EDUC 701Discussion Board Forums InstructionsYou will parti.docx

EDUC 701
Discussion Board Forums Instructions
You will participate in 5 Discussion Board Forums during this
course. Each forum will be completed in 2 parts: a thread
addressing the instructor’s prompt (at least 400 words) and 2
replies (at least 200 words each) to other classmates’ threads.
Two appropriate citation references must be made in current
APA format in each thread. First person is allowed in your
posts.
Title the subject line of your replies “Reply to John Smith,”
“Reply to Jane Doe,” etc. This will ensure that it is clear to
whom you are replying. Also, note that responses such as “I like
what you said,” “That is a good comment,” and “I disagree with
your comment” do not count as complete replies in and of
themselves. Rather, state why you liked or disliked a peer’s
thread, present additional thoughts or ideas, and provide
alternative ideas/thoughts when you disagree.
Courtesy in any disagreement is expected; see the Student
Expectations for more information on proper online etiquette.
One of the goals of the Discussion Board Forums is to
encourage student community learning; thus, not every
Discussion Board Forum will have a comment from the
instructor. Rather, the instructor will respond to a few posts in a
way that adds to the conversation, asks a pertinent question, or
summarizes some of the key points made by yourself or a
classmate. Note that deadlines and other guidelines are meant to
encourage optimal dialogue and demonstration of critical
thought.

See the Discussion Board Forum Grading Rubric for further
details.
Submit each thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the
assigned module/week, and your replies by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on
Sunday of the same module/week.
1
Center for Writing Excellence
© 2009-2010 Apollo Group, Inc. All rights reserved
Creating an Outline
An outline helps you arrange the order of ideas in a paper.
Many students eliminate outlining in
the writing process as an unnecessary step. However, writing an
essay without an outline can
create disjointed results. An outline provides a roadmap so that
the essay can move smoothly
from point A to point B to point C. Without an outline, the
essay could easily become
disorganized, e.g., A, B, A, C, B. This can confuse readers
because the points of the essay are not

arranged in correct sequence. Use the following suggestions to
create an effective outline.
Creating Correct Formatting
The following information will help you format an outline
correctly:
of the sections in
the outline. If you have only
one element, however, you can add additional information to
create at least two points.
the outline. If the first word
begins with a noun, the first words in all other elements in that
section must also begin
with nouns. If the first word is a verb, the other elements must
begin with verbs, etc.
Be consistent on using
spaces or tabs throughout. (See the sample outline below.)
single spacing throughout
and double space between each of the major elements (I, II, II).
h number or letter in the

outline. Also capitalize proper
nouns, but do not capitalize the other words.
Using the Thesis Generator to Produce an Outline
You can construct an outline by using the Thesis Generator
located in the Center for Writing
Excellence. The Generator automatically creates an outline
based on the information you
provided to write the thesis sentence (the Thesis Generator
works best with persuasive writing).
After the Generator creates your thesis, use the following steps
to create an outline:
1. Click on the button marked Generate an Outline in the lower
right corner, and a draft
outline will appear.
2. Retype the outline from the Generator into a Word document
or use the print option on
the bottom right corner to print the outline (the outline will not
copy and paste easily into
a Word document) before clicking the next button because the
Generator does not save
the outline.
http://corptrain.phoenix.edu/thesis_generator/thesis_generator.h
tml

2
3. Refine the outline by filling in other appropriate details to
make it more precise.
Remember that the more specific you make the outline, the
easier it will be to write the
paper.
Writing the Outline without the Thesis Generator
Use your brainstorming notes and the following steps to create
an outline for your essay without
using the Thesis Generator. Please read steps 1 through 4
before beginning your outline.
1. Type each of the major elements of the thesis sentence into a
document using Roman
numerals (I, II, III, etc.). Appropriate information can then be
placed in the outline as
listed below.

2. Insert capital letters under each major element and write the
main ideas of the essay: I.
A., then I. B., etc.
3. Add numbers under each letter to insert additional details:
A. 1., A. 2., etc.
4. Include any supplementary material in lower case letters
under each number: a., b., etc.
See the sample outline under II. F. Social Change 1. Paulo
Freire and 2. John Dewey to
see an example of formatting.
5. Write the paper based on your outline.
6. Review the outline after writing the paper to be sure that the
paper is organized correctly.
This step is part of the rewriting process.
3

Sample Outline
Use the following as a model to create your outline. If
directions from your instructor differ from
the explanations or example here, follow the guidelines of your
instructor.
Philosophy of Adult Education
I. Introduction
II. Primary purpose for education
A. Acquisition of knowledge
B. Skills development
1. Job training
2. Technological advancement
C. Intrinsic motivation
D. Development of social relationships
E. Career advancement
F. Social change
1. Paulo Freire
a. Liberating force of education

b. Community change and support
2. John Dewey
a. Students as “agents of change”
b. Integrated learning
III. Adult learning style
A. Self motivation
1. Internal rewards
2. Self-direction in learning
B. Previous experiences
4
C. Learning activities
1. Meaningful
2. Collaboration

IV. Conclusion
Heather,
This sample outline represents the most common outline format.
Additional outline format information can be found in
The Gregg Reference Manual (this is an optional resource for
students). Faculty standards for outlines submitted for a
grade may vary. The faculty member’s own standards will
prevail in the event that the standards differ from this sample.
February 2011
Web site credibility: Why do people believe
what they believe?
Marie K. Iding Æ Martha E. Crosby Æ Brent Auernheimer Æ
E. Barbara Klemm
Received: 3 October 2008 / Accepted: 16 October 2008 /
Published online: 27 November 2008
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract This research investigates university students’
determinations of credibility of

information on Web sites, confidence in their determinations,
and perceptions of Web site
authors’ vested interests. In Study 1, university-level computer
science and education
students selected Web sites determined to be credible and Web
sites that exemplified
misrepresentations. Categorization of Web site credibility
determinations indicated that the
most frequently provided reasons associated with high
credibility included information
focus or relevance, educational focus, and name recognition.
Reasons for knowing a Web
site’s content is wrong included lack of corroboration with other
information, information
focus and bias. Vested interests associated with commercial
Web sites were regarded with
distrust and vested interests of educational Web sites were not.
In Study 2, credibility
determinations of university students enrolled in computer
science courses were examined
for 3 provided Web sites dealing with the same computer
science topic. Reasons for
determining Web site inaccuracy included own expertise,
information corroboration,

information design and bias. As in Study 1, commercial vested
interests were negatively
regarded in contrast to educational interests. Instructional
implications and suggestions for
further research are discussed.
Keywords Web site credibility � Web evaluation � Critical
information evaluation �
College students � Credibility determinations � Web site
veracity
Preliminary results from Study 1 were presented as a poster
entitled ‘‘Users’ Confidence Levels and
Strategies for Determining Web Site Veracity’’ (Iding et al.
2002a) and appeared in associated proceedings
for The WWW 2002: The Eleventh International World Wide
Web Conference, in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Preliminary results from Study 2 were presented as a paper
entitled, ‘‘Judging the Veracity of Web Sites’’
(Crosby et al. 2002) and appeared in associated proceedings for
the International Conference on Computers
in Education (ICCE 2002) in Auckland, New Zealand.
M. K. Iding (&) � M. E. Crosby � E. Barbara Klemm
College of Education, University of Hawaii, 1776 University
Ave, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Auernheimer
California State University, Fresno, USA
123
Instr Sci (2009) 37:43–63
DOI 10.1007/s11251-008-9080-7

Introduction
Since the advent of the World Wide Web, the general public has
become increasingly
reliant on the Web for information. Upon what bases do people
evaluate information on the
Web? How do students and others determine what is credible or
scientifically accurate? Do
they consider factors like commercial or vested interests of
authors? What aspects
contribute to their judgments?
A recent article in Nature (Giles 2005) magazine highlights
aspects of the issue by
comparing the accuracy of science information in Wikipedia, a
Web-based encyclopedia
to which the general public can contribute, to that of
Encyclopedia Britannica, long
considered the accepted standard. Articles from both sources
were sent to experts in
their respective fields without identifying information sources.
The experts then rated
the accuracy of the encyclopedia entries. The following
conclusion was published in
Nature: ‘‘The exercise revealed numerous errors in both
encyclopedias, but among the
42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly

great: the average
science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies;
Britannica, about three’’
(p. 900).
Despite the fact that Nature’s conclusion could be considered
favorable to Wikipedia,
Giles (2005) anecdotally highlights the controversial aspects of
its open authorship process
by describing the efforts of Wikipedia contributor Connolly, a
British climate change
researcher. Connolly’s descriptions of global warming were
repeatedly edited and coun-
tered by ‘‘climate change skeptics.’’ Finally, Wikipedia
administrators mediated the
repeated editing and counter-editing by opposing contributors.
Although the Nature article received wide press, the issue of
information accuracy on
the Web is of concern in many areas including medical,
commercial, and educational
realms. In this article, we define credibility, provide illustrative
examples of research
examining information accuracy or credibility judgments in
these three areas, and present
two studies in which university students from education and
computer science classes
evaluated the credibility of information on Web sites.

