Students evaluating internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 75-95

  Kiili, Carita ^a   Laurinen, Leena ^a   Marttunen, Miika ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350342875     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EC.39.1.e     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Sage University Papers Series, No.07-044. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2. Aufderheide, P., & Firestone, C. M. (1993). Media literacy: A report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy, the Aspen Institute Wye Center, Queenstown Maryland, December 7-9, 1992. Washington, DC: Communications and Society Program, the Aspen Institute.
3. Barry, C. L., & Schamber, L. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A crosssituational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34(2-3), 219-236.
4. Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218-259.
5. Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 913-925.
6. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 191-213.
7. Bruce, C. (2002). Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A background paper, July 2002, White Paper prepared for UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy, for use at the Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, The Czech Republic. Retrieved September 2, 2006, from http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/bruce-fullpaper.pdf
8. Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458-464.
9. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
10. Connor-Greene, P. A., & Greene, D. J. (2002). Science or snake oil? Teaching critical evaluation of "research" reports on the Internet. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 321-324.
11. Doyle, C. S. (1994). Information literacy in an information society: A concept for the information age. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse.
12. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. A Series of books in psychology (pp. 9-26). New York: Freeman.
13. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2000). Examining information processing on the World Wide Web using think aloud protocols. Media Psychology, 2(3), 219-244.
15. Facione, P. A. (2006). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts? Insight Assessment. Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://www. insightassessmet.com/pdf-files/what&why2006.pdf
16. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Pub.
17. Grimes, D. J., & Boening, C. H. (2001). Worries with the Web: A look at student use of Web resources. College & Research Libraries, 62(1), 11-23.
18. Harris, R. (1997). Evaluating Internet research sources. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm
19. Information literacy standards for student learning. In Information power: Building partnerships for learning. (1998). American Association of School Librarians. Chicago, IL: American Library Association and Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
20. Jones, S., & Madden, M. (2002). The Internet goes to college. How students are living in the future with today's technology. Retrieved September 25, 2006, from http://207.21.232.103/pdfs/PIP-College-Report.pdf
21. Judd, V. C., Farrow, L. I., & Tims, B. J. (2006). Evaluating public Web site information: A process and an instrument. Reference Service Review, 34(1), 12-32.
22. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts-A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159-185.
23. Lenhart, A., Simon, M., & Graziano, M. (2001). Internet and education: Findings of the Pew Internet & American life project. Retrieved September 25, 2006, from www.pewinternet.org./reports/toc.asp?Report=39
24. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
25. Liu, Z., & Huang, X. (2005). Evaluating the credibility of scholarly information on the Web: A cross cultural study. The International Information & Library Review, 37(2), 99-106.
26. Lorenzen, M. (2001). The land of confusion? High school students and their use of the World Wide Web for research. Research Strategies, 18(2), 151-163.
27. Macklin, A. S. (2001). Integrating information literacy using problem-based learning. Reference Services Review, 29(4), 306-313.
28. MaKinster, J. G., Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Why can't I find Newton's third law? Case studies of students' use of the Web as a science resource. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 155-172.
29. McClure, C. R. (1994). Network literacy: A role for libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 13(2), 115-125.
30. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41(3), 271-290.
31. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Pierce, A. F. (1998). Improving the strategies high school students use to conduct research on the Internet by teaching essential skills and providing practical experience. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED427756).
33. Rieh, S. Y. (2000). Information quality and cognitive authority in the World Wide Web. Thesis (Ph.D.). Rutgers, 2000. Retrieved February 4, 2007, from http://www.si.umich.edu/rieh/research-diss.html
34. Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145-161.
35. Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some issues to be concerned with. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 3-12.
36. Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance considered. In P. Ingwersen & N. Ole Pors (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science CoLIS2 (pp. 201-218). Copenhagen, Denmark: Royal School for Librarianship.
37. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 191-210.
38. Sutcliffe, A., & Ennis, M. (1998). Towards a cognitive theory of information retrieval. Interacting with Computers, 10(3), 321-351.
39. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fisher, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1-30.
40. Whitmire, E. (2004). The relationship between undergraduates' epistemological beliefs, reflective judgment, and their information-seeking behavior. Information Processing & Management, 40(1), 97-111.
41. Wu, Y-T., & Tsai, C-C. (2005). Information commitments: Evaluative standards and information searching strategies in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(5), 374-385.