The explosion of information available to students is due partly to the Internet. Even though print sources thrive (1,000 books are published worldwide every day and all printed knowledge doubles every five years,) the Internet outgrows traditional resources exponentially. It hosted 2.5 billion documents in October of 2000, with a projected growth of 7.3 million pages per day (Jungwirth & Bruce, 2002).
The information glut that results has changed the typical student’s approach to academics. In a study of thirteen hundred college students from eight academic institutions, results showed that students used the Internet for an average of 100 minutes a day. Approximately 10 percent were classified as dependent (allowing Internet usage to interfere with social activities or sleep) and averaged 229 minutes a day (Anderson, 2001). Since research is a required component of academic coursework, the use of the Internet has changed student practice. According to Scott and O’Sullivan’s study of 309 high school students, 42% of Internet users did research online and of those, 74% conducted research by utilizing search engines (2000).
Lorenzen conducted a study and found that high school students used the Internet for research because there were a variety of formats, sites implemented visual aids, there was diverse subject coverage, and research was easy to conduct with search engines (2000). Browne added that students found advantages in finding sources not available in print, the convenience of researching at any time from any place, and the interactivity of many sites (2000.)
Using the Internet academically carries what educators perceive as advantages: stimulation of creativity, greater spontaneous interest in learning, increased attention span and concentration, search for more extensive knowledge, cooperation among students, learning as continuous research, and widened arenas of interaction (Todd, 1998.) Teachers have been encouraged to expand curriculum to incorporate the use of the Internet. Like Langford (2001), many believe that “Industrial Age schooling must crumble and give rise to a more student-centered, goal-oriented, caring environment, which fosters active involvement and risk taking, and ongoing personal mastery” (p. 18).
Yet, with the use of the Internet for research, new challenges are arising. According to Jamie McKenzie, “Conducting the old topical research with electronic information is a bit like pedaling a tricycle on the Interstate” (p. 29). Students now must deal with aspects of information gathering and processing that did not concern any previous generation. Confronted with vast amounts of data, they must learn that data differs from knowledge and that the context in which knowledge is created must be divorced from mere fact (Mutch, 1996). They must also realize that the Internet provides neither knowledge nor information, but mere data. The ease with which they find information is “not directly proportional to its quality as research” (para. 13, Browne, 2000). They must learn to wade through info-glut; a search with the word Mayflower will bring up 22,000 Web pages, one-third of them referrals to restaurants and hotels (McKenzie, 1998).
Another challenge facing students is finding and recognizing factual accuracy. An alarming conclusion of Lorenzen’s study was that students have few skills to determine validity in information (2000). They erroneously believed that a search engine was a screen for quality, only displaying reputable sources. In Todd’s study, he found that most students did not understand Net search engines and were confused by differences in systems. They did not easily recognize key words in their topics. They had poorly developed skills in determining quality and utility of information (1998). While a majority of 1,693 students surveyed thought that only 50-70 percent of what was on the Internet was true, they did not possess strategies for testing validity (Block, 2002). Todd pointed out that indicators of credibility (authorship, origin) were not available on some sites, that sites that looked authentic seemed plausible, and that information often stood without functional content or meaningful context (it was isolated data), which tended to mislead researchers (1998).
An additional problem is digital plagiarism. It is too easy to cut and paste from Internet documents, or to download papers. In one instructor’s class, students admitted that six of ninety papers were downloaded from the Net (Gardiner, 2001). He encourages and educates teachers to be cybercheat savvy and to track down plagiarism. Demanding and checking a detailed list of resources is one way instructors can deter copying. Some instructors use sites developed to track plagiarism. They can type or scan in a paragraph and a search engine determines exact matches to available material. As more resources become available to cheaters, more resources to track cheating are created.
Other challenges brought up by students were; it was time consuming to track down usable sites, the information was unregulated and unorganized, there were too many irrelevant sites, and it was frustrating trying to distinguish between legitimate and questionable sources (Scott & Sullivan, 2000).
Confronted with the complications of student research on the Internet, teachers have three choices: refuse students access to the Web, limit access to approved sites, or teach students information literacy skills (Shiveley & VanFossen, 1999). The last is the most responsible choice. Curriculum must be expanded to train students to be good consumers of information, critical thinkers, and cybersavvy researchers. Asselin and Lee contend that these skills can, and should, be taught (2002). Their project, using teacher education courses rich with information literacy pedagogy, resulted in increased belief that research skill curriculum could be developed and implemented.