What is credibility?
In work by Klemm et al. (2001), credibility is associated with
information accuracy or
veracity, and with reputation of Web site authors or institutional
affiliations (Klemm et al.
2001). Fogg et al. (2002) provide a concurring definition of
credibility in the context of
Web site evaluation:
Credible information is believable information….People
perceive credibility by
evaluating multiple dimensions simultaneously. In general,
these dimensions can be
categorized into two key components: trustworthiness and
expertise. The trustwor-
thiness component refers to the goodness or morality of the
sources and can be
described with terms such as well intentioned, truthful, or
unbiased. The expertise
component refers to perceived knowledge of the source and can
be described with
terms such as knowledgeable, reputable, or competent. People
combine assessments
of both trustworthiness and expertise to arrive at a final
credibility perception (p. 9).

In general, this definition provides a useful operational or
working definition for
credibility to serve as a foundation for examining credibility
research in different
disciplines.
44 M. K. Iding et al.
123
Health care and the Web
An area of particular concern is the public’s acceptance of
medical or health care infor-
mation on the Web. To what extent do users accept as credible
health care information they
find on the Web? Benotsch et al. (2004) investigated adults with
HIV and their determi-
nations of Web site credibility. The authors describe positive
aspects of obtaining medical
information on-line: ‘‘For patients with chronic and life-
threatening conditions, the Internet
can serve as a source of hope, social support, and
empowerment’’ (p. 1004). Further, the
authors point out it can be a source of up-to-date treatment
information.

However, Benotsch et al. (2004) argue that the Digital Divide
results in more educated
persons of higher socioeconomic status (SES) having access to
the information, and
possessing reading skills and comprehension of basic medical
terminology that enables
them to more successfully evaluate the credibility of the
information. In contrast, less
educated persons of lower SES backgrounds are clearly at a
disadvantage.
In their study, they compared the credibility determinations of
persons with HIV to
those of medical professionals. The Web sites they used for
evaluation included an article
describing treatments for HIV from the Journal of the American
Medical Association
(JAMA) and a less reputable article from a site describing a
supposed cure involving goat
serum extraction.
Results indicated that persons with HIV attributed higher
credibility to both sites than
did health care professionals. Furthermore, the more literate and
knowledgeable partici-
pants (regarding HIV treatments) tended to rate the JAMA site

more highly than did
participants with less knowledge and lower literacy levels. As
Benotsch et al. (2004)
explain:
The present findings…suggest that some patients do not always
evaluate online
information critically and may be vulnerable to misinformation.
The nature of the
AIDS epidemic in the United States is such that educationally
and economically
disadvantaged groups are increasingly affected by HIV. Such
persons are among the
least equipped to critically evaluate the information they
receive on-line (p. 1009).
Compounding the seriousness of these findings is the fact that
participants with HIV
trusted their physicians most highly as the source of information
about health care, then
they information from the Web secondly. The authors conclude
that, ‘‘Individuals most in
need of information concerning HIV—those who would most
benefit from the opportu-
nities the Internet affords for learning new information may also
be the most vulnerable to

misinformation or to unethical peddlers of sham cures sold via
the Internet’’ (p. 1009).
Kalichman et al. (2006) subsequently provided a 2 month
intervention focusing on
basic computer and ‘‘Internet information consumer skills’’ (p.
545) for persons with HIV/
AIDS. Participants learned critical information evaluation
skills, and used the Internet
more to locate health information and for social support than
did the control support group.
These findings indicate that instruction can be effective for
those with particular healthcare
information needs and specific vulnerabilities.
In other research, Escoffery et al. (2005) found that 74% of the
undergraduates they
surveyed found health information on the Internet. While it may
seem that undergraduates
would be more similar to the more highly literate and educated
participants in the Benotsch
et al. (2004) study, other research by Metzger et al. (2003)
indicates that although college
students appear to be aware that information from the Web (not
specifically health care
information) may not be highly credible, they tend to verify it

less than do members of the
general public. It may be that this finding reflects different
purposes for information
Web site credibility 45
123
retrieval. Perhaps college students finding information for
course assignments are less
likely to be concerned about credibility than about simple
relevance; whereas it may be
that more highly educated and literate people may engage in
verification processes if the
information is associated with high levels of importance and
could be associated with
potentially costly or disastrous outcomes if wrong, such as may
be the case in deciding
upon a health care treatment.
Consumers and the Web
Another area in which people are vulnerable to inaccuracy or
non-credibility of Web-based
information is consumerism. In a large-scale study, Fogg et al.
(2002) examined 2,684

consumers’ responses to credibility of Web sites in a number of
content areas, including
e-commerce, finance, health, entertainment, sports, travel, and
news. They found that
consumers’ reasons for making actual credibility determinations
were different from what
they said their reasons were for making these determinations
(reasons were reported in an
earlier study by Princeton Survey Research Associates 2002).
The authors explain, ‘‘We found a mismatch, as in other areas
of life, between what
people say is important and what they actually do’’ (p. 6). For
example, when asked
generally what factors they would consider in making Web site
credibility determinations,
consumers listed considerations like the presence of a privacy
policy. In actual practice,
they found that people rarely if ever referred to these criteria in
making determinations.
Instead, the authors found that credibility judgments (in terms
of reasons people gave for
making their decisions) focused first upon ‘‘design look’’ (i.e.,
‘‘elements of the visual
design, including layout, typography, white space, images, color

schemes’’ p. 24).
Other factors that were commented upon by consumers most
frequently included
‘‘information structure’’ (i.e., how the information was
structured upon the Web site) and
‘‘focus’’ (i.e., depth and breadth of information). It appeared to
the authors that there was a
difference between making credibility judgments about
information on the Web and ‘‘what
people notice when they evaluate a Web site for credibility’’ (p.
7).
Stanford et al. (2002) carried out another study, in which they
examined credibility
judgments of 15 experts in the areas of health and finance and
compared their determi-
nations to those of the consumers in the earlier study. They
found that, in contrast to
consumers, health experts rated the following factors most
highly in determining Web site
credibility: ‘‘name reputation of a site, its operator or its
affiliates,’’ ‘‘information source,’’
or references and ‘‘company motive’’ (p. 4). Finance experts
focused on ‘‘information
focus,’’ ‘‘quantity of information,’’ and ‘‘company motive’’ (p.

4).
Stanford et al. (2002) conclude by calling for research that
examines credibility judg-
ments in other content areas. They also propose that consumer
education in credibility
assessment is essential, a conclusion that would concur with
educators’ perspectives
as well.
Flanagin and Metzger (2007) examined people’s credibility
determinations in response
to Web sites in e-commerce, special interest, news
organizations, and personal Web sites.
They found that personal Web sites were rated lowest and news
sites the highest. Like
Fogg et al. (2002), they found that design aspects of sites had a
greater impact on credi-
bility determinations than knowledge of Web site sponsors.
Flanagin and Metzger (2007)
also found a discrepancy between self-reports of behavior and
actual behavior, with those
reporting that they had engaged in extensive Web verification
actually verifying infor-
mation less than others.

