., zapatopi.
net/treeoctopus/) and to all the materials and
types of websites mentioned in the article.
3. Plan at least four 30-minute sessions to
teach the WWWDOT framework, two focusing
on elements of the framework and two engaging
students in evaluating websites and debating
their trustworthiness. See the article for
specific suggestions. Be sure to give students
opportunities to explore and talk about websites
in small groups. We have found that students are
capable of challenging each other for clarification
of opinions or beliefs about Web content.
4. Evaluate the impact of your instruction,
adding lessons or strategies as needed.
5. Continually review and reinforce the habit
of critically evaluating websites—as well as
print materials—as sources of information.
T A K E AC T I O N ! d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
These same five choices were also
offered for the following items:
■ I always look on the website and
see who created it.
■ I always look on the website and
see when the information on the
site was created or updated.
■ While browsing a website, I usually
can tell how the website is organized.
■ As long as the website contains
information I am looking for, I do
not care who wrote the website.
■ While I read things on the website,
I am aware of the author’s purpose
of writing/creating it.
As noted earlier, we believe that
the awareness that information on the
Internet is not necessarily accurate and
trustworthy and the disposition to thus
critically evaluate websites is the most
important outcome for elementary-age
students. However, you may also want to
assess students’ actual skills in evaluating
websites as sources of information.
Examining students’ WWWDOT
worksheets may be one way to do this.
If you are looking for a somewhat
more formal approach, you may want
to consider a Single Website Evaluation
Task, such as one of the two that we used
in our research, which began, “Suppose
that you are looking for information
about pandas on the Internet and come
across the following website: www.
cnd.org/Contrib/pandas/...” You may
notice that students grow in their ability
to justify their judgment about a site.
For example, Liz, a fifth grader, wrote
on the Single Website Evaluation Task
before she received instruction in the
WWWDOT framework:
I do not think this is a good website because there are spams all around, like Congrats! You have won our
TRTR_1016.indd 157TRTR_1016.indd 157 10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM
T H E W W W D O T A P P R OAC H T O I M P R O V I N G S T U D E N T S ’ C R I T I C A L E VA L UA T I O N O F W E B S I T E S
The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 2 October 2011R T
158
A Critical Need Even our youngest students have
unprecedented access to information.
Although in large measure this should
be viewed as a positive development,
the unfiltered nature of information
on the Internet creates a new urgency
for teaching students to critically
evaluate sources of information. The
WWWDOT framework provides a
research-tested approach to enhancing
students’ awareness of the need to and
skill in critically evaluating websites
as sources of information. This kind
of instruction is essential to helping
students make wise use of the riches of
our Information Age.
R E F E R E N C E S
Agosto, D.E. (2002). A model of young people’s decision-making in using the Web. Library & Information Science Research, 24(4), 311–341.
American Library Association. (2002). Criteria for evaluating websites. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from www.ala.org/ICONN/rating.html
Baildon, R., & Baildon, M. (2008). Guiding independence: Developing a research tool to support student decision making in selecting online information sources. The Reading Teacher, 61(8), 636–647.
Baskin, B.H. (1997). The role of computer graphics in literacy attainment. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through
the communicative and visual arts (pp. 872–874). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Burbules, N.C., & Callister, T.A. (2000). Watch it: The risks and promises of information technologies for education. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Burke, J. (2000). Caught in the Web: Reading the Internet. Voices from the Middle, 7(3), 15–23.
Calisir, F., & Gurel, Z. (2003). Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 135–145.
Card, S., Mackinlay, J.D., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Diego: Academic Press.
Choo, C.W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000). Information seeking on the Web: An integrated model of browsing and searching. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 36, 3–16.
Coiro, J.L., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.
Coiro, J.L. (2003). Rethinking comprehension strategies to better prepare students for critically evaluating content on the Internet. The NERA Journal, 39(2), 29–34.
Eagleton, M.B., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the Web: Strategies for Internet inquiry. New York: Guilford.
Eagleton, M.B., Guinee, K., & Langlais, K. (2003). Teaching Internet literacy strategies: The hero inquiry project. Voices from the Middle, 10(3), 28–35.
Fitzgerald, M.A. (1997). Misinformation on the Internet: Applying evaluation skills to online information. Emergency Librarian, 24(3), 9–14.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Graesser, A.C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S.R., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK Web tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 89–105.
Harris, R. (2007). Evaluating Internet research sources. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm
Hawes, K.S. (1998). Reading the Internet: Conducting research for the virtual classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(7), 563–565.
Henry, L. (2007). Exploring new literacies pedagogy and online reading comprehension among middle school students and teachers: Issues of social equity or social exclusion? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Killi, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 75–95.
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K–12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285–328.
Lorenzen, M. (2001). The land of confusion? High school students and their use of the World Wide Web for research. Research Strategies, 18(2), 151–163.
McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R.J. (1996). Disorientation in hypertext: The effects of three text structures on navigation performance. Applied Ergonomics Special Issue: Shiftwork, 27(1), 61–68.
McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R.J. (1998). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors, 40(1), 18–27.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Computer and Internet use by students in 2003. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from nces. ed.gov/pubs2006/2006065.pdf
National Educational Technology Standards Projects & Brooks-Young, S. (2007). National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from cnets.iste.org/.
New Literacies Research Team & Internet Reading Research Group. (2006). Results summary report from the Survey of Internet Usage and Online Reading for School District 10–C (Research Rep. No. 1). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, New Literacies Research Lab.
Rouet, J.F., & Levonen, J.J. (1998). Studying and learning with hypertext: Empirical studies and their implications. In J.F. Rouet, J.J. Levon, A. Dillon, & R.J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 9–24), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zhang, S., & Duke, N.K. (2008). Strategies for Internet reading with different reading purposes: A descriptive study of twelve good Internet readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 128–162.
Zhang, S., & Duke, N.K. (2010, December). Fourth- and fifth-grade students tutoring younger students to evaluate websites. Poster presentation at the annual meeting of Literacy Research Association, Fort Worth, TX.
Zhang, S., & Duke, N.K. (2011). The impact of instruction in the WWWDOT Framework on students’ disposition and ability to evaluate websites as sources of information. The Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 132–154.
Supporting Information Additional supporting information may
be found in the online version of this
article:
Research Supplement: Overview of
the Study.
ReadWriteThink.org Lesson Plan ■ “Skimming and Scanning: Using Riddles to
Practice Fact Finding Online” by Nancy J.
Kolodziej
IRA Journal Article ■ “SEARCHing for an Answer: The Critical Role of
New Literacies While Reading on the Internet,”
by Laurie A. Henry, The Reading Teacher, April
2006
Even More! ■ “Help Children Play and Stay Safe Online”
(Parent & Afterschool Resources): www.
readwritethink.org/parent-afterschool-resources/
tips-howtos/help-children-play-stay-30668.html
M O R E T O E X P L O R E
TRTR_1016.indd 158TRTR_1016.indd 158 10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM10/14/2011 1:53:37 PM
