Internet Search Challenge

Investigate before you pass it along

2012-01-27T16:45:00.001-06:00

Thanks to my beautiful spouse, here's an excellent example of the benefits of a little fact-checking.

Unfortunately, the person who "passed along" the email encouraging my wife to consider the views of Harvard Historian David Kaiser didn't fact check it first.

The tag line reads: "By passing this along, perhaps it will help to begin the awakening of Americans to where we are headed." Perhaps you also received this from a friend or relative.

The preface to the article (which can be described as anti-Obama) includes a lot of objective facts:

David Kaiser is a respected historian whose published works have covered a broad range of topics, from European Warfare to American League Baseball. Born in 1947, the son of a diplomat, Kaiser spent his childhood in three capital cities: Washington D.C., Albany, New York , and Dakar , Senegal ... He attended Harvard University, graduating there in 1969 with a B.A. in history. He then spent several years more at Harvard, gaining a PhD in history, which he obtained in 1976.. He served in the Army Reserve from 1970 to 1976.

He is a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States Naval War College . He has previously taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams College and Harvard University. Kaiser's latest book, The Road to Dallas, about the Kennedy assassination, was just published by HarvardUniversityPress.

The article is a poster child for bias and doesn't seem to be written by a person with such impeccable credentials. That red flag prompted my wife to do some fact checking. She found the claims about David Kaiser listed above to be accurate. She also found his blog at http://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/.

Scanning the prose in the blog didn't seem to match the type of content in the email. But it was the ABOUT ME section that is most revealing:

The email circulating widely attributed to me comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler is a forgery: see snopes.com/politics/soapbox/proportions.asp.

While the email attempted to provide indisputable authorship information, it was a forgery. Two minutes worth of investigation is all the effort it took. The big step was the motivation to fact check rather than just read, believe and forward it to someone else.

Passing along that email didn't quite have the desired result.

Find 21cif.imsa.edu

2012-01-11T23:24:00.003-06:00

For years, the 21st Century Information Fluency Project was owned and operated by the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. In 2009, that all changed when the Academy decided it would no longer support the site. Its authors took over management and the resources were transferred to 21cif.com.

Until recently, the 21cif.imsa.edu link still worked, redirecting users to the new server. Since the new ownership had been in place for several years, we all felt it was time to pull the redirect from the IMSA server. So today, if you search for 21cif.imsa.edu you get "Server Not Found."

It may be a poor marketing practice to disable such a link, but in keeping with the nature of our project we want users to find us regardless. We are the top or nearly the top link in Google, Yahoo, etc. if you search for information fluency.

Our 21cif.com website is the repository for most of our resources: tutorials, tips, games, assessments, lesson plans, etc. There are thousands of free resources on the site.

Facebook is turning out to be one of our more active sites. Traffic is down to our traditional home page, but our fan base keeps growing. Dennis O'Connor is doing a good job of publishing links to our many resources through our Scoop.it magazines. If you are not already a fan of our Facebook page, consider becoming one. You'll receive a different selection of current releases. The Internet Search Challenge Blog is our other source of new and updated resources.

So back to the "Server Not Found" problem. When you encounter this during searches, what is your reaction? Does frustration set in? Do you regroup and try another route? There's almost always another route.

Challenge Question: What prompted IMSA not to support 21cif? This challenge may be solved with a combination of querying and browsing or just by browsing.

Search Challenge 001

2012-01-08T20:24:00.000-06:00

The first online Search Challenge I created was, and is, the Broadway Challenge. This has gone through a number of iterations in the past several years, as information has become easier to find with keyword queries.

The first Challenge was something like: How many times has Funny Girl been performed on Broadway? The information could not be found by merely googling Funny Girl Broadway performances. Extra effort required finding a database of Broadway shows and checking the statistics about Funny Girl. Eventually, this number could be found just with a Google search.

The next iteration required finding a page that listed the number of shows that opened on Broadway by year, starting in 1984. In time, a number of new sites appeared that satisfied this challenge, so it was hard to keep updating the correct answers.

Today I updated the challenge again. This time, the task is:

What is the earliest Broadway show for which both the opening and closing dates are published?

The earliest Broadway show can be found with a pretty simple search, but its opening AND closing dates are unknown. By the way, I had no idea that shows appeared on Broadway as early as 1732. Did you?

I wanted a challenge that required more than just a query. Keyword searching has progressed to the point that you can fairly easily find what you are looking for (whether it's accurate is another question). So the new challenge involves search strategy.