123
Work by Tormala and Petty (2004) highlights aspects of
credibility of information
sources, and while not dealing directly with Web-based
information sources, applies
directly to this topic. Their research is important because it
addresses peoples’ certainty of
their attitudes and the link to possible behavior after exposure
to persuasive arguments
from expert and non-expert sources. For example, in an
experiment investigating partici-
pants’ responses to advertising for a fictional aspirin,
participants received information
about the product and listed their own counterarguments against
it. Findings indicated that
‘‘Participants became more certain of their attitudes when they
resisted persuasion from an
expert source, as long as they had sufficient cognitive resources
available (presumably to
reflect on the implications of their resistance)’’ (p. 434). The
same effect did not occur

when the persuasion was associated with a non-expert source. In
a second experiment
involving a fictional proposed change to a university
examination policy, they found that
‘‘participants’ attitudes became more predictive of behavioral
intentions after they resisted
a persuasive attack from an expert source’’ (p. 438). The
implication is that people become
more convinced that what they believe is true when they resist
weak arguments from high
credibility sources. This may have implications for those who
design Web sites and the
degree of thoughtfulness with which they present information
on those sites.
Research in education
One of the general themes emerging from all of this research is
the need for relevant
education. Education can take the form of providing guidelines
on the Web for evaluating
Web-based information in particular areas, or in instructional
interventions. In addition to
educating k-12 and college students, it is also important to work
with pre-service and
practicing teachers who will be responsible for facilitating

critical credibility determination
skills in their students.
Klemm et al. (2001) were particularly interested in how
scientists and pre-service
teachers evaluated information sources. At that time, the
authors’ interest was in the
credibility of sources generally, not only in Web-based
resources, because of the current
trend in k-12 science instruction away from textbook-based
instruction and toward more
constructivist modes that incorporate multiple resources. It
appeared that the lack of ref-
ereeing of many of these sources left credibility judgments up
to teachers and students
themselves, more so than ever before, when textbooks were
assumed to be definitive
sources upon which entire curricula were based.
Klemm et al. (2001) investigated credibility associated with a
whole range of infor-
mation sources (31) that might be utilized by teachers and
others including tradebooks,
CNN, TV newsmagazines like 20/20, a scientist working on a
research question, and

information from the World Wide Web. In order to provide a
more veridical task, a context
for credibility determinations was provided: the area of
assessment of risks. Results
indicated that pre-service teachers and scientists differed on
assessing the credibility of the
majority of the information sources. Elementary pre-service
teachers (with fewer required
science courses) were less like scientists in their determinations
than secondary science
pre-service teachers. To illustrate, scientists selected ‘‘scientist
researching the risk topic in
question’’ as the highest in credibility; secondary teachers rated
the same category as fourth
in credibility, and elementary pre-service teachers rated this
category as eleventh in
credibility.
Additionally, pre-service elementary teachers selected the
following two categories as
having the highest levels of credibility: ‘‘popularized science
magazines (e.g., Discover)’’
123

and ‘‘resources from a museum, aquarium, or nature center.’’
Other information sources that
were rated by elementary pre-service teachers as having high
levels of credibility included
‘‘CNN Cable News Network,’’ ‘‘weekly newsmagazines (e.g.,
Times, Newsweek, etc.),’’ and
‘‘TV News Magazine (e.g., 20/20 or Dateline).’’ This high
regard for the credibility of the
popular media was not shared by scientists, who gave such
programs as ‘‘TV News Maga-
zines’’ very low ratings. As a scientist explained, ‘‘I place the
most confidence in individuals
with good judgment and broad experience whom I am
acquainted with. This option isn’t
listed. I have the least confidence in rapid turn-around sources
(e.g., local television and
newspapers that demonstrate a consistent lack of judgment and
experience’’ (p. 89).
Despite disagreements about the credibility of popular media,
there were some sources of
concurrence. For example, all three groups rated the following
sources highly: ‘‘resources
from university cooperative extensions (e.g., Sea Grant, Coop.
Agriculture, etc.’’ and

‘‘Resources from a museum, aquarium, or nature center.’’ From
an educational perspective
this is encouraging, yet the research indicated a great need for
education in informed
credibility judgments for educators, the general public, as well
as students in all areas.
In response to the need for education in this area, Iding et al.
(2002b) investigated the
effects of instruction upon credibility judgments. For example,
in an initial instruction-
oriented study, they worked with high school seniors enrolled in
two biology classes over
4 days. The authors were interested both in factors contributing
to high school students’
judgments as well as the effects of instruction on their ability to
make informed decisions
about the credibility of Web sites and the information contained
in Web sites.
As a pretest, the authors asked students to describe
characteristics that they consider
when deciding to use a Web site generally, then when deciding
to evaluate scientific
information on a Web site. Next, instruction was provided in
three aspects of Web eval-

uation, including ‘‘credibility of authors and institutions,
validity or accuracy of
information…and presentation aspects…of the Web site and its
information’’ (p. 376).
These characteristics were adapted from Rader (1998) and Farah
(1995) and used in the
work of Nguyen (2000).
Students’ lists of criteria were more complete after instruction,
and ‘‘the majority of
students reported learning something new, indicated that they
would spend more time
evaluating scientific information on Web sites, and reported
increased confidence in their
ability to evaluate scientific information on the Web’’ (p. 373).
Iding et al. (2002b) concluded that it is possible, in a relatively
short amount of time, to
impact students’ Web assessment skills in a positive fashion.
However, the authors were
aware of the brevity of this instruction and the need for a longer
course of instruction and
follow-up evaluation to determine whether long-term transfer
would be affected.
In yet another study, Iding and Klemm (2005) worked with pre-
service teachers who

identified criteria that they used for determining whether they
would cite scientific
information from a Web site, critically evaluated actual
scientific Web sites, then created
structured evaluation forms (i.e., rubrics) for their students to
use in critical Web site
information evaluation. Students did not agree on the credibility
of the science Web sites,
even the NASA site.
The present studies
All of the reviewed research underscores the need for effective
Web-based information
credibility determination skills among the general public. The
issue is particularly
important, as with the exponential proliferation of information
on any topic on the Web,
123
people become the arbiters of information accuracy—in domains
in which they are
knowledgeable and in domains in which they are not. How do
people make these deter-

minations? Do they consider potential biases and vested
interests of Web site authors as
they determine whether information is acceptable and accurate,
believable, or not?
The studies that follow address these questions. Specifically,
the credibility determi-
nations of university students in different disciplines,
education, and computer science, are
investigated as they make determinations of credibility of
various Web sites related to their
disciplines, rate confidence in their own determinations and
articulate Web site authors’
vested interests.
Study 1
In the first study, the authors investigated credibility judgments
of two groups of university
students: computer science students and education students. The
authors were interested in
students’ judgments of characteristics they associated with
credible Web sites and Web
sites they determined to be non-credible. The authors were also
interested in the students’
confidence in their own credibility judgments and in their

determinations of Web site
authors’ vested interests.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 84 university students. Forty-seven
students were enrolled in a
computer science class, 21 in an educational psychology class,
and 16 in a science methods
class.
Materials and procedure
One of the authors, a computer science instructor, developed an
exercise related to Web
site selection and evaluation that was relevant to a topic
covered in his class, cleanroom
software engineering. The exercise was presented on a
worksheet. In the exercise, students
collaborated in small groups to select Web sites relevant to the
topic.
They were instructed to ‘‘Select a Web site that your group
feels gives the most accurate
and objective representation of cleanroom software
engineering.’’ They explained why

they selected that site, and described the author’s vested
interests. They were also
instructed to ‘‘Select a Web page that your group feels
illustrates a misconception (or leads
to a misconception) about cleanroom software engineering.’’
They explained the follow-
ing: why this site illustrates a misconception; whether they
thought the misconception was
due to a deliberate attempt to mislead or to a mistake; and, what
they believed this author’s
vested interests were. In the next section of the exercise, they
were asked, ‘‘How do you
know when a Web site’s content is wrong?’’ Next, they were
asked to answer the following
questions as a group:
On a scale of 1 (no confidence) to 5 (complete confidence), how
confident are you about
detecting misrepresentations on Web sites in general?
On the same 1–5 scale, how confident are you in detecting
misrepresentations in the
particular Web site you [selected earlier].
123

Finally, each student answered the following questions
individually:
On a scale of 1 (no competence) to 5 (complete competence)
scale, how competent are
you in evaluating the validity of information about cleanroom
software engineering?
On the same 1–5 scale, how competent are you in evaluating the
validity of information
on the Web in general?
The exercise was modified to be content-appropriate for the
education classes, so that it
focused on science, technology and society (STS) for the
science methods class and
collaborative teaching project topics (such as motivation and
multicultural education) for
the educational psychology class. In the educational psychology
class, instructions were:
‘‘Your task is to find information about the topic that your
group has selected for the in-
class cooperative teaching project.’’ Examples of topics
included classroom management,
special education, multicultural education, and motivation.

