Thing 6 - Digital Citizenship

Digital Citizenship

1.)

Joyce Valenza

Evaluation is based on 4 aspects:
1. Content
2. Authority/Credibility
3. Bias/Purpose
4. Usability/Navigation

I chose Clones R Us to critically evaluate. The site is pretty obviously a joke but I ran it through the evaluation criteria because all of the other sites were unavailable. Already removed by someone somewhere or not renewed due to their bogus nature.

·          CREDIBILITY / AUTHORITY (author) The author of this site is Dream Technologies. When searched it appears that there may actually be a Dream Technologies but it turns out to be leading one deeper and deeper into stranger and stranger information.

·          ACCURACY (verified through other sources?) Clones? Cloning solutions? This information does not appear to match cloning information found at trusted sources. i.e. The University of Utah at learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloning

·          The U of Utah site turns out to be a great teaching tool website when it comes to genetics and cloning.

·          RELIABILITY (view or bias, selling a product?)It appears to be pure conjecture and ridiculousness.

·          RELEVANCE (does this info support my hypotheses?)No way. Every sentence is odd.

·          DATE (when was this created?) 1997. Really? Not too many websites back then.

·          SOURCES BEHIND THE TEXT (what sources does the author use?) It claims that even their biggest competitors don’t have websites.

·          SCOPE AND PURPOSE (why was this page created? Does it support my hypotheses?) If my hypotheses was that bogus websites were out there and poorly done – yes.

Activity Reflection: running through these sites proved a bit tedious. As noted above I found only one on Valenza’s list that I could access that was obviously bogus. There was the “Do Not Call” site however and I am still stumped by this. The address is .gov and the links go to the Federal Trade Commission. The information sounds good but the “look” of the site is not well-designed. That however is certainly not proof in itself. I need some further insight on this one before I use it with other teachers or librarians.

Aligned to the NETS-T: 1.b, 2.a, 2.b, 3.a, 3.d, 4.a, 4.b, 4.c

2.)

The Netiquette Quiz was written very well. I did not pass however. Not because I am rude online but I did not know some things such as “scrolling” and I don’t test well. I would like to share this simple piece with the librarians that I work with who in turn could quiz their classes or their teachers with a short demonstration using this quiz. To further the lesson with the readings/links provided would enhance and reinforce the netiquette rules. Adding to these rules and creatively posting them on paper/poster or on blog sites would be an excellent way to reinforce as well.

Aligned to the NETS-T: 1.b, 2.a, 2.b, 3.a, 3.d, 4.a, 4.b, 4.c

Connections to Marzano Strategies: Objectives and Feedback; Generating and Testing Hypothesis