1. Ian Banker CEP 806 Inquiry Project 1

2.  Our group discussed the problems that many students had within actually searching for, and then subsequently evaluating, websites.  I wanted to try to quantify these problems. How were students searching? Did they ever bother refining their searches? Why were they pulling information from certain sites?

3.  I think the information within this investigation is meaningful because it will help me see how students search for information, what they identify as quality information, and their search methods will actually relate to how they search for information within a textbook as well.  This will allow for the creation of higher quality questions and research assignments.

4.  I am unsure of what to expect of this before giving it to students. The class that I could fit this in with happened to be my Tech Prep class, which in the State of South Carolina, happens to be the lowest tracking level they have if you are in general education classes.  My initial expectations for this are slightly low due to the trouble I have trying to get kids to engage within class, even though I keep the class fairly hands on. If they engage in the activity, I expect some good results in how students evaluate sources.

5.  Search Engine:  I expect most students to use Google. It is what I happen to use in class, and they all want to be like me (probably not). Actually, it is the homepage on the computers in the Media Center Lab.  Key Words / Phrases:  Search Modifications:  Judging Website Quality:

6.  Search Engine:  Key Words / Phrases:  Most students will search in “broken phrases”. Not quite full phrases, but they will type out more than a few key words.  Search Modifications:  Judging Website Quality:

7.  Search Engine:  Key Words / Phrases:  Search Modifications:  I expect modifications will be made by lengthening what is typed, trying to get closer towards what is the exact question asked on the handout.  Judging Website Quality:

8.  Search Engine:  Key Words / Phrases:  Search Modifications:  Judging Website Quality:  I think the use of pictures and bolded words will cause students to use the information from that specific website.

9.  My project is set up such that students are going to do internet research on the Factors that Increase the Speed of Diffusion.  Each student will complete a handout that has 13 questions and a table that allows them to explain what they searched, their rational, and their evaluation of 6 different websites they visited. Here is the handout.Here is the handout.

10.  At this point, my students know what diffusion is, and they know that diffusion will occur through a semi-permeable membrane (or cell membrane).  The following day, we will actually do a hands on activity that allows students to experience these factors that affect the speed of diffusion.

11.  Search Engine Used:  13 of 14 students used Google. ▪ As one student put it, because “it’s the only one to use”. ▪ Two students told me that Google had the most information.  1 of 14 students used Yahoo. ▪ This student actually had to navigate away from Google to search with Yahoo. Hmm…

12.  Keywords or Entire Phrase?  8 of 14 students used keywords. ▪ These keywords ranged from diffusion, to rate of diffusion, to increase diffusion, to speed of diffusion.  6 of 14 students used entire phrases. ▪ 5 of these phrases were exactly the same: ▪ How do you increase the speed of diffusion?  Many of those students even included the question mark. ▪ The other phrase was: ▪ What can you do to increase the speed of diffusion of water?

13.  Quality Results?  7 of 14 students said that their initial search results were quality resources. ▪ These 7 students still refined their searches however. ▪ They searched once, assessed their 6 required websites with that search, and then searched again ▪ Of these 7 students, 4 of them searched with key words, while the other 3 searched with the initial entire phrase  7 of 14 did not think their initial searches found them quality information

14.  Refined Search  Most all students refined their searches by shortening their search ▪ Most common was diffusion or rate of diffusion  Two students refined their searches by lengthening their initial search from key words to the entire question being asked.

15.  Every student said the most useful sites had a domain of.html or.com  However, these statistics are slightly skewed. Students read what is at the end of the URL as being the domain, not the root. ▪ Example: Notice this is a.edu website, but the final extension at the end is.html ▪ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/diffus.html  Thus most.edu websites would register as.html for students.  Revisiting the students handouts, 5 of 14 students actually used.edu websites as resources.

16.  Why did you think the website was a quality resource or not?  Most students skimped on the answers to this oh most important question. Within filling in their tables on the handout, students had to evaluate 6 websites as quality or not, and give a reason as to why.

17.  Why did you think the website was a quality resource or not?  Many explanations included ideas similar to “it told me about diffusion, didn’t tell me anything, it gave me answers, not enough info, or lots of information.”  Some students gave quality explanations however, with “It was clear and easy to understand, the pictures helped, and it showed a table with information.”

18.  Breakdown of Websites/URLs Used:  9 students evaluated Cool SchoolCool School ▪ 8 of those students rated this website as a Quality Website  9 students evaluated Biology CornerBiology Corner ▪ 7 of those students rated this website as a Quality Website  7 students evaluated WikipediaWikipedia ▪ 6 of those students rated this website as a Quality Website  7 students evaluated Hyper PhysicsHyper Physics ▪ 2 of those students rated this website as a Quality Website  No other websites were visited by more than 2 students

19.  Looking at the student’s website evaluations...  Pictures, figures, animations, or tables greatly increased the chances that a student would find the website useful or use information on it.  Any website that did not have figures, regardless of how good the information was, was skipped over fairly quickly.  I was also surprised at the number of students that would write down www.wikipedia.org as a complete URL of where they got their information.www.wikipedia.org ▪ I got the best results from students that created their own table in MS Word and copy and pasted full URLs into the table.

20.  Search Engines  I am not at all surprised by the use of Google  I am however, surprised at the use of entire phrases when searching within Google. ▪ The largest surprise was when refining the search, the number of students that went from using keywords to searching for entire phrases. ▪ 12 of 14 students at one point searched for “What factors increase the speed of diffusion?” or some variation of that.  This actually explains a lot to me why students struggle when searching for items in the book. They are expecting to find the question word-for-word in the book.

21.  Evaluations of Quality Websites  Upon searching Google myself for Diffusion and Speed of Diffusion, I am not surprised at all with the selection of websites ▪ They all happen to be within the first 10 search results for each respective search.  I did however expect to see more use of Wikipedia than the 7 evaluations.

22.  Evaluations of Quality Websites  The assessment of a quality website based on pictures, animations, or tables was slightly surprising.  The surprising portion was how quickly students gave up on sources that did not have pictures. ▪ Students would not take the time to scan a paragraph for key words that would help them out.  This helps out drastically within trying to produce questions that students can answer when doing book research.

23.  Quick Side-note:  I also noticed that I got the best results out of those individuals that decided to make a table in MS Word and copy URLs into the table.  They got to write less because of the copy/paste, which meant they spent a little more time writing evaluations.

24.  Thoughts from Project:  I think that one major aspect that this project revealed was the highly visual nature of these students. ▪ Throughout class, the more that they can experience hands on, or that I can show them via animations/demonstrations/videos/pictures/etc. the better understanding they will likely have. ▪ It is also apparent that the animations/pictures/etc are attention grabbing and ensure that students are focusing upon that information, as opposed to notes/lectures where students can zone out

25.  Points that I would like to further research:  How does the formatting of a webpage (background colors, text, amount of information in paragraphs, etc) lead to student evaluation?  When the students find a page with figures/tables/animations, do they look at any of the other information on that given website?  How long did students spend on each website when evaluating it? Do they just see it and say “Yes or No” or do they actually look for the information?