Students were instructed to
‘‘Select a WWW page that your group feels gives the most
objective and accurate rep-
resentation of your topic.’’ They were also instructed to ‘‘Select
a Web page that your
group feels illustrates a misconception (or leads to a
misconception) about your topic.’’
For the science methods class, students were instructed to
‘‘Select a WWW page that
your group feels gives the most objective and accurate
representation of your STS topic.’’
Examples of topics included ‘‘whale migration and
environmental influences’’ and ‘‘genetic
profiles.’’ As in the other groups, students were instructed to
‘‘Select a Web page that your
group feels illustrates a misconception (or leads to a
misconception) about the STS topic.’’
All other questions about reasons for accuracy determinations,
vested interests, confi-
dence and competence were the same for these students as those
asked of the computer
science students.
Coding

Two of the authors collaboratively coded students’ written
comments in response to each
question. Each separate statement that represented a major idea
was coded, and frequencies
were calculated for each category. The coding scheme serving
as the basis for content
analysis consisted of categories that emerged from the data and
categories that were
adapted from the work of Fogg et al. (2002). (Categories
adapted from the work of Fogg
et al. 2002, are indicated in Tables 1, 3, and 5).
Results and discussion
The authors coded participants’ responses to the question,
‘‘Why did you pick this Web
page?’’ (See Table 1 for categories and results). Notably, the
primary reason was infor-
mation focus, or relevance. As one group explained, ‘‘Because
it gives you the right
information.’’ Another wrote, ‘‘Gave a detailed description of
the cleanroom approach.’’
Other comments indicated that the amount of information
affected their choice: ‘‘Extensive
selection of previously done cleanroom projects.’’ ‘‘It had
detailed descriptions and history

of cleanroom software engineering.’’
Secondly, participants were interested in Web sites that
appeared to be focused on
providing educational information, or having an educational
purpose. Name recognition
was also important, as one group explained, ‘‘Carnegie Mellon
is a famous educational
institution.’’ Another wrote, ‘‘It is made by IBM and we figured
that since they are such a
successful company that they would be a creditable [sic]
source.’’
Other reasons included references used in the site, information
design, and design look.
To differentiate between information design and design look,
comments like the following
123
characterized information design, ‘‘The design had serious
thought behind it which I
credited to the Author’s over all effectiveness presenting the
topic.’’ Information look was

reflected in comments like, ‘‘Looks well set out.’’ Additional
reasons are listed above are
self-explanatory. Bias was used to characterize comments such
as ‘‘Also discusses possible
‘down-sides’ to the technique.’’ Finally, a comment indicating
corroboration referred to
‘‘external reviewers from Lockheed Martin.’’
In the next question, participants were asked, ‘‘What are the
Web site authors ‘vested
interests’?’’ Their responses are summarized in Table 2. Since
participants were searching
for objective and accurate Web sites, it is unsurprising that they
described educational
vested interests most frequently. The commercial vested
interests of some Web site
authors, the second most frequently described category was
unexpected in association with
these highly credible Web sites, as participants expressed
general suspicion of the motives/
accuracy of commercial Web sites in other parts of the exercise.
In the next question, participants were asked, ‘‘How do you
know?’’ These answers (in
Table 3) appeared to be more indicative of participants’
reasoning processes in deter-

mining Web site authors’ vested interests. We found that
students were most likely to
detect commercial interests of authors. This was shown in
comments like, ‘‘There is a link
to their products and services….’’
Table 1 Study 1: Participants’ responses to question: Why did
you pick this Web page?
Categories Frequency
Information focus
a
27
Education 10
Name recognition
a
8
Links 6
Commercial interest/bias 5
Reference 4
Information design
a
4

Currency of information
a
4
Design look
a
3
Expertise 2
Bias
a
2
Corroboration 1
Other 1
a
Indicates categories adapted from Fogg et al. (2002)
Table 2 Study 1: Participants’ responses to question: What are
the Web site authors’ vested interests?
Education 14
Commercial 9
Other 5

Persuasion 3
Research and development 2
Name recognition*/promotion 1
*Indicates categories adapted from Fogg et al. (2002)
123
Secondly, they mentioned indications of educational vested
interests. These comments
were especially interesting, as some participants appeared to
associate educational motives
with absence of vested interest, or what appeared to be
objectivity or absence of bias. As
one group stated, when asked what the author’s vested interests
were, ‘‘None? It’s an
educational source—ERIC.’’ In response to the next question,
they said, ‘‘because it say
[sic] it’s from ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.’’
Another group stated, ‘‘It
appears that the authors’ do not have some alterior [sic] motive
behind their presentation,
but instead are just trying to educate people on the cleanroom

software process.’’ When
asked, ‘‘How do you know?’’ they elaborated, revealing a
negative bias against sales
interests, ‘‘First off, there are no banners or pop-up ads. This is
usually a big clue that the
presenter doesn’t really care about the content and is just trying
to sell you something.’’
It seems that educational vested interests were regarded as
acceptable, while com-
mercial-related vested interests were regarded with suspicion.
The suspicion related to
commercial interests seemed understandable but the
unquestioning acceptance of educa-
tional interests is a promising area for further research.
Participants seemed to not consider
possible persuasion and/or political vested interests that can
underlie educational Web
sites. However, participants could have been more likely to
have demonstrated awareness
of persuasion or political vested interests had we selected
controversial topics for them to
examine.
Participants also mentioned authors’ motives in sharing their
own experiences with the

cleanroom technique, i.e., personal testimony, and mentioned
other aspects that would
typically be associated an expression of vested interests (e.g.,
persuasion, and name rec-
ognition/reputation). They commented on whether authors
appeared to provide a balanced
presentation of benefits and drawbacks to the cleanroom
technique or a one-sided per-
spective. Some participants examined links to other sites as
well. Finally our participants
(of a notably smaller sample) were less likely than participants
in the Fogg et al. (2002)
study, to mention ‘‘design look,’’ which in the present study
was referred to as ‘‘infor-
mation design.’’
Participants also responded to the question, ‘‘How do you know
when a Web site’s
content is wrong?’’ (See Table 4). The category of responses
with the highest frequency
was, ‘‘corroboration,’’ or the tendency of the Web site’s
information to contradict users’
knowledge about the topic or to not agree with other known
information accepted as valid

Table 3 Study 1: Participants’ responses to question: How do
respondents know about Web site authors’
vested interests?
Commercial 7
Education 5
Personal testimony 5
Affiliation 5
Name recognition/reputation
a
3
Links 3
Other 3
Persuasion 2
Information bias
a
or unbiased 2
Information design
a
2
a

123
(e.g., Web sites, etc.). This is reflected in comments like, ‘‘We
try to verify it with another
unbiased source.’’ ‘‘You test what they are saying against a
source you are sure is cred-
itable [sic] and compare.’’ ‘‘Generally the validity of a Web
site’s content comes into
question when the design personal knowledge/experience
contradicts what is being pre-
sented on the Web site….’’
Information focus was also associated with discrediting a Web
site’s information. This
included insufficient information: ‘‘They don’t have a lot of
facts to back up the
information.’’
An awareness of bias was reflected in comments like, ‘‘When
the Web sites seems very
narrow minded and only seem to present one way to do it and
that must be the right way.’’
Confidence and competence in Web site evaluations

