Teaching Information Evaluation with the Five Ws

Patrick J. Biddix, Joo Chung Chung, Park Han Woo, '“Convenience or Credibility? A Study of College Student Online Research Behaviors,”' Internet & Higher Education (): 14, no. 3 (2011): 175–82; Lea Currie et al., “Undergraduate Search Strategies and Evaluation Criteria: Searching for Credible Sources,”

New Library World

, no. 3/4(2010): 113–24n

Association of College & Research Libraries Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education

(Chicago: ACRL, 2001), accessed July 18, 2013, nnMikael Laakso, '“The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993–2009,”' PLoS ONE 6 no. 6 (): (June 13, 2011), accessed July 24, 2013, www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961nStuart Hampton-Reeves, ()

Students’ Use of Research Content in Teaching and Learning, Report for the Joint Information Systems Council

(University of Central Lancashire: Center for Research-Informed Teaching, 2009), accessed July 15, 2013, nIbid., 26nIbid., I, 47nBiddix, Chung, and Park, “Convenience or Credibility?” 180nSarah Blakeslee, '“The CRAAP Test,”' LOEX Quarterly (2004) accessed July 24, 2013, n () Meriam Library, California State University, Chico, “Evaluating Information—Applying the CRAAP Test,” September 17, 2010, accessed July 18, 2013, nBrad Matthies, Jonathan Helmke, () “Using the CRITIC Acronym to Teach Information Evaluation,” in Library Instruction: Restating the Need, Refocusing the Response: Papers and Session Materials Presented at the Thirty-Second National LOEX Library Instruction Conference held in Ypsilanti, Michigan 6 to 8 May 2004, ed. D. B. Thomas, Randal Baier, Eric Owen, and Theresa Valko, 65–70 (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 2005), accessed July 25, 2013, nWayne R. Bartz, '“Teaching Skepticism via the CRITIC Acronym and the Skeptical Inquirer,”' Skeptical Inquirer 26 (September 2002): 42-44nSara Seely, Sara Fry, Margie Ruppel, '“Information Literacy Follow-Through: Enhancing Pre-Service Teachers’ Information Evaluation Skills Through Formative Assessment,”' Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 30 no. 2 (2012): 72-84nIbid., 78nIbid., 83nMarc Meola, '“Chucking the Checklist: A Contextual Approach to Teaching Undergraduates Web-Site Evaluation,”' portal: Libraries and the Academy 4 no. 2 (2004): 331-44nIbid., 336nIbid., 337nMelissa Bowles-Terry, Erin Davis, Wendy Holliday, '“‘Writing Information Literacy’ Revisited: Application of Theory to Practice in the Classroom,”' Reference & User Services Quarterly 49 no. 3 (2010): 225-30nIbid., 229nIbid., 230nIbid., 226nMichael Cole Ed., Vera John-Steiner Ed., Sylvia Scribner Ed., Ellen Souberman Ed., '“Interaction Between Learning and Development,” in

Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process

' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1978): 79-91nnDavid Wood, Jerome S. Bruner, Gail Ross, '“The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving,”' Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 17 (1974): 89-100nJerome S. Bruner, '“The Ontogenesis of Speech Acts,”' Journal of Child Language 2 no. 1 (1975): 1-19nVygotsky, “Interaction Between Learning and Development”; Wood, Bruner, and Ross, “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.”nBruner, “The Ontogenesis of Speech Acts”; Wood, Bruner, and Ross, “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.”nBartz, “Teaching Skepticism via the CRITIC Acronym and the Skeptical Inquirer.”nNicholas Kristof, '“The Japanese Could Teach Us a Thing or Two,”' New York Times (March 19, 2011): accessed July 29, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/opinion/20kristof.htmlnDuring the pilot study, students attempted the in-class Five Ws activity with one of three separate documents: a report from the World Health Organization (WHO), a scholarly article from a geography journal, and the aforementioned newspaper page that included Kristof’s column. These documents were assigned randomly to groups and provided researchers an opportunity to observe student experiences evaluating different document types. Most students were able to identify the scholarly article right away. The unambiguous nature of the document presented little challenge in terms of conducting a nuanced evaluation and, as such, was of minimal value to students. The WHO report led to some confusion and difficulty (e.g., finding information about the authors of the report) and first-year composition students who became “stuck” on a question were unable to complete the assessment in the time allotted. The column, on the other hand, presented an appropriate balance of difficulty and accessibility. The material was familiar in that most students easily identified the New York Times as a newspaper, but Kristof was unfamiliar to most of them, and his academic achievements helped students question their assumptions about scholarly versus popular authorsnThough the exact number of student participants is unknown, the pilot group consisted of 30 first-year composition sections, including eight English 118 sections and 22 sections of English 101. In fall 2011, each English 101 section was capped at 23 students and each English 118 was capped at 22 studentsnIn 2012, both English 101 and English 118 sections were capped at 23 students, and researchers taught 17 101/118 sections in which the Five Ws learning activity was usednJennifer Morse, () “A Guide to Writing in the Biological Sciences: The Scientific Paper: Abstract,” George Mason University Department of Biology, accessed July 29, 2013, nIt should be noted that even if a student did not use a Five Ws term to describe their evaluation method (e.g., a student did not say “I evaluated ‘who’ wrote the document”), as long as a student’s comments and explanations clearly referred to a Five Ws criterion, the comment was coded for the corresponding criterion. For example, one student’s response to how he or she evaluated a source was, “I researched their degree level, literary accomplishments, and involvement in the field I was writing in.” This response was coded as an application of the “who,” or author criterionnThe four instructors who used the Five Ws in some way in their own instruction outside of the library session taught eight of the fifteen sections whose students participated in the student survey. Two instructors who participated in the instructors’ survey did not use the Five Ws in their own instruction, and taught three sections of 101/118. Three instructors did not participate in the follow-up survey, but their students participated in the student survey. These three instructors taught four sections of 101/118, and their use of the Five Ws outside of the library session remains unknownn