Strategic searching means that some thought goes in to where the information may be located and how to extract that information efficiently. I'll put more detailed information about that in the comments section.

If you're ready to try the challenge, here it is: http://21cif.com/tutorials/challenge/SC001/SC_001.swf

Browsing Practice

2012-01-06T21:55:00.000-06:00

Browsing takes practice.

Browsing, or surfing, is easy to do: just click a link. Using browsing to find information efficiently is not easy. Querying is almost always quicker. That being said, most searches end with browsing, homing in on desired information by clicking links and scanning.

The Zeus Bunnycam is a challenge that can be used to demonstrate the difference between querying and browsing. I've recently updated the Bunnycam challenge because Google no longer supports its subject directory, which was the basis for the browsing experience. Subject Directories make excellent (safe) playgrounds for browsing practice. The challenge now uses the dmoz.org subject directory instead.

Becoming a proficient browser involves making increasingly 'educated' guesses. The breadth of one's vocabulary directly impacts one's success, but chance also plays a large part. Much of the time it is impossible accurately to predict what link points to the desired information: an author uses a different word than you would use or the information simply isn't available.

Rather than frustrate learners with challenges for lack of information, browsing challenges that use subject directories focus on word choices: what link is most likely to get me closer to the information I need? Additionally, subject directories expose the differences between querying and searching.

Try it.

Open dmoz.org, the open directory project. Look for information on the Zeus Bunnycam.

There are two ways to search: click on the categorical links provided or enter a query in the database's search engine. Querying is by far the quicker method. This can be experienced by dividing a class in two groups: Query and Browse. The Query group only uses the search engine. The Browse group only clicks on words (no typing).
Another group experience is to make everyone browse. Stop the action after 1 minute. Find out where members of the group are. In what section are they browsing? There is bound to be a wide variety of responses. This demonstrates the difficulty in making educated guesses as to where someone else 'filed' the information. Two people are not likely to put the information in the same place. Why? This question would be good to explore with middle school students and older in the context of language arts.
Browsing is deeply connected to scanning: looking at the results for clues that suggest one is getting closer to the desired information. It is often enlightening to ask students why they click one link rather than another. Ask them to explain their choices to the group. Hearing others' explanations is a learning experience.

Browsing is also a heuristic strategy. Many find it an enjoyable activity that leads to surprising results. You start looking for one thing and find something new. This is a good application of browsing that requires little practice: you see something interesting and follow it. Since browsing is the final step in most queries, getting better at accurate guessing takes practice.

Information Students Care About

2012-01-03T14:08:00.001-06:00

Motivation, no doubt, is a factor in how well students search, evaluate and use digital information. If you really care about the information you seek and find, you'll probably do some things differently.

If the motivation is extrinsic or intrinsic may matter less than if the information is deemed important or not. For many, it may boil down to 'do I really care about this information?'

Please understand, I'm a huge fan of intrinsic motivation. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi was my dissertation chair. I aim for flow in most of what I do. Learning (in the long run) is better when intrinsically motivated. But extrinsic motivation is also effective at getting results (think: grades, money, respect, etc.). School assignments are typically structured with extrinsic incentives--or punishments--because students won't do them voluntarily. Things like grades and privileges are effective short-term motivators.

Searching, evaluating and using information are generally short-term tasks. Of these three, thorough evaluation may involve considerable time and effort, but as presented in most assignments, these three are seen as stepping stones--sub-tasks--to a larger task of learning subject-matter. If students really care about the subject matter--if they think it is important--they may perform better at these sub-tasks.

Most of the challenges I offer through this blog try to be relevant to students, but they may not be important. I'd have to know the interests of specific students to do a better job at choosing challenges based on importance. What I have to opt for is a range of topics that involve searching (and evaluation) competencies.

Librarians and teachers who work with specific students, on the other hand, can offer 'important' search challenges. To that end, the examples you find here are representative searches. They may or may not work well because students care or don't care about them. The challenge for educators is to find--or create--challenges students really do care about. That, I believe, will help achieve more lasting results and greater information fluency.

Resolutions for Information Fluency

2011-12-31T15:58:00.002-06:00

If becoming more fluent in digital information is one of your goals for 2012, I have a few suggestions. Readers are welcome to add to the list!

Think before you search. What exactly am I looking for? You may have only a vague idea what you need, but be as clear about what you know as you can be. Choose the clearest keywords for your queries. Two to five keywords is a good rule of thumb.
Think before you search. Who would know the answer I am looking for? Where would that person or organization keep its information? If your goal is to find trustworthy information, seek out recognized experts.
Look carefully at your search results. Better keywords are often hidden in the results. There's a good chance you will strengthen your vocabulary in the process.
Fact check your findings. It takes only seconds to pull strong keywords out of posts or articles to see if facts hold up.
Don't take the first answer you find. Taking the fastest route possible should not be confused with characteristics of fluency. Fast answers may also be wrong answers.

