Because the students will be researching authors of current fiction, I decided to evaluate Wikipedia's article on Ellen Hopkins first using the simple, printable checklist and then the Checklist for Evaluating Web Sites from the University of Maryland Libraries. The simple checklist will be sufficient for my purposes because it requires basic information that can be completed quickly and easily, and the vocabulary is explained in greater detail in the links in the sidebar. It is enough of an overview for the type of site most students will be using--author's and publisher's websites, author's blogs, author interviews, book reviews, and Wikipedia-type information. The Wikipedia article in this case passed muster: the information could be verified elsewhere, the links worked, and it was current.
I would use the second checklist I mention for more traditional research because its scope is broader and the questions more detailed. I like that the checklist asks which authorship clues the url provides because students do not think about the purpose of the site and how that influences content: company (.com), academic institution (.gov), non-profit organization (.org), U.S. Government agency (.gov), and so on.
Personally, I dislike handouts, but I believe the students would benefit from possessing either or both of these and from having to defend their use of the particular websites they cite in their research. I believe I would have students complete and turn in this information as they progress from reading to taking notes. Teachers, please correct me, if I am not on target!
No comments:
Post a Comment