PED 103 104 Information Literacy Assignment Students Name: Kaitlyn Smith Due: March 11th Purpose: Students

will demonstrate their information literacy skills by accessing wellness-related information

using technology to retrieve and evaluate web-based sources.

Justification: Gathering research, today, has become increasingly more convenient due to the volume of
information that can be found on the internet. Wellness information is literally at your fingertips if you have internet access and a search engine. However, anyone can publish on the internet including individuals, organizations, educational institutions, companies, and government agencies (to name a few). Most of the information provided on the internet is not reviewed or evaluated for accuracy or credibility. The novice researcher may take for granted that the information provided is true, simply because it is published on the internet. Therefore, having the skills and a set of criteria for evaluating internet sources can transform the novice researcher into an experienced researcher and improve the quality and credibility of their research. Often in searching the internet many sites provide a general overview of a topic and can be considered to have generally reliable information although these resources may not meet the criteria of academic research. Academic research, defined as information appropriate for citing in a research document, requires that the researcher apply more stringent criteria as outlined below

DEFINITIONS OF EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR ACADEMIC RESEARCH: Authority Authority is the single most important criteria in evaluating a website. If a person is named as author,
look for credentials which include advanced degrees, additional publications, and association with a university or professional organization. If there is no individual author, try to establish the expertise of the organization or agency usually on an About Us page. Look for a board or panel or some peer review team or editorial structure. Look for evidence of research, and professionals as members or contributors. Websites within domains .edu, .gov, or .org tend to have the strongest authority; .com, .net and other commercial domains tend to have less authority.

Accuracy Ascertain the correctness and reliability of the information. Compare the websites content to
information in other sources you might start with your textbook. Look for a list of References indicating the sources consulted by the author or publisher the most credible sources have verifiable References. Look for links to other websites that meet these evaluative criteria and offer relevant information.

Objectivity Factual information based on research is most reliable. Beware of personal prejudice, emotional
appeals or bias favoring one side of an issue. Endorsement or sale of commercial products should be minimal. Funding sources should be easily determined.

Currency Websites that are up-to-date and frequently revised are more credible. Check dates of publication and
last-update. Information within the fields of medicine and science should be no more than 2 years old. Links that do not work generally are indicative of outdated resources and lack of web site maintenance.

Usability Move around the site to see if the navigation tools enhance or inhibit the gathering of information. To
be useful for academic research, topics should be adequately developed, treating issues comprehensively. Language should be understandable to an educated adult.

Assignment procedure: Step 1: Save this document to your computer or storage device. Step 2: Check Canvas for an Inbox message from your instructor regarding the website (url) you are assigned to
evaluate.

Step 3: Read and follow the directions for completing the website evaluation. Make sure that you complete the table below and answer the conclusion questions below the table. Save the document to your computer. Step 4: Submit your completed evaluation in the designated assignment area for librarian feedback. In order to get
feedback on your evaluation it must be submitted no later than one week prior to the due date. Make sure the assignment includes the website you were given to evaluate. If you want more than just electronic feedback, you may request a face to face or phone conference when you submit your evaluation.

*Step 5: Access the feedback from the librarian assigned to you. Your instructor will know who has completed
step 4 of this process.

Step 6: Revise and finalize the assignment and submit it in the assignment area in Canvas that is designated for
final grading. This assignment MUST be submitted electronically. *If a student fails to participate in a conference an automatic 20% grade reduction will result.

Part A: The evaluation process: In the table below you will find a set of criteria and series of questions for
each. Use the criteria below to evaluate the website assigned to you. Complete the table below and answer the two conclusion questions below the table. Attach your completed document as directed above. Make sure you are evaluating the website as a whole. The internet source (url) must be provided accurately to allow for verification.

Provide website url here: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/lung/

Authority:

Yes

No

Explain response

Is the author clearly identified?

Is data included about the author/information provider? (i.e. about us) Is the author affiliated with a relevant professional institution/organization? Is the author qualified to write on this subject? (i.e. credentials)

x x x

Does the url (address) give you clues to the authority of the source?

Website represents National Cancer Institute database, uses in-text citations where necessary About NCI page, Directors Page National Cancer Institute Director Harold Varmus, M.D., biography and previous positions held included Material on .gov websites is peerreviewed, often

Would you be able to contact someone at this website? Is there evidence of quality control? (i.e. peer reviewers, editorial staff)

written by experts Phone number provided, live online chat Most pages include date last modified, but editorial staff unclear
Explain response

Accuracy:

Yes

No

Are references provided to determine where the information was obtained from? Is the information easily verifiable? How?