Students provided self-ratings in the following areas, which
were generally high: confi-
dence about detecting misrepresentations on Web sites in
general (M = 3.56, on a 5-point
scale), confidence about detecting misrepresentations on the
Web site that they had
selected as exemplifying misrepresentations (M = 3.43),
competence in evaluating the
validity of information on their group’s topic (M = 3.57), and
competence about evalu-
ating information on the Web in general (M = 3.43).
It is important to note that these ratings were elicited only to
provide general indications
of participants’ levels of certainty of their determinations
around credibility. Thus, the
ratings do not permit analyses of confidence calibration
(Liberman and Tversky 1993;
Lundeberg et al. 2000) or discrimination (Lundeberg et al 2000;
Lundeberg et al. 1994).
To determine whether computer science or education students
had higher self-ratings,
we ran one-way ANOVAs with grouping as the independent
variable and self-ratings for
detecting misrepresentations on the Web in general and on
evaluating the validity of

information on the Web. We expected computer science students
to have higher ratings,
Table 4 Study 1: Participants’ responses to question: How do
you know when a Web site’s content is
wrong?
Corroboration 13
Information focus
a
10
Bias
a
8
Expertise 6
Reference 6
Information design
a
4
Name recognition
a
/affiliation 4
Inaccuracy 3

a
2
Information clarity
a
2
Commercial interest 2
Tone
a
2
Other links 1
Other 1
a
123
since we assumed that they work with Web sites more. There
were no significant differ-
ences between groups on detecting misrepresentations on Web
sites in general, or on

evaluating the validity of information on the Web in general.
Conclusion
Findings from Study 1 highlighted contradictions between what
some students viewed as
credible and others did not. Students appeared to maintain some
confusion about Web site
authors’ vested interests, an area that should be investigated
further, as users need to make
determinations about impetus behind presentation of
information on Web sites, and possible
biases of Web site authors, even if the Web-based information
is educational in nature.
Study 2
Study 2 was carried out to further examine computer science
students’ determinations of
credibility, vested interests, and confidence in own ratings. In
this study, students were
provided with three Web sites regarding cleanroom procedures.
Method
Participants
Participants were 25 students in graduate-level computer
science courses on human

computer interaction and information technology.
Materials and procedure
The authors developed a survey for use in the present study. In
the survey, participants
were provided with three Web sites on the topic of
‘‘cleanroom’’ procedures for software
development. These Web sites were chosen from the students’
selections of credible Web
sites and ones containing misrepresentations from Study 1
(some of the same Web sites
that had been selected as credible and accurate by some
participants in that study had also
been described as inaccurate by other participants).
The first Web site was geared toward business and contained
advertising. The author of
the first Web site was a software consulting service specializing
in cleanroom software
engineering. The cleanroom approach was briefly described,
followed by several para-
graphs outlining the consultants’ services. The layout of the
page was spare, with few
graphics, and the customary menu of links down the left side.
A university professor developed the second Web site. It used

no graphics at all, and
consisted almost exclusively of links to the author’s
descriptions and examples of clean-
room software development.
The author of a widely used software engineering textbook
developed the third Web
site. It also used no graphics. This site was a mixture of text
and links to additional
cleanroom software engineering sites. A heading at the top of
the site says ‘‘A collection of
Web-based and print resources that will help you understand
and explore many different
software engineering topics.’’ A list of cleanroom books, and a
link to Amazon.com, is at
the bottom of the page.
123
In the worksheet, cleanroom engineering is briefly defined:
‘‘The cleanroom technique
supports software engineers designing and developing near-
zero-defect software. Using the

cleanroom techniques, software engineers certify the quality of
software, MTTF (mean
time to failure) in particular. MTTF is a significant part of end-
users’ overall satisfaction.’’
The instructions explained that respondents were not expected
to be experts on cleanroom
techniques or Web design, but would be asked to give their
opinions on whether the Web
sites that followed were deemed to be ‘‘objective and accurate
representations of clean-
room software engineering…or mistaken and purposely
misleading.’’ They were asked to
explain why, then asked to rate their confidence in their
categorizations on a scale of 1 (no
confidence) to 5 (complete confidence). They were also asked to
describe each author’s
vested interests or motivation.
At the conclusion of the survey, participants were asked to
‘‘Think about Web sites in
general and answer the following questions: How do you know
when a Web site’s content
is wrong? On a scale of 1 (no confidence) to 5 (complete
confidence), how confident are
you about detecting misrepresentations on Web sites in general?
On the same 1–5 scale,

how competent are you [in] evaluating the validity of
information on the Web in general?
On a 1 (no competence) to 5 (complete competence) scale, how
competent are you
evaluating the validity of information about cleanroom software
engineering?’’
Coding
All written responses were coded collaboratively according to a
content analysis scheme
developed by two of the authors, and based in part on the
scheme used in Study 1 (see
categorization scheme in the tables below). Categories emerged
from the data and others
were adapted from the work of Fogg et al. (2002), as they
applied to the present data. Each
separate statement that was determined to represent a complete
idea was coded, and
frequencies were computed for each category. Subcategories for
negative and mixed (both
negative and positive) comments were also coded.
Results and discussion
Were Web sites objective and accurate, mistaken, or purposely
misleading? Participants

determined whether each Web site was objective and accurate,
mistaken, purposely mis-
leading, and other. Table 5 shows the frequencies for accuracy
ratings for each Web site. It
is interesting to note that the majority of answers for the Web
sites overall were in the
objective and accurate category. Web site 1 (the most obviously
commercial site) had the
most distributed answers. It had the lowest number (10 or 40%)
of ‘‘objective and accu-
rate’’ answers, while 10 comments indicated that participants
thought the Web site was
‘‘purposely misleading’’ and 2 comments considered it
‘‘mistaken.’’ Web site 2 (the edu-
cational Web site) had 14 comments (or 56% of comments)
placing it as ‘‘objective and
Table 5 Study 2: Accuracy ratings for clean room Web sites:
frequencies and percentages
Web site 1 commercial Web site 2 educational Web site 3 mixed
Objective and accurate 10 (40%) 14 (56%) 17 (71%)
Purposely misleading 10 (40%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%)
Mistaken 2 (8%) 5 (20%) 2 (8%)
Other 3 (12%) 5 (20%) 3 (13%)

123
accurate,’’ yet only 1 comment indicated it was ‘‘purposely
misleading,’’ while 5 com-
ments deemed it as ‘‘mistaken.’’ Web site 3 (another
commercial Web site) had 17
comments in the ‘‘objective and accurate’’ category, although 2
comments suggested it was
‘‘purposely misleading,’’ and 2 indicated it was ‘‘mistaken.’’
For both of the commercial
Web sites, but particularly Web site 1, the participants
attributed an intention to purposely
mislead to the Web site. However, when they rated the
educational Web site, the partic-
ipants were more trusting of the Web site designers’ intent and
tended to categorize errors
as mistakes.
After rating the specific Web sites, participants wrote responses
to the general question,
‘‘How do you know when a Web site’s content is wrong?’’ The
authors coded the major

themes that emerged from this data, which are depicted in Table
6. Notably, the category
with the largest number of comments was about whether users
believed they had expertise
in the content area addressed by the site. The next largest
category of comments was about
corroboration, or whether information agrees with what the user
already knows or with
other information that can be found. Finally, participants
commented on other issues
presented such as poor design, bias, problems with references,
non-working links, lack of
clarity, inaccuracy and sales pitches.
Some participants related strategies that they use for
determining Web site accuracy.
One explained, ‘‘I frequently check multiple Web sites when
searching for information, or
rely on trusted sites such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, MIT,
SourceForge, NY Time-
s.com, etc.’’ Another said, ‘‘By reading the first three
paragraphs and subtitles of Web
sites.’’
Others raised issues about accuracy in general. As one said, ‘‘In
reality, I don’t [know

when a Web site is wrong]. The only way that I know is by
trying to figure out the
Table 6 Study 2: Reasons for knowing Web site information is
inaccurate
Category Frequency for category selection
Expertise of user 12
Corroboration 11
Information design
a
6
Information bias
a
4
References 4
Information clarity
a
4
Information focus
a
4
Information accuracy

a
3
Directory to other links 3
Affiliations
a
2
a
2
Performance on test by user
a
2
Design look
a
2
Readability
a
1
Commercial/sales 1
Motive of organization
a

1
Not sufficient links 1
Total 63
a
123
motivation for the site and to cross-check information across a
number of sites with
varying motivations.’’
Another participant raised a similar point, ‘‘There is really no
way of knowing that a
Web site’s content is wrong, unless I personally know that there
is a mistake or inaccuracy
in the content based on my own knowledge or experience. The
same is true for any book I
may check out of the library or the newspaper I read every day.
Generally, people tend to
believe everything that they see in print, but as an educated
human being, I know that this
is not always the case. So, just as I need to watch out for

inaccuracies in a book or
newspaper, I also need to use the same caution when reading a
webpage.’’
Finally, a participant raised an issue worth considering, ‘‘The
last site’s extensive
references to high quality ‘third party’ sites made it seem very
credible. This makes me
wonder if we can always be sure of the quality of referenced
sites. In addition, how would a
typical Web surfer even be sure that the referenced sites weren’t
merely sites produced by
the authors of the original site, designed to mislead and
manipulate?’’
Reasons for accuracy decisions In addition to making
determinations of Web site
accuracy, participants were asked to provide reasons for their
answers. Reasons were coded
Table 7 Study 2: Reasons for Web site accuracy determinations
Web site 1 Commercial 2 Educational 3 Mixed
Commercial/sales 12 (10N) 0 4 (4N)
a
6 (5N)
b

