Can Students Evaluate Online Sources

The hypothesis of the story is, “Can Students Evaluate Online Sources” (McGrew, Breakstone, Ortega, Smith, & Wineburg, 2018, p. 165)? It is based on scientists/researchers efforts in trying to support the idea that students are not capable in assessing internet articles, reports, stories, and etc the correct way (McGrew et al.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified writer

Proficient in: Students And Social Service

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

, 2018).

The main piece that was being accessed during the experimental researcher was how well the students were able to look through the information of the article or post. With the information was given, the students would write whether they believed that the site was a trustful or false (McGrew et al., 2018). The scientists assessed each student's comments and put them into categories. From being a “Beginner” all the way to “Mastery”, each student's works were categorized by their abilities to determine that source credible (McGrew et al., 2018).

Each experiment had people involved in it, however, it was mostly middle/high school students that were used, considering the point was to find out whether, “students could evaluate online sources” (McGrew et al., 2018). Also the authors from documents from online sources could also be accounted for being participants. They are what the students are looking at to see if the authors could be called creditable and have the position to provide information (McGrew et al., 2018).

Through each individual study, the results were similar. The scientists, “...findings show that students struggled to engage in even basic evaluations of authors, sources, and evidence (McGrew et al., 2018, p. 187). Though each experiment there was differences in the information, whether it was having high school students evaluate a source instead of middle school students to a different article, or to how many students were used in the experiment (McGrew, 2018).

But, again, in the end, the results shadowed each other.

Almost every experiment followed the same guidelines. Each student was given an article to evaluate, one article was presented by, the “Bank of America and written by a bank” (McGrew et al., 2018, p. 174). This post was written to promote the question, “Do Millennials Have Good Money Habits” (McGrew et al., 2018, p. 174)? Students were asked why they could trust this post or why they could not. “Over 500 students middle school students completed the assessment in piloting, and 201 responded to the final version” (McGrew et al., 2018, p. 175).

Over 68 percent of the students scored “Beginning,” the lowest level on the spectrum to evaluating online sources. Fourteen percent of the students received “Emerging,” which is on the medial part of the spectrum. Then eighteen percent of the students scored “Mastery” with their responses, which the highest that can be received on the spectrum. Those students who received “Beginning” failed to identify “... the article's authorship or sponsorship in their responses (McGrew et al., 2018, p.175). The article said “millennials” does not mean that all millennials have good money habits nor good habits. The fault lies in that it does not represent every single millennial in the entire world and that is what the students did not try to explain (McGrew et al., 2018).

Those who received “Emerging” found what the “Beginnings” failed to find, however, their fault was they did not go into detail why they chose their reasoning. Next, the students who scored “Mastery” identified who published the article and identified what their motive was. The article was written by Andrew Plepler, the executive at the Bank of America. The students claimed that because Plepler was just an official, he was not qualified in providing advisement about millennials finances. The only motive of the bank was to get more people to sign on to one of the financial accounts so they could make more money. Those who scored “Mastery” explained this.

Each individual student had their way in how they picked apart the article. In their own words, they put it into detail how they came across their answer. By evaluating the article, looking at the authorship, whether they have the credentials to actually provide such evidence to the public, and making sure the evidence fits the subject of the article (McGrew et al., 2018). Many articles, like the “Bank of America” often publish such articles for advertisement. The students evaluated the information by looking at the authorship and which in this case it was written by a man who works at the “Bank of America.” Just because he might work at a bank does not necessarily mean he knows about millennials financial issues. This article was written for the sole purpose of bringing more people to sign on to their financial plans and spend money (McGrew et al., 2018).

When it comes to photos everybody wants to believe that is true because it is a photo. That is what many thought when, “on March 11, 2011, there was a large nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant in Japan” (McGrew et al., 2018, p. 177). In July of 2015, a person uploaded an image saying, “Not much more to say, this is what happens when flowers get nuclear birth defects (McGrew et al., 2018, p.177). Many people were bound determined to believe that the gamma rays and radiation could do this to the flowers and plant life around there.

