1 of 16

Digital Literacy

THERE’S, LIKE, A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET.

2 of 16

Digital Literacy Goal

Find reliable sources

Assess the strengths and limitations of sources

Educate ourselves about educating ourselves

3 of 16

5 (really 4) Criteria for evaluating sources

4 of 16

CURRENCY

    • CURRENCY – Dates matter!

​

    • When was this published?
    • Is this good for historical background? Or is this trash?

5 of 16

RELEVANCE*

  • How closely connected ideas are to each other.

​

  • What does this source tell you that helps!?
  • Can this help answer your research question?

​

  • *If it’s not relevant, don’t use it.

6 of 16

AUTHORITY

    • Authority - author/publisher have credentials to validate what they are writing about:
    • they have extended education, work experience, proven research, etc.

​

    • What type of source is this?
        • Blogs-Forums or is this from a research-based organization?
    • Who is the Author? Why do they matter?
        • http://climatefacts.org/

BEST

  • Actual Researchers, Professionals
  • Journalists
  • Someone authoritative talking about something they don’t have expertise in.
  • Random folks on the internet

WORST

7 of 16

ACCURACY

    • ACCURACY – Source represents factually correct info, AND looks at ALL relevant facts, not just the ones that defends their perspective.
    • Does this info check out?
    • What things are missing?

8 of 16

PURPOSE (or perspective)

    • Purpose - the reason the information exists,

​

    • Who funds this source? Why?
    • Why was it published? To inform, to persuade?
    • What outlook or tendency does this author/organization have? Is the information fact? opinion? persuasion?

9 of 16

REFLECT!

    • Currency
    • Relevance
    • Authority
    • Accuracy
    • Purpose

10 of 16

Can we have it all?

    • Authority - author/publisher have credentials to validate what they are writing about: they have extended education, work experience, proven research, etc.
    • Purpose – Reason something was published/outlook.
    • Currency - date published
    • Accuracy - Source represents factually correct info, AND looks at ALL relevant facts, not just the ones that defends their perspective.

11 of 16

3 Questions

From the great John Green

    • Who is behind this info?
      • Look at authors and organizations
    • What is their claim? What is their evidence?
      • Check their sources? Follow the links and citations.
    • What do other sources say?
      • Do some lateral reading

12 of 16

Spectrum of online sources

INFORM

  • Pure data, no spin: Gov data, research reports
  • Professional/Trade Journals: Science, Smithsonian, The Economist
  • Credible Reporting: NEWS Fox, CNN, NPR, NYTimes, TIME, Wall Street Journal. Avoid fringe news sites, or at least fully disclose where the info came from.

PERSUADE

  • Authoritative Opinion: Hey! Even credible people have opinions too.
  • Interest Sites: NRA, Greenpeace, Heritage Foundation, NEA

WHO KNEW!?

Everything else… Blog posts or Social Media: Not always wrong or misleading, but I wouldn't be following life advice from a user named "Garbageeater1791"

13 of 16

4 Criteria

    • Authority - author/publisher have credentials to validate what they are writing about: they have extended education, work experience, proven research, etc.
    • Purpose – Reason something was published/outlook.
    • Currency - date published
    • Accuracy - Source represents factually correct info, AND looks at ALL relevant facts, not just the ones that defends their perspective.

14 of 16

Evaluation scale

    • Authority
      • F = Random person on the internet,
      • A = Authoritative business professional, researcher, or scholar.
    • Perspective
      • F = Totally biased and manipulative towards their own ideas.
      • A = Intended only to inform public of facts so they can make their own judgements. As unbiased as possible.
    • Currency
      • F = I found this research article in a trunk of my great grandfather’s things!
      • A = I was published recently based on the subject matter
    • Accuracy
      • F = No sources cited, obviously false or unsubstantiated information
      • A = All sources listed and references are from outside, credible sources

​

15 of 16

Here’s an example

HTTPS://WWW.NPR.ORG/SECTIONS/THETWO-WAY/2016/11/23/503129818/STUDY-FINDS-STUDENTS-HAVE-DISMAYING-INABILITY-TO-TELL-FAKE-NEWS-FROM-REAL

16 of 16

NPR Evaluation

    • Authority - B-. This is a single journalist reflecting on a single study. It stays focused, but this is one person’s interpretation of the data from what what seems to be a decent research study. If I was looking for a true authority, I should just read the study myself.
    • Purpose – C. NPR is a reliably credible news site, but this particular article is frim a blow blog, a news blog, but still a blog. Definitely some strong opinion coming through, so I can't say that it's only meant to inform, but it's also upfront about what their claim is and where their evidence comes from.
    • Currency – B. A quick search found more recent studies, but I’m betting student ability to decipher real from fake news hasn’t changed much in 5 years.
    • Accuracy - C. Some definite qualified (might) opinion: “If the children are the future, the future might be very ill-informed.” Good summary about study though. It’s not a complete picture of the issue as I found articles about this issue in adults too. But it doesn’t make itself out to be an article about adults. It focuses clearly on students.