6 (2N) 3 (1N)
Information usefulness
a
6 (5N) 3 (3N) 1
Not sufficient links 4 (4N) 2 (2N) 4 (4N)
Design look
a
2 (1N) 3 (2N) 1 (1N)
Expertise of user 2 1 0
Information bias
a
4 (3N, 1M)
c
6 (3N) 5 (2N, 1M)
Information clarity
a
4 (1N) 9 (4N, 1M) 2 (1N)
Information design
a
3 (1M) 2 (1N) 3 (1N)
Educational 2 (1N) 6 4

Readability 2 (1M) 1 0
a
1 (1N) 1 (1N) 1 (1N)
Directory to other links 0 0 7
References 0 1 8
Motive of organization 0 0 0
a
0 1 2 (1N)
Corroboration 0 0 0
Affiliations
a
0 4 0
Personal testimony 0 4 0
Functionality of site 1 1 (1N) 0
Information focus
a
0 0 3 (1N)
Totals 49 (31N, 3M) 51 (19N, 1M) 48 (17N, 1M)

a
b
Indicates negative comment
c
Indicates negative and positive comment
123
according to the general scheme described earlier. (See Table
7.) Subcategories of negative
and mixed comments were also calculated.
One of the most notable findings was the range of discrepant
reasons for accuracy
decisions given by participants. For example, with respect to
Web site 1 (the commercial
site), 10 of the accuracy ratings (Table 5) had indicated it was
objective and accurate,
while 10 of these ratings had rated it as mistaken or purposely
misleading. In examining
reasons for the ratings (Table 7), those who regarded the Web
site as purposely misleading

frequently referred to the sales aspect in describing it (12
comments fell into this category,
10 were negative). As one participant stated, ‘‘I believe this site
is purposefully misleading
because they are selling and basically provide no information
about what the cleanroom
software development really is. They attempt to provide the
visitor with the feeling that
this technique is necessary in order to sell themselves.’’
In contrast to the suspicion associated with commercial
interests, the next largest cat-
egories in terms of kinds of reasons for accuracy ratings were
about information accuracy
(6 comments in total; 5 were negative) and information
usefulness (6 comments; 5 neg-
ative). One participant made a positive comment about
accuracy: ‘‘I believe this Web site
is accurate and objective, because the ideas presented are
cogent and unambiguous. I
checked the links and the same observations are true for the
material introduced there as
well.’’ Commenting about the accuracy of the same site, another
respondent stated, ‘‘It
doesn’t tell me what percent of defect—they say ‘nearly defect

free—’ (Not accurately
conveying info[rmation]).’’ These contrasting perspectives on
accuracy could reflect dif-
fering levels of familiarity with software engineering
procedures, or more simply, different
perspectives on the same information.
Respondents also made comments about information usefulness,
such as, ‘‘The web site
didn’t give any details to describe how cleanroom software
engineering works and what
are the advantages compared to other software engineering
methods no[r] any example to
show how successful[ly] to implement this technique.’’
Other reasons for determinations fell into categories including
insufficient links (4
negative), bias (4 comments; 3 negative; 1 mixed), clarity (4
comments; 1 negative), and
information design (3 comments; 1 mixed). This site had the
highest number of comments
that could be categorized as negative (31).
With respect to Web site 2, the educational site, 14 (56%) of
accuracy ratings (Table 5)
had associated it with the ‘‘objective and accurate’’ category.

Most of those who selected
this category associated their reasons (Table 7) with the
educational nature of the site (6
comments) and 6 of other comments had to do with accuracy (2
were negative). As one
respondent cautiously stated, ‘‘I don’t really know how accurate
it is, but I would believe
that it is for the most part accurate and legitimate since he is
coming from an academic
background and not selling anything. It certainly does not seem
to be purposely
misleading.’’
Several commented on personal testimony present in the site (4
comments). These
comments were all positive. As one respondent explained,
‘‘From what I read he seems to
know what he is talking about. One particular quote helped to
convince me that he is happy
using the CleanRoom product and appears to be an honest
person. The quote is ‘For the
first time in my long career, I can honestly say that I have some
confidence that my code
will run correctly in most cases.’’’

A high number of comments were about information clarity.
Four were positive, 4 were
negative, and 1 was mixed. Positive comments mentioned clear
explanations, ‘‘cogent and
unambiguous’’ ideas; whereas negative comments mentioned
aspects of user confusion
generated by specific kinds of information left out of the site.
123
Finally, although Web site 3 (educational combined with
commercial) had the highest
number of accuracy ratings (Table 5) describing it as objective
and accurate (17 or 71%),
participants were mixed in their reasons as well. As one stated,
‘‘The site links to outside
information extensively, and while much of it appears to be
related, I was uncomfortable
with the lack of original content. The link to IBM seemed
completely unrelated to
classroom techniques, and made me very nervous about the site
overall. Also, broken links
to bibliographic information contributed to this feeling.’’

In contrast, another said, ‘‘I believe that this Web site is
objective and accurate. It is
very informative and contains a lot of details, references,
suggested readings and links to
other related sites. This site clearly explains what the
Cleanroom Software Engineering
approach is, the history, methods, tutorials and even more.
Explanations are scientific,
logical and abundant. I feel that this site is honest and
trustworthy.’’
Although this site had more objective and accurate ratings than
the other sites, it had 17
negative comments associated with it, which was close to the 19
negative comments
associated with Web site 2.
Web site authors’ vested interests For each of the three Web
sites, participants were
asked to describe the authors’ ‘‘vested interests.’’ Their
comments were coded and the
frequencies are shown in Table 8. As expected, the primary
category for Web site 1, the
commercial site, was commercial/sales (23 comments or 74%),
and for Web site 2,
the educational Web site, was educational (21 comments or

72%). Finally, Web site 3, the
mixed site, was described by 13 comments (45%) as
educational, 10 comments (34%) as
commercial/sales, and 4 comments to serve as a directory to
other links. Although par-
ticipants were clearly aware of the commercial vested interests
associated with Web site 1,
and educational vested interests associated with Web site 2,
they appeared divided about
Table 8 Study 2: Categories of comments regarding Web site
authors’ vested interests
Web site 1 commercial Web site 2 educational Web site 3 mixed
Category Frequency (percentage)
b
Commercial/sales 23 (74%) 0 10 (34%)
Educational 4 (13%) 21 (72%) 13 (45%)
Motive of organization
a
0 1 (3%) 1 (3%)
Affiliations 1 (3%) 0 0
Functionality of site
a

1 (3%) 0 0
Information design
a
1 (3%) 0 0
a
0 0 0
Not sufficient links 1 (3%) 0 0
Personal testimony 0 2 (7%) 0
Information usefulness
a
0 3 (10%) 0
a
0 2 (7%) 0
Directory to other links 0 0 4 (14%)
Design look
a
0 0 1 (3%)
Information bias
a

0 0 0
Total 31 29 29
* Indicates categories adapted from Fogg et al. (2002)
** Indicates frequency per category and percentage of total
comments per Web site
123
the nature of vested interests for Web site 3. This is particularly
intriguing, because in this
study, as in Study 1, commercial vested interests were regarded
with more suspicion than
educational interests, which seemed to be frequently perceived
as bias-free. Therefore,
those who were unaware of commercial vested interests in Web
site 3 may have associated
it with ‘‘bias free’’ determinations that participants attached to
educational Web sites in
general.
Cleanroom competence and confidence ratings As part of the
study, participants rated
their confidence in determinations of Web site accuracy for
each of the three sites. Spe-

cifically, they answered the question, ‘‘On a scale of 1 (no
confidence) to 5 (complete
confidence), how confident are you about your categorization
and answer above?’’ Mean
ratings were similar for the Web site 1 (commercial site) (M =
3.76) and Web site 2
(educational) (M = 3.74), and were higher for the third Web site
(M = 4.25). Since this
site received the highest number of ‘‘objective and accurate’’
ratings, it may be that the
association of the site with an academic textbook author on the
topic could have been
associated with increased confidence. However, the number of
participants in this study
was limited, providing similarly limited indications of
differences in confidence ratings.
Participants rated their ‘‘confidence in detecting
misrepresentations on Web sites in
general’’ as reasonably high (M = 3.60). Next they rated their
competence in detecting the
validity of information on the Web in general as high as well
(M = 3.71). Finally, they
rated their competence in ‘‘evaluating the validity of
information about cleanroom software
engineering’’ as lower (M = 3.06).
These findings are interpreted cautiously, as they are not tied to
actual accuracy ratings,

and have the same limitations that are described with reference
to confidence ratings in
Study 1. However, self-determinations of confidence and/or
competence may play an
interesting role in Web site credibility determinations. In
particular, university students and
others may rely more heavily on self-confidence and
competence determinations in
credibility judgments about Web resources, especially in areas
where they are just
becoming acclimated into a discipline or attaining competence
(initial stages in developing
expertise, according to Alexander’s 2003 model). This would be
an interesting area for
further research.
Directions for further research
Areas for further research could also involve examining
credibility determinations in
conjunction with levels of expertise in different disciplines and
in connection with different
tasks. For example, how do people’s strategies differ in
potentially high cost or high stakes
decision-making and in lower cost/stakes scenarios?