That's a reasonable start.

News without all the Facts

2011-12-30T17:59:00.000-06:00

Today my daily Google Alert on Medical Breakthroughs brought this article to my attention:

Medical Breakthrough Bringing New Hope To MS Patients

Drug Showing Promising Results

I'm interested in this topic since a friend's daughter suffers from MS. But the article is light on facts. In particular, what may be the most important fact is missing. What is the name of the drug?

This article surely is a retelling of the original release about the drug, so hopefully a quick fact-check query will turn up the missing facts. This turns out to be the case.

Fact-checking, about which I've blogged numerous times, starts by taking a fact or two from a derivative article and follows it to its source.

My query was: Gabriel Pardo OMRF drug. Two of these are the preferred type of fact-checking keywords: proper nouns; both were taken from the koco.com article cited above. In case there were a lot of articles about Pardo and OMRF I added the less powerful term 'drug' since that's the word I'm hoping to replace with another proper noun.

This is a good search to demonstrate how ideal queries proceed from less to more specific.

Let's hope the new drug continues to show promising results.

Misinformation on Twitter

2011-12-15T09:55:00.001-06:00

With over 200 million Twitter contributors*, misinformation is bound to happen.

It would be pretty interesting if there was a study to determine the frequency of misinformation created by authors in the world of Web 2.0. Maybe there is such a study. I should look.

Regardless, misinformation is regularly created in the form of rumors, honest mistakes and malinformation (intentionally misleading facts and opinions). Tweets are a good example.

UK's The Guardian has collected seven rumors that attracted a following on Twitter, spread and then died out. These include: 'Rioters attack London zoo and release animals,' 'Rioters cook their own food in McDonalds' and 'Army deployed in Bank.' Here's the complete list and an interactive app to explore the rumors and their trajectories.

All of the rumors are what you could classify as 'breaking news.' Twitter became famous as a source of breaking news during events such as the US Airways flight that ended in the Hudson River. Twitter often scoops other news sources because of eyewitnesses who tweet what they happen to see. Sometimes the stories turn out to be true. Other times they don't.

How do you tell the difference between a 'truth' and a 'rumor?' This would be a great conversation to have with middle school, high school and college students. What can you do not to fall prey to rumors?

* FYI -- Finding the current number of Twitter users makes a pretty good search challenge.

Do you believe everything you read?

2011-11-16T22:19:00.001-06:00

Here's a good opportunity to put the Baloney Detection Kit (and fact checking) to work:

According to Denver's ABC news affiliate,

"This year, one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer but 207,000 women will hear, 'You have breast cancer.' Furthermore, 63 percent of women will find out they have ovarian cancer after it has spread."

Before accepting these numbers as credible, it would be a good idea to check the facts. This is something most students don't do. Let's see how it would play out if they cited the article without trying to verify the facts.

Let's start with "one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer." That should be easy to check. Query: prostate cancer rate

First hit: American Cancer Society: "About 1 man in 6 will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime."

Second hit: National Cancer Institute: "Based on rates from 2006-2008, 16.48% of men born today will be diagnosed with cancer of the prostate at some time during their lifetime." That's about 1 in 6.

It appears Channel 7 got one fact right (1 in 6) and one fact wrong ('this year,' as opposed to a 'lifetime'). If you skim the comments at the bottom of Channel 7's article, one reader states exactly the same thing.

So, while the source seems credible (ABC News affiliate), other sources do not verify the first set of numbers. The student who cites this has inaccurate facts.

What about the other numbers? What do your students find?

US Airlines

2011-11-12T18:52:00.001-06:00

Here's a scam that has been around a while that shows the value of fact checking. It could be a good lesson to use with middle school learners or older.

The scam starts when a letter arrives at your house. I would provide a copy for the students. Here's a link with a scanned copy of the letter I received, with some personal information blocked out. If you duplicate the letter, you may want to take out my information altogether and replace it with something more personal for the students.

There are three parts to the mailer: the cover of the envelope, the award notification instructions and a check issued for $1,400.

Before you do any searching online, ask the students to evaluate the credibility of the award letter. "Based on what you see here, is there a good enough reason for Carl to call the 800 number?" A number of potential Red Flags can be spotted, including no return address, the check is made out to US Airlines and there's a deadline to respond.

