Maria Knobelsdorf, University of Dortmund, Germany - Didaktik der ...

site credibility determinations. This finding makes sense
intuitively, as it underscores the difficulties inherent in
information credibility determinations.
In other research, credibility determinations were affected
by literacy levels and socioeconomic status (SES) [5]. For
example, with respect to health care posted on Web sites, HIV
positive patients with lower educational levels and literacy
skills were less critical of fraudulent claims regarding
purported “cures” for AIDS than were their more educated
counterparts from higher SES levels.
Furthermore, Fogg, Soohoo, Danielson, Marable,
Stanford and Taber [6] found that members of the general
public could describe adequate bases upon which to make
credibility determinations. However, when faced with actual
Web sites, they abandoned these criteria in favor of
determinations based on Web site appearance (or “design
look”).
Anecdotally, the author has found that while teaching in a
Pacific Island US territory in June, 2012, university level
students appeared to be less aware of Web site credibility
issues in citing sources than were their US counterparts. It
should be noted that these students are from a developing part
of the Pacific and the majority would fit US definitions of
living below the poverty level. Thus, many do not have
computers at home or regular easily obtainable access to the
Internet. Additionally, the university-level courses in which
they were enrolled were only for several weeks, not allowing
extensive work with resources or time to make effective
credibility determinations.
These examples underscore the ongoing need for critical
Web credibility evaluation instruction in educational contexts,
at all levels, or wherever and whenever computers are
introduced into instruction. While it is clearly possible to
teach Web and information evaluation without reference to a
theoretical basis underlying instruction, I propose that it may
be valuable to develop instruction that is consistent with
frameworks known to be associated with the growth of critical
learning skills. Because determinations about information and
credibility implicitly involve epistemological considerations, I
draw briefly on research that investigates epistemological
beliefs regarding information on the Internet. Secondly, since
science and scientific learning is an area where students must
counter their initial conceptions or preconceptions in order to
learn effectively, and because science-related Web sites are
replete with misinformation, I discuss conceptual change
research and how it might be drawn on analogically to
facilitate the development of aspects of an instructional model
for effective instruction in credibility evaluation.
III. EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS AND THE INTERNET
People implicitly make epistemological determinations or
exercise epistemological beliefs in selecting information from
the Web; reading, watching or listening to it; and finally in
64
citing it or using that information to make decisions or to
influence their thinking in some way. Braten, Stromso, and
Samuelstuen [7] conducted a relevant study in this area and
adopted the definition of personal epistemology originally
proposed by Hofer as, “how knowing occurs, what counts as
knowledge and where it resides, and how knowledge is
constructed and evaluated” (p. 1).
Such a definition provides a useful basis for instruction,
especially in different content areas. Braten et al. [7] carried
out research investigating Norwegian university students’
epistemological beliefs around information on the Internet,
using dimensions of epistemological beliefs proposed by
Hofer and Pintrich [8]. Results indicated that two dimensions
of epistemological beliefs were confirmed via factor analyses.
As Braten et al. explained, “The first dimension, general
Internet epistemology, ranged from the integrated view that
the Internet is an essential source of true, specific facts to
doubt about the Internet as a good source of true factual
knowledge. The other dimension, justification for knowing,
ranged from the view that Internet-based knowledge claims
can be accepted without critical evaluation to the view that
knowledge claims encountered on the Internet should be
checked against other sources, reason, and prior knowledge”
(p. 141).
Clearly, effective instruction for credibility
determinations should ideally include an introduction to
epistemological considerations that can be general or content
specific. Considerations such as those raised by Hofer in the
definition above can guide the discussion, and inspire
questions such as: What is knowledge? Who creates it? Who
determines whether it is accepted in a field? What are the
characteristics of credible knowledge? How does one
personally determine whether knowledge expressed on the
Web is credible?
IV. CONCEPTUAL CHANGE RESEARCH
A classic means of countering science misconceptions
was summarized by Chinn and Brewer [9]. Their instructional
model consisted of the following points:
1) “Consider a physical scenario whose outcome is not
known” (p. 38).
2) “Predict the outcome” (p. 38).
3) “Construct competing theoretical explanations to
support the predictions” (p. 38).
4) “Observe the outcome (anomalous data)” (p. 38).
5) “Modify competing theoretical explanations, if
necessary” (p. 38)
6) “Evaluate competing explanations” (p. 38)
7) “Reiterate the preceding steps with different data.” (p.
38)
Chinn and Brewer [9] described various factors that can
influence the likelihood of conceptual change, including how
anomalous data is handled – whether it is accepted, ignored,