A Qualitative Study of how High School Students Search the Internet to Find Credible Sources

Jeff Vogt CEP 806

Observations…

 In the past ten years, the manner in which high school students acquire information has changed dramatically  With accessibility to the Internet becoming ubiquitous in most schools, students are exposed to many more opportunities to acquire this information  With the Internet, comes a deluge of information. As a result, students are faced with sometimes insurmountable lists of web pages

Observations…

 When presented with an opportunity to research information on the Internet, most of my students navigate to common search engines such as “Google”  These search engines “spit out” thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of web sites, some of good quality and some of poor quality  In general, many students gravitate to the web sites at the top of their first search lists

Considerations

 With the advent of telecommunication devices such as the Internet, cell phones, PDA’s, and hand held gaming devices, the students we teach are vastly different from other generations of students in the manner in which they search, wait for, and use Internet information

Hypotheses…

 Most students utilize common search engines (Google primarily) without consideration of their indexes and limitations  Students tend to look at the first few, “hits” on their search page  Search queries are typed directly into the search window with little variation or understanding that keywords can play a big part in successful searches  Limited thought is given to web site credibility

Explanations and Rationale

 I intend to prove my hypotheses based upon the following evidence:  Students tend to use search engines that are “comfortable”. These are sites they were taught to utilize and have always used  Many students are extremely impatient when Internet searches slow down. Today, download times are extremely fast. Students know this and are willing to skip over a promising web site because a search took too long

Explanations and Rationale

 Students crave Internet search independence but have trouble focusing searches, or making simple choices when presented with this autonomy  Students believe common sites that other people frequently use are considered reliable because they are heavily trafficked

Research Setting

 Lakeview High School, Battle Creek MI  Focus group consisted of 10 junior and senior students, all of whom have taken chemistry  Four girls, six boys  Study was completed after school on two subsequent days

Research Setting-

Day One

 30 minutes of focused, independent Internet research time.

 Topic: Chemistry Demonstrations appropriate for High School curriculum  Students were instructed to document the: A) search engine used and rationale B) Search query (exact key words) C) “Hits” and interpretation of each site visited (including why or why they did not use a given site)

Research Setting-

Day One

Constraints

 Internet availability (unreliable wireless signal)  Regular after school interruptions (announcements, students in and out of class, etc)  Focus students’ schedule constraints (two students had to leave early)

Research Setting-

Day Two

 Informal round table style interview with 8 of the 10 participants  Follow up questions began with facilitator prompt, proceeded by free response from students  Question and answer style format  Audio recording utilized (click for Podcast discussion)

Research Setting-

Day Two

 Facilitator asked questions regarding:  Search Engine used and rationale  Search Query and rationale  Sites visited and rationale  What makes sites visited appear, “credible vs not credible”

Research Setting-

Day Two

Constraints

Consistent distractions (announcements, cell phones ringing, teachers, etc) Time Frame (previous obligations from focus students) Two students were missing Audio recording device didn’t have proper microphone (result being low volume of sound during discussion)

Patterns and Data



Search Engines

Eight of ten students listed “Google” as their search engine of choice  Other two students listed “Bing” and “Ask.com” respectively

Rationale of Students

 In short, students believed that search engines are omniscient  They provide the answers the students needed  No student understood how Indexes worked

Patterns and Data



Internet Search, “Hits”

Students did not look past the first four to five top listings

Rationale of Students

 Students did not have time (that day or in general)  Top “hits” usually provided enough information  Top “hits” were relevant enough for their usual search queries

Patterns and Data

    

Keyword Searches

Searches varied little from the heading of “Chemistry Demonstrations” Students took out cumbersome words (appropriate) or rearranged words (Demonstrations (in) Chemistry)

Rationale of Students

Using simple keywords “gets the job done quickly” There is no real need to switch words There is something useful regardless of the query, it just needs to be found

Patterns and Data

  

Credibility

Students took special care and attention to sites with .edu, .gov, and other sites that were linked to or intended for educational purposes

Rationale of Students

These are reputable sites because they are linked to education or a higher authority in some form If it says it is “for teachers, by teachers”, then it must be legitimate

So then, what’s “credible”?

 Students tended to link credible sites as sites with the following characteristics: .gov or .edu endings, sites associated with education, good organization (including by unit or by demonstration, clear links, links to other reputable sites, videos of demonstration, actual “readable” instructions

So then, what’s “credible”?

 Students tended to link not credible sites as sites with the following characteristics: Poor overall organization, too many links with not enough “meat” in the actual page, broken links, no visible association to academia

Emergent Ideas

 Students have a firm grasp on navigating the Internet, but completely understanding the inner working is still a mystery  Students did not understand exactly how Wikipedia worked, but they knew enough to stay away from it as a credible source

Emergent Ideas

 Students did not understand how a search engine indexes web pages, rather than actually searching the “Internet”  Students believed they knew what constituted a credible website

Questions

 Do students understand that there are sometimes loose regulations on who can get an .edu web address? And how will this affect a “credibility” of that web site?

 Focus students understood that information must be dealt with carefully from a credibility standpoint, but do they understand how to actually identify websites as truly credible, not just credible in their head?

Lessons

 Before the study, the ideas I had were generalizations about a few isolated experiences. Now with data, these ideas are better supported statements  A major blow to my hypothesis was that students take little to no time looking at credibility of a web site. I found out that students take more time and exert more effort than I previously thought…

Lessons

 …the problem, however, is how students actually define what credible is. Do they actually know the guidelines for what is credible and not?

 In my small sample size, students used the word, “appropriate” or “believable”, but it was merely based upon what they thought was credible, mostly preconceived notions from prior experiences and biases from any one of a number of places.

Limitations to this study

 The qualitative nature of the research did not provide concrete data, but allowed students to better express their thoughts and opinions  Each method of study (qualitative or quantitative) has its own merit  Small group size. With a small size, the risk of not hitting a representative population is at risk

Summary

 My hypothesis as a whole was not verified.

 While students tended to use “Google”, search basic key words, and use the first few hits, the sites they visited, evaluated, and eventually used were considered carefully for evidence of links to government or educational institutions  This is risky because information can always be misconstrued, or misrepresented through the Internet