Using the Baloney Detection Kit (BDK) questions, students could identify questions that would be good to ask in evaluating the truthfulness of the letter's claims. For example, Number 4 pops out: "is this the way the world works (does the offer sound too good to be true)?" Well, sometimes there are contests with pretty good prizes and I may have entered something unawares, so that question alone isn't quite enough to convince me it's not a bonafide offer.

Number five, on the other hand, is a better question. I must not be the only person to get a letter like this. I wonder if someone has already looked into this. Maybe someone else called the 800 number, has written about it online and will save me the trouble.

This requires fact checking.

Even without looking for other opinions about the letter, there are significant clues to query. This is where students may have problems, since they don't seem to have a good grasp as to what makes a powerful fact checking query. See what keywords they suggest. The best keywords are US Airlines. You could also select a phrase from the award notification and query that.

There is no company called US Airlines, however there are plenty of results for US airlines (not a proper noun), so students have to read the search results to tell the difference.

As part of the results, there are plenty of US Airlines scam results. Here's where you will find the answer to BDK #5. These are good to skim -- you will find scanned copies of other peoples' letters, along with descriptions of what happened when they called the 800 number. Unlike most of the letters cited, mine was machine addressed--not hand written--the signature on the check is a different name and the 800 number is different. But the form of the letter is 95% the same.

Students need to encounter real examples of incredible information that will eventually reach their front door. Best to be prepared with good questions and the ability to fact check.

Baloney Detection Kit

2011-11-10T15:33:00.001-06:00

The Baloney Detection Kit is described in a 14 minute video from the producers of Skeptic Magazine.

According to the authors, the kit is a 'scientific' guide to encountering new information. Here are the suggested questions to guide an investigation before acting on information.

How reliable is the source of the claim?
Does the source make similar type claims?
Have the claims been verified by someone else?
Does this fit with the way the world works?
Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
Is the claimant providing positive evidence (or just negative evidence)?
Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

These all add up to the need to look thoughtfully at information from a variety of objective perspectives.

I find that there are other ways to group these questions:

Source:

Who is the author?
Has the author written on this topic before?
Are personal beliefs driving the claim? (evidence of bias)

Content:

How does this information fit with the way the world (and rules of science) works?
Where does the majority of evidence point?
Is the evidence all negative?
Does the new theory explain as much as the old theory?

External References:

Have the claims been verified by someone else?
Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

If you are examining information that is not purporting to be a new theory or scientific claim--e.g., a request for money from a friend who's allegedly been robbed while traveling in a foreign country--then most of these questions are no longer relevant (or helpful).

In the case of the email scam, two questions remain important:

Who is the alleged author (identified by name) and where does most of the evidence point? You have to know the individual pretty well in this case, including the likelihood that person is out of the country.

The question about the way the world works isn't helpful since there's always a first time for everything. If this is the first time you've heard from this friend about this type of situation, then question two--by itself--would help support the request for funds. I'll leave you to think about the remaining questions.

Simply asking questions is insufficient. Some research is required. When I got a similar message from a daughter-in-law, I did two things: I wrote to her to see if she would confirm the message, and (not waiting for an answer) I searched online for similar emails (question 3 above: has anyone else made the same claim?). I got the answer to the latter before I heard back from my daughter-in-law. Plenty of people were getting similar emails from friends and relatives.

My First Query

2011-11-07T08:08:00.002-06:00

My grand daughter Emelie likes to play with the keys on my laptop. Emelie is 15 months old. We share the same birthday.

It's pretty interesting what she can make the computer do by hitting keys at random. Today she managed to open Google and submitted her first query.

?.;;

I had to preserve the moment. Unfortunately, Google couldn't find any matching records.

Emelie has no fear of pressing keys. The computer is just another familiar object in her universe. She likes to see the effects of hitting keys. It's actually surprising what her efforts produce. She's managed to trigger screens and warnings I've never seen.

As the next generation starts its journey with computer technology, the first steps are pretty chaotic. Yet there is quickly an expectation. The keys do something. Random results are intrinsically pleasing. At a basic level, the results create a desire for more.

The intrinsic pleasure of getting results--and discovery--stays with you for a lifetime. The challenge is continuously getting results you want, which grow more specific--and harder--with experience.

It will be a while before Emelie chooses one search action over another because one is more effective. But in the meantime, it should be instructive to see what she does next.

