The document analyzes the reliability of the website "learning-theories.com" for academic use. It finds that the website is not very trustworthy due to an unknown website owner, anonymous article authors, the ability for anyone to post content, shallow articles, and a .com URL instead of .edu. The analysis included reviewing ads, posted content policies, and the depth of one behaviorism article. The document concludes the website should not be relied upon for academic purposes.

1. Name: Sol Miretti and Camila Sanchez Dimitrioff
Date: June 22, 2012
Can be this site be validated for a course?
Website: http://www.learning-theories.com
We analyzed this website with the purpose to see whether is reliable or not.
Analysis:
• As regards the website:
On the margins of the pages there were ads added by Google, which might lead you
to question the academic tone of the website.
The URL of the website is .com, which indicates commercial aims.
You can post new theories, so we tried to post a new theory about functional
psychology. We made a few mistakes on purpose to see if they post it anyway. But
then before sending our theory we read this:

2. The name of the person that verifies the new theories does not appear. It is no clear
who integrate this “team of volunteers.”
• Contacting the owner:
The only name that appears on the page is “Robert” who is the one you can contact,
but it is still not clear who he is.
• Validating the website:
Since we were not able to validate the owner of the website, we decided to validate
an article that deals with behaviorism. The author is anonymous and you cannot
contact him. The article is accurate but does not provide much information.
.
Conclusion:
We came to the conclusion that this website is not very trusting for academic purpose
because of:
• The author of the website is unknown.
• The authors of the articles are unknown.
• Anyone can post.
• The articles are shallow.
• The URL is .com instead of .edu