In-text citations

Is the information dependable and error-free?

Is there a clear purpose for the internet site?

Are links to other sites relevant and valuable?

Links provided with in-text citations to most sources Site regularly updated, sources given, correct information The website is meant to be highly informative Links to other health and cancer-related websites
No Explain response

Objectivity:

Yes

Is there evidence that suggests bias?

Does the information being provided appear to be based on facts? Does the site offer anything for sale?
Currency:

x
Yes No

No evidence of corporate sponsors, advertisements or things for sale Statistics and sources given, up-todate information Nothing for sale
Explain response

Are you able to determine when the information was first written? Are you able to determine when the information was first posted to the web? Are you able to determine when the material was last updated? Do all of the links work and are they up-to-date? x x

Links provided dont say when info was first written Date provided on page Most pages include date of last site modifiction All links worked while browsing the site

Does the organization or person hosting the resource appear to have a commitment to ongoing maintenance and stability of the resource?
Usability:

Harold Varmus, M.D., co-recipient of a Nobel Prize for studies of the genetic basis of cancer
No Explain response

Yes

Can you easily read and understand the information on the site?

Is the site organized in a logical manner to facilitate the location of information? Does the site have a well-labeled table of contents? Are the pages uncluttered and cleanly designed?

x x x

Are the navigation buttons consistent throughout the website? Are the links clearly and accurately described?

Concisely written, definitions provided for difficult medical terminology Very organized and easy to navigate Multiple drop-boxes, well-organized Clean color scheme, easy to read and follow text Taskbar used to navigate the site on every page Clearly labeled and information reflects label

Part B: Conclusions: Based on the evaluation process, respond to questions 1 & 2 found below. 1. What is your overall impression of the website you evaluated? Is it a source of valid, reliable and credible information and one you could use to further your general knowledge of the topic? Use the information you gathered in the chart and discuss the five criteria to support your argument. My overall impression of the cancer.gov website was that, like the majority of other .gov websites, it is clearly organized, with relevant and accurate information. While the actual author of the website is not clearly identified, the website is meant to represent the National Cancer Institute database, and all provided information is cited with direct links to the source. The NCI Director, Harold Varmus, M.D., began his tenure as NCI director in 2010, after previously serving as President and Chief Executive Officer of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center as well as Director of the National Institutes of Health. This shows he is a good fit for the position of Director and is very knowledgeable about the subject. Most pages include information about

the last time it was modified or when it was added to the site, but the editorial staff are either not listed or are just difficult to find. All information provided comes with in-text citations complete with links to the source, as well as a live online chat service where you can chat online with a representative who can answer questions. The site also provides definitions of the more advanced medical terminology, which takes the target audience into consideration and makes navigating the site and understanding the information much easier. As far as objectivity, The National Cancer Institute is a federal agency and receives its funding from the government. There are no corporate sponsors, advertisements or things promoted for sale on the website, which suggests minimal probability of biased information. The website is very user-friendly as well, free of distracting color schemes, graphics and unnecessary visuals. The information is clearly organized, and all links to other pages and outside sources are up-to-date and working as far as I could tell.

2. Information that may be included in academic research requires the researcher to apply more rigorous criteria than one might use to gain some knowledge about a topic. Using the Definitions of Evaluative Criteria for Academic Research (above) and your responses in the chart to support your argument, discuss whether you feel this site meets sufficient criteria to cite in a research paper or project. Why or why not? I believe that the cancer.gov website provided meets the criteria to cite in a formal research paper or project. The information provided includes direct links to the source (mostly other .gov websites), and because it is meant to represent the database of a federal institution, it leaves little room for bias or opinion to distort it. The Live Help Chat feature on the website could also be particularly useful if you are working on a research paper or project, because it provides you an opportunity to chat with a representative who can answer any questions you have. Most pages of the website include dates when the information on that page was last modified or added. All of them have been updated recently (within the last few years), which

means the site is being regularly monitored and kept up to date. Overall, I think the source goes above and beyond the criteria for an adequate source, providing more than enough accurate information on a variety of topics. The authority of the website is The National Cancer Institute, a respected and trusted organization that has made wonderful strides in cancer research. However, the actual authors of most of the information on the website are not identified. The information is accurate and free from bias, advertisements or products for sale. The information provided is also current, with the pages being updated regularly. Finally, the website is very easy to use and navigate. If anyone wanted to go back and check this source after seeing it in a research paper, it would be easy for them to find where you got your information on the website.