Today in 2016, people all over Facebook shared a Meme that showed the math of dividing the $1.3 Billion Powerball by the US population would earn $4.33 million per person. Instead of $4.33. At the time of writing this post, the Meme had been shared countless times. It even made Time shake its head: More Than 800,000 People Shared This Mathematically Inept Powerball Post.
This goes to show how very important digital literacy is in our lives. One must be able to look at a source of information and decide what to believe and what to dismiss. I see Facebook posts all the time that I can disprove with Snopes.com, but today’s is one of my favorites.
Back in 2012, when I began my first 366 blogging challenge, I talked to a group of students about web evaluation on January 11th. This flashback to the past is as relevant today as it was four years ago. Below is the repost of Day 11 of 366: “You mean that site isn’t real?”
I spent the day with 8th graders, talking about web searching. I pointed out to them that they had been on the web about 13 years, and their teachers had been on the web… about 13 years. They are growing up with the internet as a part of their lives, something they can’t imagine living without.
Microsoft Office Images
By 8th grade, students are learning the skills to differentiate between a good site and a poor one. Some of their research questions are getting so specific that databases may not have enough detail. But, a straight web search can yield literally millions of sources. The lesson became about how to search smarter. Yes, I’m a media specialist. And, yes, today I used the terms Wikipedia and Google. (You should have seen their eyes light up.)
I took students on a journey of my research process when I did History Day in the 90’s. I started with something called an encyclopedia. From a few well written paragraphs, I learned key words about my topic: Charles Lindbergh. Then I went off into other books and researched those key points. An online encyclopedia works much the same way, but the hyperlinks make expanding research much easier. I showed the Britannica Lindbergh page. Then I showed the Wikipedia Lindbergh page. I talked about how the power in Wikipedia is also its weakness: the millions of editors that contribute. We discussed slanting in entries, as well as verifying any information found on the web.
With Google, I introduced them to some tips and operators that some had not seen before:
- Use key words
- Use “quotes”
- -remove word
- numeric..range
Their bonus tips included:
- this OR that
- filetype:ppt
- ~similar words
- define:plethora
The students are doing a mini research project, and a big part of the project is actually in the finding of good websites, rather than just finding information. The website rubric is broken down into a few areas. Here they are, along with the website that I fed out to the students to scan for each quality.
Who:
- Author is clearly identified.
- Author info indicates an author is an expert.
- Complete contact info is provided.
What:
- Type of info: fact, opinion, entertainment, sales
- Domain (.edu, .org, .gov)
- Business, organization or group is clearly identified
Where:
- Sources of info are listed
- Info can be verified
- No errors in spelling/grammar
When:
- Last update is clearly listed.
- Updated within the last 12 months.
- Sources published within last 5 years?
- All links work and are up-to-date.
You would think by the 4th fake website, they would figure the 5th was fake, too. This activity produced some incredible talking points. The students learned to be critical of any site and look for those key indicators that the information may not be legitimate. I hope this carries over into their actual research.
Seeing this lesson in black and white on a blog post isn’t nearly as fun as watching it play out in real life. It is energizing to work with a generation so connected to technology, but also so willing to learn how to be responsible with finding information on the web.
How do you approach Google and Wikipedia with your students?