Other interesting directions for further research could involve
disentangling some of the
seeming contradictions involved in participants’ different
ratings of the same sites by
asking more detailed questions, for example, about links to
other sites or references.
Although it is possible that participants judged the same links
differently, it is also possible
that they visited different links. Highly controlled laboratory
studies (outside the scope of
the present research) with sample Web sites and links that are
visited by all participants
could provide further answers to this question.
Cross-cultural comparisons could add interesting information in
elucidating whether
bases for credibility determinations are the same or different,
depending upon cultural
context. Further, do these determinations vary across content
areas or disciplines?
123

Additionally, examining credibility determinations
developmentally is imperative. As
Metzger and Flanagin (2008) contend, ‘‘Although research on
credibility and new media is
burgeoning, extremely little of it focuses on youth (with the
exception of college students),
in spite of this population’s exceptional immersion in digital
technologies’’ (p. 1).
Finally, people’s determinations of Web site authors’ vested
interests should be studied
further, as it appears to be an area about which participants
know little. For example some
of these participants appeared to presume that educational
vested interests are neutral and
bias-free. It would be interesting to explore more controversial
or political Web sites than
the rather neutral cleanroom software engineering sites.
Instructional implications
Instructional implications of this work are clearly apparent.
These include teaching critical
Web site and general information evaluation skills at all levels,
practicing with actual Web
sites and actual content, and applying strategies to a range of
different kinds of content in

different areas. Rather than performing brief short-term
interventions, Web site evaluation
should be addressed repeatedly at appropriate times throughout
a school term (Iding et al.
2002b).
As Nguyen (2002) has pointed out, many k-12 teachers
mistakenly assume that critical
Web evaluation skills have already been taught, usually by
language arts teachers. Edu-
cators may also assume that directly addressing issues of Web
credibility is therefore
unnecessary. Our present research indicates that even at the
university level, improved
awareness of factors contributing to Web site and information
credibility is needed.
In addition to these suggestions, many of which merely reiterate
what is known about
effective strategy training generally, some specific
recommendations emerge form the
present research:
• Students and others need to learn to critically evaluate
information from educational
sources as critically as they evaluate information from
commercial sites. They need to

be aware that even educational materials are imbued with
biases. Simply because a site
has edu or gov attached to a URL, it certainly cannot considered
to be free of bias.
• Students also need to consider vested interests of Web site
authors. Why was the
information placed on the Web? What information is being
emphasized and what is
being left out (deliberately or otherwise)? How do presentation
aspects like layout and
design look affect what is being emphasized or de-emphasized?
Although commercial
vested interests appear to be the easiest to detect, other kinds of
influence (e.g.,
political, etc.) should be considered.
• Students need to learn effective information corroboration
skills—finding ways to
determine information accuracy by comparing it to other
information sources. The task
is more difficult in areas where we do not possess expertise, but
general critical
information evaluation skills will be helpful in these areas of
non-expertise, as we have
seen in the present research.

• Students need to check references and links.
• Students need to learn about how research is refereed in
academic fields and why non-
refereed information may be suspect.
• Students and general Internet users need to take on roles as
arbiters of information
accuracy, rather than merely as seekers of relevant information,
despite the fact that
making effective accuracy or credibility determinations may
take more time and effort.
123
Conclusion
In conclusion, this work contributes to the research on Web site
credibility by elucidating
reasons university students provide for determining that Web
sites are credible or not
credible, by studying associated self-ratings of confidence in
those determinations and by
examining participants’ understandings of vested interests of
Web site authors. This
general area of research in credibility judgments and Web site
evaluation is important as it

adds to our understanding of how people determine information
on the Web is truthful or
not, and provides a basis from which educators can begin to
develop ways to address
students’ needs for accurate and useful Web evaluation (as well
as general information
evaluation) skills.
References
Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The
journey from acclimation to proficiency.
Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.
Benotsch, E. G., Kalichman, S., & Weinhardt, L. S. (2004).
HIV–AIDS patients’ evaluation of health
information on the Internet: The digital divide and vulnerability
to fraudulent claims. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 1004–1011.
Crosby, M. E., Iding, M. K., Auernheimer, B., & Klemm, E. B.
(2002). Judging the veracity of Web sites.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in
Education (ICCE 2002) (pp. 251–252).
Escoffery, C., Miner, K., Adame, D., Butler, S., McCormick, L.,
& Mendell, E. (2005). Internet use for
health information among college students. Journal of American
College Health, 53(4), 183–188.
Farah, B. (1995). Information literacy: Retooling evaluation
skills in the electronic information environ-

ment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24(2), 127.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site
features, user attributes, and information verification
behaviours on the perceived credibility of web-based
information. New Media Society, 9, 319–342.
Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D., Marable, L., Stanford,
J., & Tauber, E. R. (2002). How do people
evaluate a Web site’s credibility: Results from a large study.
Retrieved 2 Oct 2008 from http://www.
consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-
evaluate-abstract.cfm.
Iding, M., & Klemm, E. B. (2005). Pre-service teachers
critically evaluate scientific information on the
World Wide Web: What makes information believable?
Computers in the Schools, 21(1/2), 7–18.
Iding, M. K., Auernheimer, B., Crosby, M. E., & Klemm, E. B.
(2002a). Users’ confidence levels and
strategies for determining Web site veracity. Proceedings of the
WWW 2002: The Eleventh Interna-
tional World Wide Web Conference. [CD ROM-Author index,
1–3].
Iding, M., Landsman, R., & Nguyen, T. (2002b). Critical
evaluation of scientific websites by high school
students. In D. Watson & J. Anderson (Eds.), Networking the
learner: Computers in education:
Seventh IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education
Conference Proceedings. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kalichman, S. C., Cherry, C., Cain, D., Pope, H., Kalichman,
M., Eaton, L., et al. (2006). Internet-based

health information consumer skills intervention for people
living with HIV/AIDS. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 545–554.
Klemm, E. B., Iding, M., & Speitel, T. (2001). Do scientists and
teachers agree on the credibility of media
information sources? International Journal of Instructional
Media, 28(1), 83–91.
Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1993). On the evaluation of
probability judgments: Calibration, resolution,
and monotonicity. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 162–173.
Lundeberg, M.A., Fox, P. W., Brown, A., & Elbedour, S.
(2000). Cultural influences on confidence:
Country, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
152–159.
Lundeberg, M., Fox, P. W., & Puncochar, J. (1994). Highly
confident, but wrong: Gender differences and
similarities in confidence judgments. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 114–121.
Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2008). Introduction. In M. J.
Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital
media, youth, and credibility (pp. 1–4). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Metzger, M., Flanagan, A., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College
student Web use, perceptions of information
credibility, and verification behavior. Computers and Education,
41, 271–290.
123

http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-
reports-evaluate-abstract.cfm
reports-evaluate-abstract.cfm
Nguyen, T. T. (2000). OASIS: Student evaluation methods for
World Wide Web resources. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Princeton Survey Research Associates (2002). A matter of trust:
What users want from web sites. Retrieved
2 Oct 2008 from
reports-a-matter-of-
trust-abstract.cfm.
Rader, H. (1998). Library instruction and information literacy.
Reference Service Review, 26(3/4), 143.
Stanford, J., Tauber, E. R., Fogg, B. J., & Marable, L. (2002).
Experts vs. online consumers: A comparative
credibility study of health and finance web sites. Retrieved 2
Oct 2008 from http://www.consumer
webwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-experts-vs-
online-abstract.cfm.
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and
attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of
resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
14(4), 427–442.
123

reports-a-matter-of-trust-abstract.cfm
reports-a-matter-of-trust-abstract.cfm
reports-experts-vs-online-abstract.cfm
reports-experts-vs-online-abstract.cfm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Web site credibility: Why do people believe �what they
believe?AbstractIntroductionWhat is credibility?Health care and
the WebConsumers and the WebResearch in educationThe
present studiesStudy 1MethodParticipantsMaterials and
procedureCodingResults and discussionConfidence and
competence in Web site evaluationsConclusionStudy
2MethodParticipantsMaterials and procedureCodingResults and
discussionWere Web sites objective and accurate, mistaken, or
purposely misleading?Reasons for accuracy decisionsWeb site
authors’ vested interestsCleanroom competence and
confidence ratingsDirections for further researchInstructional
implicationsConclusionReferences
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (None)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated v2 300% 050ECI051)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3

