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

Jeff VogtCEP 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 atthe 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 rationaleB) 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

ConstraintsConsistent 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” respectivelyRationale of Students

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

Patterns and Data

Internet Search, “Hits”Students did not look past the first four to five

top listingsRationale 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 thatthere are sometimes loose regulations on whocan get an .edu web address? And how willthis affect a “credibility” of that web site?

Focus students understood that informationmust be dealt with carefully from a credibilitystandpoint, but do they understand how toactually 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