Seeing the Not So Obvious

2011-11-04T21:14:00.001-05:00

I love this sign. I first came across it yesterday as I was trying to find a Prezi on 'achieving information fluency' I thought I had uploaded. Here's the file I was trying to find, but in the process I searched Prezi for the title and found this instead. If imitation is flattery, I'm pleased to see our Model of Digital Information Fluency being replicated on the Web, albeit a bit deconstructed and the source not cited (tsk, tsk, tsk)*.

But back to the picture. It seems an appropriate metaphor for the type of skimming that untrained searchers do. Notice I didn't say 'students.'

Almost any Web page has information clues that may be valuable, but go overlooked because something else obscured the clues or made the information seem irrelevant. That's the message of the sign. If you can't read it, the small print at the bottom says "Also the bridge is out ahead."

Elsewhere I've likened this carelessness to prospecting for gold and leaving nuggets lying on the ground in plain sight.

Whether it's information about ownership or authorship, freshness, structure, purpose, accuracy, bias, etc., there are clues to be found.

Starting to see the not-so-obvious is sure to involve the following:

read with purpose - does the information match expectations or the reason you clicked on the page?
slow down - sifting through mountains of details is something that would seem to take speed, but it may take longer because of overlooked information;
don't let the obvious stuff distract you, stay on track (n.b. - there is a counter-argument that I subscribe to when the purpose is creativity and inventiveness (in that case distractions may help);

If you have a fourth point to add to this list, I'm open to it. Comments please.

Here's a Challenge to test that hypothesis. Try the Broadway Challenge: Find the URL of a site that lists the number of shows to open on Broadway since (and including) 1984.

Google some keywords (e.g., Broadway shows 1984) and skim the first page of results. The answer is there. Do you see it? What clues give it away?

This Challenge used to be a lot harder when it was first created. Back then you had to find a database of Broadway shows. That's no longer necessary.

* As for the origin of the sign, of which there are many copies online, any clues?

Pomegranate Fact Check

2011-10-23T23:16:00.000-05:00

Daily News and Analysis recently ran a story entitled, Pomegranate extract hailed ‘best thing since aspirin’ (article).

I've been watching medical breakthroughs for search challenges, since breakthroughs beg to be fact checked.

This article is no exception. Here's the line that first attracted my attention:

For the first time they have been able to unlock the precious new extract from the seeds, skin and pith of the fruit.

The article goes on to credit a company named ProbelteBio with the breakthrough and quotes a Dr Sergio Streitenberger: "(until now) we haven’t had the science to enable us to release the benefits."

Is that right? It could be, but it doesn't take long to uncover potential Red Flags as you search.

What Red Flags do you find?

Medical Approval Challenge

2011-10-05T12:21:00.005-05:00

News articles tend to introduce (incomplete) information that make good search challenges.

Here's an example from the Wichita Eagle posted on Sept. 6: Robot surgery now offered for head, neck procedures

The part of the article that ping'd my search radar was this:

"The da Vinci surgical system is now approved for use in surgeries of the head and neck."

Search for the missing information. Who approved it and when?

This search requires a keyword query, browsing, a deep web query of a specialized database and careful reading.

Post your answers in the comments: Who approved the device (I left a clue in this post) and (here's the real challenge) WHEN was approval granted? Provide an official date.

What problems do you encounter in this search?

Challenge Revisited: Pump Price

2011-09-29T17:42:00.005-05:00

Back in 2005, I first posted the Pump Price Challenge. I had to update it a few times due to inflation and additional sites that people were finding.

Now in 2011, the question could be: How much did people pay for gas at the pump in 1920? How much would that be in 2011 dollars?

The value of the dollar keeps changing due to global economics and inflation so this is definitely a moving target.

The challenge is to find an authoritative site (think: who is an authority on inflation?) so you can convert the price of a gallon of gas in 1920 into the most current dollar information.

This isn't a particularly hard search, but it requires finding a site that is regularly refreshed.

Challenge One: Find an authoritative site where information on inflation is regularly updated.
Challenge Two: use that to determine what a gallon of gas in 1920 costs today.
Challenge Three: use the most current information to determine what a gallon of gas purchased in 1981 would cost in 2011 dollars. (Yikes!)

I found a good site, but there could be more. I'll consider other alternatives for redesigning the pump challenge.

Changemakers Challenge

2011-09-13T23:20:00.001-05:00

I invite you to read about the Changemaker Competition and our Information Fluency entry in that competition:

https://www.changemakers.com/citizenmedia/entries/information-investigator

Your help is appreciated in spreading the word about our resources. If you like what you see, show your appreciation by using the LIKE button, found on the page above.

