Evaluating Webbed Sources for Research

 Michael Day

All sources, including the people we interview and the books and journals we get from the library, have to be evaluated for credibility, accuracy, and relevance. However, since web pages are so easy to create and there are so few gatekeeping processes to insure reliability, we may need to be extra careful to apply strict criteria before using them as sources in our research. The following exercise should help you recognize some of the characteristics of reliable and unreliable webbed sources.

 First, open a word processor document or get out a piece of paper and pen or pencil so you can take notes. Remember that the purpose of the exercise is for you and the class to develop a set of criteria for evaluating webbed sources. As we view the following web pages, jot down all the criteria we come up with, and any others that you can think of.

Please follow along by clicking on the following links when you are asked to do so.

Part One: discuss the following web pages with your class

Example web pages for developing evaluation rubric:

Example One

Example Two

Example Three

Example Four

Example Five

Part Two: compare your list to existing rubrics

Web evaluation rubrics and hints

Look through the rubrics linked from the following pages and see how well they fit the criteria we came up with. If you find new ones, raise your hand and share them with the class; we'll all write them down. Be sure to click on the links to lists of criteria on these pages.

 Roger Easson's Web Evaluation Resources Page

 Michigan State's Research Station Web Evaluation Page

 Widener University's checklist for evaluating web pages


Part Three: evaluate a web page of your choosing, and discuss with a partner

WebBoard activity (any email or conferencing program can be used instead)

1. Pair up with another person and find a web page to evaluate.

2. Then, leave the page open and open our workshop WebBoard as instructed.  Find the conference for our workshop, and click on it.  (If WebBoard isn't working, just open up a word processing document)

3. Use the Post command to open a new message in that subconference.

4. In a WebBoard message (or paragraph, if you are using only a word processor) from both you and your partner, use the criteria we just developed to write a short critique of the web page, touching on as many of the criteria as are relevant, and use your evaluation to support a claim about whether the page would provide a good resource for a college level researched paper. Please do not make a list; create a conversation.

5. Be sure to include both of your names and the URL of the web page you are evaluating.

6. If you are unsure what web page to evaluate, just choose one from the Widener Library list of examples.
(or try out this one, Keith Stanger's example web sites.)

7. After you finish your webboard message and post it, click on the Refresh button to see new messages in the Web Evaluation subconference. (If using only a word processor, after you finish your written discussion, be sure to save and title it "Web Site Critique."  Switch with the other pair at your table.

8. Open a message that does not already have a reply to it, and click on the URL of the evaluated web page to open it as well. (If using only a word processor, open the other pair's "Web Site Critique" and find out what web site they evaluated.

9. Discuss with your partner whether the evaluation is accurate and complete.  What would you add or change to the original appraisal of the web page?

10. Click on a reply and write a few sentences in response to the original evaluation. (Just do this at the bottom of the document if you are using only a word processor.

11. Include the names of BOTH partners in your team, and then post the message (or save on the word processor).

Had we the time, we could do the same sort of rubric development for e-mail or chat room netiquette, but that it the subject of another lesson, explained in my "Writing in the Matrix" chapter.