/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual
/DetectBlends true
/ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB
/DoThumbnails true
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/SyntheticBoldness 1.00
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 524288
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts false
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Preserve
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]

/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 150
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages false
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 150
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000

/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false

/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?)
/PDFXTrapped /False
/Description <<
/ENU
<FEFF004a006f0062006f007000740069006f006e007300200066
006f00720020004100630072006f0062006100740020004400690
07300740069006c006c0065007200200036002e000d0050007200
6f006400750063006500730020005000440046002000660069006
c0065007300200077006800690063006800200061007200650020
007500730065006400200066006f0072002000640069006700690
0740061006c0020007000720069006e00740069006e0067002000
61006e00640020006f006e006c0069006e0065002000750073006
100670065002e000d002800630029002000320030003000340020
0053007000720069006e00670065007200200061006e006400200
049006d007000720065007300730065006400200047006d006200
48>
/DEU
<FEFF004a006f0062006f007000740069006f006e007300200066

006f00720020004100630072006f0062006100740020004400690
07300740069006c006c0065007200200036002e000d0050007200
6f006400750063006500730020005000440046002000660069006
c0065007300200077006800690063006800200061007200650020
007500730065006400200066006f00720020006f006e006c00690
06e0065002e000d00280063002900200032003000300038002000
53007000720069006e006700650072002d005600650072006c006
1006700200047006d006200480020000d000d0054006800650020
006c00610074006500730074002000760065007200730069006f0
06e002000630061006e00200062006500200064006f0077006e00
6c006f00610064006500640020006100740020006800740074007
0003a002f002f00700072006f00640075006300740069006f006e0
02e0073007000720069006e006700650072002e0063006f006d00
0d0054006800650072006500200079006f0075002000630061006
e00200061006c0073006f002000660069006e0064002000610020
007300750069007400610062006c006500200045006e0066006f0
063007500730020005000440046002000500072006f0066006900
6c006500200066006f0072002000500069007400530074006f007
0002000500072006f00660065007300730069006f006e0061006c
0020003600200061006e0064002000500069007400530074006f0
07000200053006500720076006500720020003300200066006f00
7200200070007200650066006c00690067006800740069006e006
700200079006f007500720020005000440046002000660069006c
006500730020006200650066006f007200650020006a006f00620
020007300750062006d0069007300730069006f006e002e>
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [2400 2400]
/PageSize [5952.756 8418.897]
>> setpagedevice
EDUC 701
Discussion Board Forums Grading Rubric

Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content 70%
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not Present
Key Components- Thread/Replies
14 to 15 points
All the key components of the Discussion Board Forum prompt
were answered in the thread.
13 points
Most of the key components were addressed.
1 to 12 points
Most of the key components were not addressed.
0 points
Not present
Major Points- Thread/Replies
10 points
All major points were supported by an authoritative source.
9 points
Most major points were supported by an authoritative source.
1 to 8 points
Major points were not supported by an authoritative source.
0 points
Not present
Replies
10 points
A minimum of two different posts. Each reply expounds on the
thread and a contribution is made to the discussion with
thoughtful analysis.
9 points
A minimum of two different posts. Each reply expounds on the
thread and a contribution is made to discussion.
1 to 8 points
Less than two posts with were made with little contribution

made to discussion.
0 points
Not present
Structure 30%
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not Present
Mechanics- Thread/Replies
14 to 15 points
Minimal or no grammatical, spelling, and/or punctuation errors
are present, and the document is written in current APA format
with correct word count.
13 points
A few grammatical, spelling, and/or punctuation errors are
present, and/or errors in current APA format are found with
correct word count.
1 to 12 points
Many grammatical, spelling, and/or punctuation errors are
present, and/or errors in current APA format are found with
limited word count.
0 points
Not present
EDUC 701
Course Project: Research Questions Grading Rubric
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not Present
Qualitative

Research Question
14 to 15 points
A quality qualitative research question was submitted.
13 points
A somewhat quality qualitative research question was
submitted.
1 to 12 points
A poorly constructed qualitative research question was
submitted.
0 points
Not present
Quantitative
Research Question
14 to 15 points
A quality quantitative research question was submitted.
13 points
A somewhat quality quantitative research question was
submitted.
1 to 12 points
A poorly constructed quantitative research question was
submitted.
0 points
Not present
EDUC 701
Course Project: Research Questions Instructions
You will submit 1 qualitative and 1 quantitative research
question to the instructor. . Later in this course, you will use
your research question to write your Final Paper. There are
additional resources available in the Reading & Study areas in
Blackboard that will help you with writing a qualitative and
quantitative research question.
Tips for Developing a Quality Qualitative and Quantitative

Research Question
It is essential to develop a specific research question that holds
your interest so that you can focus your research and your
paper. For example, researching a broad topic such as “business
management” is difficult, since there may be hundreds of
sources on all aspects of business management. On the other
hand, a focused question such as “What are the pros and cons of
Japanese management style?” is easier to research and can be
covered in more depth. From the problem you have identified in
Module/Week 2, develop a quality qualitative and quantitative
research question.
Apply the following questions to your research questions to
evaluate their quality:
· Do the questions address the topic identified in Module/Week
2?
· Are the questions easily and fully researchable?
· What type of information do I need to answer the research
questions? For example, the research question “What impact
does a principal’s leadership style have on parent involvement
in the PTA?” will obviously require certain types of
information:
· Information on leadership styles
· Statistics on PTA participation
· Information about PTA participants and principal relationships
· Information about national PTA associations, national
statistics reported about principal’s leadership styles, etc.
· Is the scope of this information reasonable? (e.g., Can I really
research 30 online writing programs developed over a span of
10 years?)
· Given the type and scope of information I need, are my
questions too broad or too narrow?
· What sources will have the type of information I need to
answer the research questions (journals, books, internet
resources, government documents, and/or people)?
· Can I access these sources?

· Given my answers to the above questions, do I have quality
research questions that I will actually be able to answer by
doing research?
Use good qualitative wording for your qualitative research
question.
· Begin with words such as “how” or “what.”
· Tell the reader what you are attempting to “discover,”
“generate,” “explore,” “identify,” or “describe.”
· Ask “what happened?” to help craft your description.
· Ask “what was the meaning to people of what happened?” to
understand your results.
· Ask “what happened over time?” to explore the process.
Use good quantitative wording for your quantitative research
question. Below are 3 different types of quantitative questions.
Causal Questions
· Does the ________________ (change) in _________________
(independent variable) produce change (increase, decrease, not
affect) the _______________ (a dependent variable)?
· For example: “Does reading the Research Question
Instructions (increase) the average research paper grades in a
class?”
Descriptive Questions
· How often do ________________ (participants) do
________________ (variable being studied) at
________________ (research site)?
· For example: “How often do college students need to use the
bathroom during a test as compared to during a normal class?”
Predictive Questions
· Does ________________ (cause variable) lead to/create
_____________ (outcome variable) in ________________
(setting)?
· For example: “Does the color of a person’s hair lead to higher

grades in school?”
Format the paper in current APA format and see the Research
Question Grading Rubric for specific grading criteria.
Submit this assignment by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of
Module/Week 3.
Page 1 of 2

EDUC 701Discussion Board Forums InstructionsYou will parti.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to EDUC 701Discussion Board Forums InstructionsYou will parti.docx

Similar to EDUC 701Discussion Board Forums InstructionsYou will parti.docx (18)

More from SALU18

More from SALU18 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

EDUC 701Discussion Board Forums InstructionsYou will parti.docx