Transcript Insight into High School students Internet search and

A Qualitative Study of how High
School Students Search the
Internet to Find Credible Sources
Jeff Vogt
CEP 806
Observations…



In the past ten years, the manner in which
high school students acquire information
has changed dramatically
With accessibility to the Internet becoming
ubiquitous in most schools, students are
exposed to many more opportunities to
acquire this information
With the Internet, comes a deluge of
information. As a result, students are faced
with sometimes insurmountable lists of web
pages
Observations…



When presented with an opportunity to
research information on the Internet, most
of my students navigate to common search
engines such as “Google”
These search engines “spit out” thousands,
if not hundreds of thousands of web sites,
some of good quality and some of poor
quality
In general, many students
gravitate to the web sites at
the top of their first search lists
Considerations

With the advent of telecommunication
devices such as the Internet, cell phones,
PDA’s, and hand held gaming devices, the
students we teach are vastly different from
other generations of students in the
manner in which they search, wait for, and
use Internet information
Hypotheses…




Most students utilize common search
engines (Google primarily) without
consideration of their indexes and
limitations
Students tend to look at the first few, “hits”
on their search page
Search queries are typed directly into the
search window with little variation or
understanding that keywords can play a big
part in successful searches
Limited thought is given to web site
credibility
Explanations and Rationale



I intend to prove my hypotheses based
upon the following evidence:
Students tend to use search engines that
are “comfortable”. These are sites they
were taught to utilize and have always used
Many students are extremely impatient
when Internet searches slow down. Today,
download times are extremely fast.
Students know this and are willing to skip
over a promising web site because a search
took too long
Explanations and Rationale


Students crave Internet search
independence but have trouble focusing
searches, or making simple choices when
presented with this autonomy
Students believe common sites that other
people frequently use are considered
reliable because they are heavily trafficked
Research Setting




Lakeview High School, Battle Creek MI
Focus group consisted of 10 junior and
senior students, all of whom have taken
chemistry
Four girls, six boys
Study was completed after school on two
subsequent days
Research Setting- Day One

30 minutes of focused, independent
Internet research time.

Topic: Chemistry Demonstrations
appropriate for High School curriculum

Students were instructed to document the:
A) search engine used and rationale
B) Search query (exact key words)
C) “Hits” and interpretation of each site
visited (including why or why they did not
use a given site)
Research Setting- Day One
Constraints



Internet availability (unreliable wireless
signal)
Regular after school interruptions
(announcements, students in and out of
class, etc)
Focus students’ schedule constraints (two
students had to leave early)
Research Setting- Day Two




Informal round table style interview with 8
of the 10 participants
Follow up questions began
with facilitator prompt, proceeded
by free response from students
Question and answer style
format
Audio recording utilized
(click for Podcast discussion)
Research Setting- Day Two

Facilitator asked questions regarding:

Search Engine used and rationale

Search Query and rationale

Sites visited and rationale

What makes sites visited appear,
“credible vs not credible”
Research Setting- Day Two
Constraints
Consistent distractions (announcements,
cell phones ringing, teachers, etc)
Time Frame (previous obligations from
focus students)
Two students were missing
Audio recording device didn’t have proper
microphone (result being low volume of
sound during discussion)
Patterns and Data
Search Engines
 Eight of ten students listed “Google” as
their search engine of choice
 Other two students listed “Bing” and
“Ask.com” respectively
Rationale of Students
 In short, students believed that
search engines are omniscient
 They provide the answers the
students needed
 No student understood how
Indexes worked
Patterns and Data
Internet Search, “Hits”
Students did not look past the first four to
five top listings
Rationale of Students
 Students did not have time (that day or in
general)
 Top “hits” usually provided
enough information
 Top “hits” were relevant
enough for their usual
search queries

Patterns and Data





Keyword Searches
Searches varied little from the heading of
“Chemistry Demonstrations”
Students took out cumbersome words
(appropriate) or rearranged words
(Demonstrations (in) Chemistry)
Rationale of Students
Using simple keywords “gets the job done
quickly”
There is no real need to switch words
There is something useful regardless of the
query, it just needs to be found
Patterns and Data



Credibility
Students took special care and attention to
sites with .edu, .gov, and other sites that
were linked to or intended for educational
purposes
Rationale of Students
These are reputable sites because they are
linked to education or a higher authority in
some form
If it says it is “for teachers, by teachers”,
then it must be legitimate
So then, what’s “credible”?

Students tended to link credible sites as
sites with the following characteristics:
.gov or .edu endings, sites associated with
education, good organization (including by
unit or by demonstration, clear links, links
to other reputable sites, videos of
demonstration, actual “readable”
instructions
So then, what’s “credible”?

Students tended to link not credible sites as
sites with the following characteristics:
Poor overall organization, too many links with
not enough “meat” in the actual page,
broken links, no visible association to
academia
Emergent Ideas


Students have a firm grasp on navigating
the Internet, but completely understanding
the inner working is still a mystery
Students did not understand exactly how
Wikipedia worked, but they knew enough to
stay away from it as a credible source
Emergent Ideas


Students did not understand how a search
engine indexes web pages, rather than
actually searching the “Internet”
Students believed they knew what
constituted a credible website
Questions
Do students understand that
there are sometimes loose regulations on who
can get an .edu web address? And how will
this affect a “credibility” of that web site?

Focus students understood that information
must be dealt with carefully from a credibility
standpoint, but do they understand how to
actually identify websites as truly credible,
not just credible in their head?

Lessons


Before the study, the ideas I had were
generalizations about a few isolated
experiences. Now with data, these ideas
are better supported statements
A major blow to my hypothesis was that
students take little to no time looking at
credibility of a web site. I found out that
students take more time and exert more
effort than I previously thought…
Lessons


…the problem, however, is how students
actually define what credible is. Do they
actually know the guidelines for what is
credible and not?
In my small sample size, students used the
word, “appropriate” or “believable”, but it
was merely based upon what they thought
was credible, mostly preconceived notions
from prior experiences and biases from any
one of a number of places.
Limitations to this study



The qualitative nature of the research did
not provide concrete data, but allowed
students to better express their thoughts
and opinions
Each method of study (qualitative or
quantitative) has its own merit
Small group size. With a small size, the risk
of not hitting a representative population is
at risk
Summary



My hypothesis as a whole was not verified.
While students tended to use “Google”,
search basic key words, and use the first
few hits, the sites they visited, evaluated,
and eventually used were considered
carefully for evidence of links to
government or educational institutions
This is risky because information can
always be misconstrued, or misrepresented
through the Internet