The motivation from the person who posted the image was that they wanted to see how many people could believe what they were seeing. Many students who looked at that, however, were not convinced that this could happen. Some of the students wrote that because the photo was uploaded by a not so trustworthy source then the photo could not be taken literally. Others wrote that the image looked photoshopped, also other plant life was not being shown so it could have just been those flowers to begin with. Therefore, the image was not accounted to have strong evidence to be considered true (McGrew et al., 2018).

Throughout the article, it has been repeatedly providing evidence that students struggle in determining whether sites are trustworthy and how to find reliable sources on the internet (McGrew et al., 2018). However, there were students who received “Mastery.” Though, in many of the students, not even half of the students were able to find all defects in the articles. The average percentage in receiving “Mastery” while assessing,”who is behind the information” was only 17.83 percent (McGrew et al., 2018, p. 174). This level of students ranged from middle/high school students to college students, and with college students ranked with the highest score, from 30-31 percent in “Mastery” (McGrew et al., 2018).

In assessing, “what is the evidence” the “Mastery” level only had 16 percent and that only included middle/high school students. Also assessing, “ who is behind the information” only 14.3 percent was the average in “Mastery” (McGrew et al, 2018, p. 179). This information was taken from middle/high school and college level students. The evidence provided in the article provides support to the idea that students struggled to determine whether evidence that was provided was trustworthy or not.

The problem at hand is not that there are a lot of sources out on the internet that provide information, however, it is those sites that have information on them that is false. Now that the internet has become such a globally used thing anybody can put out any data that he or she wants to. Having the internet is a great source for middle/high school and college students to learn about subjects that they have never heard of or to look up information for that research paper and presentation they have to give. The problem with that is how do the students know what sites can be used and is credible?

Across the world people of all ages struggle in finding sources that can prove to have credible authorship, strong evidence, and credible sources (McGrew et al., 2018). Through just the article, “Can Students Evaluate Online Sources?” thousands of students were tested, but that is not all the student population (McGrew et., 2018, p. 165). There are millions of students who do not know if they can trust an online article because they have never been taught how to determine if it is commendable.

Being able to assess an article and finding out whether that article can be trusted is very important because what a person reads from a site that is flawed can spread to others. Reading these untrustworthy sites can poison the minds of people, but it also shows their inability to discriminate through the propaganda of the internet. People often enough talk about something that they just read in an article, newspaper, or journal that was interesting to them. They discuss it with their friend and then that friend goes and tells someone else. It acts like a chain that never ends, this could be good or bad depending again, whether that information was true. That is how so many people are filled with false information; however, all of this could be prevented if people took the time to evaluate the evidence, authorship, and sources (McGrew et al., 2018).

How can this be stopped? Well, starting in elementary school or middle school teachers can give the students the ability to become skeptical and more critical over every website they come into contact or just everyday information that may come up on TV, radio, or magazine. By introducing websites to the students like the scientists did in the study, making the students practice assessing each article and write their response towards it sets them up for proper evaluating skills. For example, the teacher can provide sources that may seem credible because they provide graphs, images that make it seem more friendly to the student, but in reality, the source is completely unreliable.

Yes, being outside the classroom the teacher does not know if the students are using the skills that they were taught in evaluating, but they still have the idea back in their mind (McGrew et al., 2018). Another example could be is teachers need to make sure they are providing as much support as possible to the students when they are looking at a multitude of articles. When the students have completed their assessments have the students compare to each other. One student who believes why this source could be proved worthy and another students reasoning with the source could be. After that, “ the class could discuss why consulting multiple sources is necessary and practice strategies for doing so online (McGrew et al., 2018, p. 186).

The articles “findings show that students struggled to engage in even basic evaluations of authors, sources, and evidence” (McGrew et al., 2018, p. 187). With all this in mind, this struggle that students have can be helped with the right amount of help of teachers and with the help of people publishing information on the internet that can be supported to be correct in every way. From who wrote the information, the materials exactitude, and from which, where the materials came from as well all of these solutions can be attainable if everyone were to come together and decide that the internet is a place for greatness as long as it is not be abused (McGrew et al., 2018). Only then could the worry about sources not be correct be eradicated and students could freely use sources without the complete look over of its entirety.