McKenzie (1998) suggested that students be taught to be infotectives, thinkers
capable of turning data into information and information into insight. In
the smokestack school, teachers imparted meaning for students to regurgitate;
in the information age school, students sort, sift, weigh and arrange knowledge
with their own intellects and experiences. She called for schools to teach
students how to:
Ø Recognize what’s pertinent
Ø Form essential questions
Ø Be ready to alter course
Ø Ask for help when needed
Ø Screen garbage
Ø Sort data
Ø Navigate through opinion and soft data
Ø See what’s missing
Shiveley and VanFossen outlined several criteria that helped students make
wise decisions in research. They taught students to evaluate:
Ø Authorship/Source
Ø Objectivity/Bias
Ø Validity
Ø Bibliography/Reference
Ø Currency
Ø Quality of writing
Block taught students to check what other sites linked to the one they were examining, thus getting an idea of legitimacy (2002). Lorenzen (2000) found that information literate students knew to look at Web URL extensions, realizing that .gov, .org, and .edu extensions were often more reliable. They also looked for mistakes in spelling as clues that the site was not legitimate. He told of one student, however, who discredited a site because it contained too many misspellings, not realizing that the site originated in England and used common British spellings. He found, however, that younger students trusted sites with many graphics and even college students concluded a site was accurate if it looked good and appeared to be professional.
Browne believed that education must include skills to determine a web site’s purpose, distinguish propaganda, recognize perspective, and test credibility by cross-referencing (2000). Piper (2000) contended that students must be trained to recognize sites that were counterfeit (disguised as legitimate sites,) parodies (satirical imitations,) or fictitious (false information.) Even libraries must change to accommodate learners’ increasing gravitation to electronic sources, putting more resources online and transferring print sources and literature to digital format (Smith & Phillips, 1999). Libraries must also be instrumental in teaching new research skills.
Todd (1998) presented six learning dilemmas that must be addressed by modern
schools:
Ø Poorly designed research tasks
Ø Lack of understanding of search engines
Ø Weak search skills (to broaden, narrow, or refine searches)
Ø Lack of ability to judge quality
Ø Inability to construct personal understanding of ideas
Ø Frustration with copious amounts of information and decreased productivity
Whether it is in the classroom, the library, or the home, today’s students must be given skills to help them use the Internet more effectively in research tasks. Sequential, organized, and structured curriculum must be implemented to produce information and technology literate students. Without it, students will flounder in the sea of available information.
References
Anderson, K. (2001). One-tenth of college students are dependent on the Internet, research finds. Monitor on Psychology, 32 (5).
Asselin, M. and Lee, E. (2002). I wish someone had taught me: Information literacy in a teacher education program. Teacher Librarian, 30 (2), 10-17.
Block, M. (2002). Gullible’s travels. School Library Journal, 48 (15), 12-14.
Browne, N. (2000). The importance of critical thinking for student use of the Internet. College Student Journal, Sept.
Gardiner, Steve. (2001). Cybercheating: A new twist on an old problem. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (2).
Jungwirth, B. and Bruce, B. (2002). Information overload: Threat or opportunity? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45 (5), 400-406.
Langford, L. (2001). A building block: Towards the information literate school community. Teacher Librarian, 28 (5), 18-21.
Lorenzen, M. (2000). The land of confusion? High school students and their use of the World Wide Web for research. Michigan State University. http://www.michaellorenzen.net/
McKenzie, J. (1998). Grazing the Net: Raising a generation of free range students. Phi Delta Kappan, Sept.
Mutch, A. (1996). No such thing as…information resource management. Management Decision, 34 (7), 58-62.
Piper, P. (2000). Better read that again: Web hoaxes and misinformation. Searcher, 8 (8).
Scott, T. and O’Sullivan, M. (2000). The Internet and information literacy: Taking the first step toward technology education in the social studies. The Social Studies, 91, (3), 121-125.
Siveley, J. and VanFossen, P. (1999). Critical thinking and the Internet: Opportunities for the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 90 (1), 42-46.
Smith, C. and Phillips, C. (1999). Are our academic libraries ready for the Internet Generation? Cause/Effect, 22 (1).
Todd, R. (1998). From Net surfers to Net seekers: WWW, critical literacies, and learning outcomes. Teacher Librarian, 26 (2), 16-21.