"This dissertation examines the use of dialogic discussion to improve young adolescents' ability to critically evaluate web sites. An intervention unit comprised three iterations of an instructional cycle in which students independently annotated web sites about controversial issues and discussed the reliability of those sites in dialogic discussions. Data for examining student change came from an evaluation task measure wherein students evaluated the reliability of web sites before and after the unit. A questionnaire in which students recalled site stance and authorship features for each site measured the strength of the source models that students built during the evaluation task. Students' evaluation strategies were also examined in an independent inquiry task in which they evaluated potential sources and included justifications for final source choices in an annotated bibliography. Students became more critical after the unit, and their attention to authorship and information sourcing features increased. In the post-unit source model task, students recalled more authorship features, suggesting stronger source models. After the unit, the students' approach toward evaluation was more investigative. Attention to authorship and information sourcing remained strong. Analysis of the dialogic discussions revealed authorship and information sourcing to be important foci of students' evaluation processes. In addition, the dialogue suggested that students made important shifts from reductive to flexible epistemic mindsets, as evidenced by student-driven investigation and concept revision during the discussions. The study affirms the value of attention to source features in evaluating web sites. It also affirms the use of instructional methods wherein students encounter the complexities inherent in web evaluation, especially by examining various cases that present multiple complications of reliability in shifting contexts. It suggests that repeated iterations of shared inquiry in the form of dialogic discussion may effectively shift students' critical mindsets toward a more skeptical and probing approach to web evaluation."--Pages ii-iii.
Read