To read more about the competition, go to:

Citizen Media: A Global Innovation Competition

To learn more about Information Investigator 3.1 read our online application. Our goal is to reach 1,000's of new middle school and high school students this year with this online challenge and assessment course. The course takes as little as 2 hours to complete and has been shown to raise students' information fluency scores by an average of 60%. All without taking any time away from class. If you're an educator and would like a free preview of the course, write to us at help@21cif.com.

Malware Alert Search

2011-09-01T13:07:00.009-05:00

Yesterday, Google slapped a malware alert on the Internet Search Challenge blog. Maybe you saw that message too, blocking access to this site.

The problem turned out to be an image in a blog post from last February, ironically, a search challenge about spam and phishing. The problem was the original image was associated with a site tagged as a malware threat.

If you ever get a similar message from Google about your own blog, this description may help you work through the problem.

Looking at the code for the image, there wasn't really a threat, but it triggered a stock response from Google indicating that internetsearchchallenge.blogspot.com was "a site known to distribute malware."

Not true, but not something to take lightly, either.

One lesson learned is not to link to images via 'unvetted' urls. In this case the culprit url was worldcorrespondents.com, where I found the image. Back in February, to save time I just linked to the image. I won't do that again.

Getting Google to remove the alert involved the greater challenge. Included in the report I received was this information:

Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including guide-securesoft.ru/.

1 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including worldcorrespondents.com/.

If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google's Webmaster's Tools Help.

How do I find the page(s) affected with those urls? I clicked on Google's Webmaster Help Center where they suggested quarantining the site. Since blogger (blogspot.com) is the host, I couldn't find a way to contact the provider about taking down the site. In the blogger dashboard I found where I could delete the site, but thought that too extreme an action. So quarantining was off the table for the time being.

Searching further, I found a way I could remove the offending page(s) from Google's search results, but I still didn't know the identity of those culprit pages, the first step in cleaning up the site. Webmaster Help was not proving very helpful.

Then I found this in Webmaster Help:

If your site has been infected with malware, check the Malware page in Webmaster Tools. (On the site dashboard, click Diagnostics and then click Malware.) This page lists sample URLs from your site that have been identified as containing malicious code.

That sounded like what I needed [competency: careful reading and understanding something about the problem]. But how to find the dashboard in Webmaster Tools? [competency: search strategy] I did a Google search for google webmaster tools dashboard [competency: keyword querying]. Looking through the search results [competency: browsing], that brought me to www.google.com/webmasters/tools/.

To continue I had to log in to my Google account [competency: persistence]. This made an interesting browsing challenge. What link to click? Nowhere are any of these keywords listed: dashboard, diagnostics, malware. After a bunch of fruitless forays, I clicked on the link to my site, which was listed on the webmaster tools page [competency: browsing]. Only then did I see the term 'dashboard' along with urls where Google detected the problem. Bingo!

It was a manual process to eliminate the offending material, but now armed with the url of the blog post where the problem was found, I could log in to blogger, easily find that page and either edit or delete it. Since this page still gets many hits, I chose to search the html code for a reference to worldcorrespondents.com (none was found for the other link) and simply delete that code.

I replaced the 'tainted' image with a 'clean' one from 21cif.com.

Then I had to request Google to re-examine the blog to see if the malware threat was completely removed. It was and now you can see this page without fear that your computer is going to be attacked.

Finally, I ran a malware scan on my computer and found none.

Elementary Fluency

2011-08-26T11:36:00.002-05:00

I've been asked by a program director at Northwestern University's Center for Talent Development to think about creating online tutorials and assessments for students in grades 3 - 5.

This is a challenging project: what do students in elementary grades need to know, what skills should they possess to prepare them for middle school information fluency?

A couple years ago I created an elementary workshop to address these needs. That workshop may be found here.

Creating a bridge that builds on those ideas and connects with Information Investigator 3.0 and 3.1 could make an interesting project. Information Investigator 3.x represents our latest thinking about information skills that middle school and high school should possess. There is surprisingly little difference between the capabilities of middle school and high school students. I'll outline that in an upcoming report based on a study of over 900 students conducted this summer.

If you are interested in having conversations about materials and activities that position learners in elementary grades to be more fluent upon entering middle school, I'd like to work with you.

Let me know if you are interested! We will move the conversation to CoolHub.IMSA where we develop projects like this. Email me directly at carl@21cif.com.

Smurfing the Net

2011-08-05T21:00:00.008-05:00

If Smurfs searched, what would you expect them to do?

Probably what the (stereo)typical student does: google a path to Wikipedia, snatch an answer and run.

