search

mozilla / webliteracymap

A collaborative effort, led by Mozilla, to define the skills and competencies required to read, write and participate on the web.
http://webmaker.org/literacy
Other
16 stars 10 forks source link

Define skills under 'Credibility' competency for v1.5 #24

Closed dajbelshaw closed 9 years ago

dajbelshaw commented 9 years ago

Credibility Critically evaluating information found on the web

See spreadsheet at http://goo.gl/R1tjj3

jgmac1106 commented 9 years ago

I would like to add:

Investigating the author or publisher of web resources

This could be worded as

Judging the author or publisher of web resources

We need to be explicit about judging the expertise, bias, and perspectives of author/publisher but I think we can capture all three in one skill.

dajbelshaw commented 9 years ago

Nice, @jgmac1106! To make this different from the others, we could have:

In addition, I think the first two skills we've identified are two wordy. How about we chop them down to the following?

jgmac1106 commented 9 years ago

Ascertaining means just identifying correct? We need them to more than just identify.

evaluating?

jgmac1106 commented 9 years ago

Decision points needed on:

Revising the first two to:

Adding and finalizing wording on:

There was also a question on the spreadsheet of:

dajbelshaw commented 9 years ago

Agree with @jgmac1106 that 'Identifying' is better than the somewhat-pretentious 'Ascertaining' ;)

I'm not sure what this question means: Do we need an an evaluation of currency skill?

jgmac1106 commented 9 years ago

That was the comment from the gSheet. Looking at publication date.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015, 7:05 AM Doug Belshaw notifications@github.com wrote:

Agree with @jgmac1106 https://github.com/jgmac1106 that 'Identifying' is better than the somewhat-pretentious 'Ascertaining' ;)

I'm not sure what this question means: Do we need an an evaluation of currency skill?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/mozilla/webliteracymap/issues/24#issuecomment-78243525 .

jgmac1106 commented 9 years ago

I am saying we need to go deeper then "identifying" if we leave it as identify you have mastered the skil when you can find the author.

Either:

jgmac1106 commented 9 years ago

Approved:

Under review:

Proposed:

xellpher commented 9 years ago

I'll again refer to the Kraken the Code tip list of what to look for when determining the reliability of a website. Kraken is a tested and approved activity for the clubs. I think the competency should reflect the skill.

The list above by @jgmac1106 covers everything except design, domain, and sale from the tip sheet. How about including:

The difficulty, I suppose, is to make an exercise that determines the criteria for a website that is 'trying to make a sale'

dajbelshaw commented 9 years ago

Thanks @xellpher! To refine the first one, how about:

I'm not sure the second wone is necessary given the other skills? I may be wrong.

jgmac1106 commented 9 years ago

I don't think "sale" is that important I think evaluating purpose and perspectives matter. Turning a profit is just one.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:55 AM Doug Belshaw notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks @xellpher https://github.com/xellpher! To refine the first one, how about:

  • Comparing and contrasting differences between types of domain names and URL structures

I'm not sure the second wone is necessary given the other skills? I may be wrong.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/mozilla/webliteracymap/issues/24#issuecomment-78917165 .

dajbelshaw commented 9 years ago

Updated the first three skills, per decision on this week's community call.

jgmac1106 commented 9 years ago

These two while different are similar and could be collapsed:

How about

I would leave out examining the url. We have that under web mechanics and while it is a skill often taught (Like in Kraken) it often leads to errors of oversimiplification, "It is a .org so it must be true."

We can included surface level markers but I would argue your url is a "technical characteristic" and already covered by the second skill. So is the publication date. Thus url and currency are already included.

If we tried to include all the metacognitive prompts from Kraken we would have too many skills, and the objectives should influence the activities more than the activities influencing the objectives.

dajbelshaw commented 9 years ago

Thanks @jgmac1106, definitely take your point about URLs being taken on face value. However, I'd argue that there's still value in looking at the URL when determining the credibility of the information presented on a web page.

The trouble with verbs such as "researching", "examining", and "finding out" is that they're either a) inherently 'wooly' or, b) become vague when applied to the current educational landscape.

I think we get to where we want to be through these four:

What do others think? I don't want to rush this, but also recognise we're bumping up against a deadline here.

jgmac1106 commented 9 years ago

I could see how purpose and perspectives to get at @xellpher goal could be included in author and publisher. I would be fine with those four if the learner has to do more than simply identify the author. we want her to consider expertise, goals, and perspectives of authors.

As written you master the skill when you say, "Doug wrote this."

So if we go with four I would say change "Identifying" to "Evaluating."

If we go with five it is:

dajbelshaw commented 9 years ago

<3 the change from "Identifying" to "Evaluating" - moves it up Bloom's Taxonomy nicely. :)

dajbelshaw commented 9 years ago

Updated first comment with defined skills from 16th March half-hour hack call. Closing this!