That assessment may not be fair to all students, and probably not any student all the time, but it is what happens in the new Smurf movie.

I suppose this can be viewed a couple of ways:

1. Hollywood "got it right." Art imitating life.
2. Hollywood "missed an opportunity." The subduction of art.

Both views have merit. This is exactly what you'd expect from Smurfs (although it's the human in the movie who drives the search). This could have been an opportunity to set a good example to millions of students (for more on this, I suggest this blog: Why Do Smurfs Hate Information Literacy?)

Even if the movie makers missed an opportunity, it could be a good "bad" example to use in classrooms or library orientation. It can be very effective to have students evaluate questionable search behaviors. They can spot questionable search behaviors.

If you can't show a clip of the movie, students may remember it. Have them recall what happened in the movie. Then try the search. Sort through the irrelevant blue moon results. Go to Wikipedia. Have students "fact check" information they find there. Fact checking Wikipedia is always a good idea: can you find information that supports what is said in the big wiki?

If you want to use more of a search challenge, refine the question--always the key to better searching. Instead of just looking for 'blue moon,' look for this:

What makes the moon appear to be blue?

Who can come up with an answer authored by a scientist?

Who can come up with an explanation according to a smurf?

IE IQ Hoax

2011-08-04T08:34:00.001-05:00

Too bad this study of IE users' IQ was already exposed as a hoax. It would have made a great challenge.

Here's the headline as it appeared yesterday in BBC News:

Internet Explorer story was bogus
A story which suggested that users of Internet Explorer have a lower IQ than people who chose other browsers appears to have been an elaborate hoax. A number of media organisations, including the BBC, reported on the research, put out by Canadian firm ApTiquant.

If you visit the Aptiquant website, you'll see this article: Tell-Tale signs that should have uncovered the hoax in less than 5 minutes! probably written by the author of the site. The list contains 8 points:

The domain was registered on July 14th 2011.
The test that was mentioned in the report, “Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (IV) test” is a copyrighted test and cannot be administered online.
The phone number listed on the report and the press release is the same listed on the press releases/whois of my other websites. A google search reveals this.
The address listed on the report does not exist.
I copy/pasted most of the material from “Central Test” and got lazy to even change the pictures.
The website is made in WordPress. Come on now!
I am sure, my haphazardly put together report had more than one grammatical mistakes.
There is a link to our website AtCheap.com in the footer.

These boil down to fact-checking information found on the site:

A whois search of the domain name to find the owner, date (#1), telephone (#3), address (#4);
A search for Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (#2) to see if it's available online;
A string query to see if the material was copied from somewhere else online (#5);
A close reading of the report to uncover spelling and grammatical mistakes (#7);

The other two (#6 and #8) aren't real obvious red flags. Lots of sites have ads and who cares much what software was used to create the site. I doubt if many searchers would have figured out #2 or attempted a string query to check on plagiarism (#5).

The quickest investigative method is definitely fact checking the domain. This yields the most information for further investigation, including the alleged author's name, which I haven't located yet on the AptiQuant site. A search for the author's name returns suspicious information that isn't conclusive but does make you wonder why someone like this would be involved in a study like that. I guess it's not surprising that questioning the author's credibility doesn't appear in the list of 8 above.

I didn't visit the site until after the hoax broke, and Google's cache doesn't go back before that, so I can't tell if information was removed from the site. For instance, information about the team is missing. If that was the case when the fake study first appeared, that too would have been a red flag.

In addition to the what the site author has said about obvious signs of the hoax, do you see others? Share your answers in the comments.

Bias, Power and Authority

2011-07-25T14:38:00.003-05:00

By itself, bias is unremarkable. It's a part of being human. Bias doesn't always amount to much, especially if no one pays attention.

Bias with power is a different matter. Without power, Anders Behring Breivik's biases may have come to nothing. But when coupled with power, they proved to be devastating.

Posing as a meaningful authority, Breivik directed his victims to a horrible end. There was no need to object, until he started shooting.

Bias online has some similarities. Most of the time, bias in blogs and articles and images has no meaningful impact on the reader. Biased information with power attracts attention. More accurately, it could be said that individuals empower the information to which they attend. That's when biased information can lead to problems.

For online readers, the question that must be asked is: who is the authority? In Breivik's case, he was posing as an official and little could be done to investigate his credibility on the spot. Online information is different in that regard. It can and should be investigated. Otherwise you may never know if you are opening yourself to bias that has real, assumed or faked authority.

It's unfortunate that something bad has to happen to make one more cautious. It happened on a large scale after 9-11 and now security measures will increase in Norway. After you fall prey to deception or bias online, you tend to become more skeptical. Hence, the need for investigation.

Try this. Here's a challenge that's based on a medical theme. It's not hard to find bias against alternative medicine. But should you be skeptical of these views? Does the author have the appropriate authority? How do you know? These are good questions for students to grapple with.

Using Google, locate a site with medical authority that is skeptical of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Post your answers here.

Model Lesson at ISTE

2011-06-28T09:10:00.002-05:00

We had about 60 people in attendance at yesterday's session. Dennis was home in Southern California and I was face to face with the 'students' in the room at the Philadelphia Convention Center.

There's a lot that can go wrong with a session completely dependent on technology, but our phone and Elluminate connections held up. Dennis pretty much led the session and I served as the Observer and Interpreter.

Here's a recap of what we did.

Using the site genochoice.com, we worked through three investigations to evaluate the credibility of the site. In the first investigations, Dennis demonstrated how a fluent searcher might approach the task of finding and evaluating the author or owner of a site. Using a think-aloud approach, Dennis came across multiple references to Virgil Wong, an artist. Keeping in mind that the website is devoted to DNA and designer babies, this is a potential Red Flag. Dennis also came across two other Red Flags: commercial bias (so much for sale), malware (detected by Dennis' virus checker). One of the participants found another possible Red Flag: bias, as evidenced by the availability of a 'fix' for homosexuality on the site.

Turning to the second investigation, participants were divided into four groups to fact check the name Virgil Wong. These groups were: Google, Yahoo, Bing, and any social media (linked in, faebook...). After a couple minutes searchers shared their discoveries. Virgil seems to be a real person, a PhD candidate in cognitive science who operates several websites for medical institutions, a faculty member in higher Ed, an artist who creates exhibits, including one called RYT Hospital, which is connected to genochoice.com. There are enough Red Flags at this point to dismiss genochoice as an authority on DNA and genetic engineering, but another question arises:

What is genochoice.com and why did Virgil create it? There is no simple answer to this question and demonstrates that there is enough depth here for a graduate level investigation into authority and credibility.

A third investigation was demonstrated using the link: operator. Many links to the site are internal, but those that are external provide the impression that this site is a hoax. There is adequate evidence that, while the site is not true, it is something other than a hoax. It could be science fiction, a deliberate attempt to stimulate skepticism as it relates to web information, or even a more subtle manipulation of cognitive processes by a skilled artist and cognitive scientist. Determining that remains the challenge.

In wrapping up, I observed that searching this way is non-intuitive for students. Once shown the strategies and techniques students easily improve, but they are not likely to discover these on their own. This can be demonstrated by the experience of students in the Center for Talent Development courses at Northwestern University. I'll have more to say about that in future blogs. These investigative skills can easily be woven into the context of any class that involves searching. But it takes a trained searcher in the leadership role. There remains a huge need for professional development in information fluency. It doesn't take long, but it doesn't happen without planning. There are lots of resources for delivering professional development on our main site, http://21cif.com. Take advantage of them.

Join us at ISTE

2011-06-24T09:50:00.000-05:00

Join Dennis O'Connor and me as we showcase a Model Lesson at ISTE on Monday, June 27. Our session is "The Information Fluency Classroom in Action" in PACC 119B from 4:15 to 5:15 p.m.

We will demonstrate free resources and classroom activities to help students in grades 6-12 search more efficiently and evaluate information effectively.


Theme/Strand:	Digital-age Teaching & Learning—Literacies for the Information/Creativity Age
Audience Skill:	Intermediate

NETS•S:	3
NETS•T:	2
NETS•A:	2

In the News: Beatless Heart

2011-06-17T10:35:00.002-05:00

News stories make good Search Challenges.

Public awareness and curiosity about stories in the news are good drivers for searching and evaluation. I first heard about the "beatless heart" on public radio and then yesterday a number of high profile news sites carried the story.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/06/15/researchers-create-the-first-pulseless-artificial-heart/
The first "beatless" heart experiments were done on a calf whose heart was removed and replaced with two centrifugal pumps.

Here are a few search challenges that can be spun off of the story.

1. Name the doctors who led this research (easy, except if you require the doctors' initials)

2. Find the name of the calf who received the first beatless heart (easily found in a fact-checking query)

3. How long did the calf live with her new beatless heart? (harder, requires searching the right database and skimming contents)

Of course I had to do some investigation to discover the questions and answers--but that was fun. Usually facts (or missing details) in the articles are good springboards to search questions.

Post your answers in comments.