Ben Wightman

LIS 532 Sp. 2015

Video Lesson Reflective Essay

Authority and Bias of Websites

Lesson Plan: This lesson follows the plan Geoff Hinman and I submitted for the secondary information
literacy lesson assignment. A copy of the Google doc students completed can be found
here. Students names have been replaced with initials, but otherwise the document appears
as it did when the bell rang (at 20:36 in the video).
Library Situation:
School

Cazenovia Middle School

Supervising Librarian

Anne Hegel

Grade

Nature of Visit

Special eighteen students were excused from study hall to participate

voluntarily

*Note: The lesson took place in the computer lab portion of the library suite.
Rationale:
The 7th graders will begin a major social studies research project in mid-May, and Mrs. Hegel
suggested website evaluation as an area of weakness that could be addressed. She specifically mentioned
using URL extensions (.gov, .edu, vs .com, .org) as a quick way to gauge the authority of a website, and
Geoff and I developed (and perhaps spun off) that idea into a broader lesson on authority and bias.
What Went Well:
The first thirteen minutes Overall I was pleased with the anticipatory set (0:00-2:00), input
(2:00-4:20) and modeling (4:25-13:30) portions of the lesson. The three opening questions got
students thinking about evaluating online information (notice that the first volunteer, at 1:13,
connected the questions to the Internet without prompting); the input (authority and bias) was
new material for the students, and I think the modeling gave them a chance to exercise
authentic evaluation skills with guidance. Looking back, I wish I had gotten the students
talking more. I departed from some of the questioning strategies in the plan, and ended the
modeling session with a somewhat weak does it make sense? I have noticed that question is
one of my catchphrases, but it is not a great way to check for understanding. What student is
going to answer no when it could lead to another five minute lecture?

Assessment Despite some of the silly and irrelevant additions (see next section), the Google doc
accurately revealed what students were thinking, and is an effective means of tracking their
individual engagement (via revision history, which can be accessed on the original, but not the
copy). The final version clearly shows that they are working toward the lesson objective, but
have not yet mastered it. Additional practice is necessary. In an ongoing unit, it might be
prudent to continue working on the guided practice for another period.

Response to technical difficulties Using technology is not always a smooth process. I did not
anticipate some of the problems that occurred (such as when Google Chrome wouldnt switch
between tabs, 7:30-8:08; or when one student couldnt sign in, 12:37-14:30), but I believe I
found suitable back up options on the spot.

What Could Be Improved:

The planning document The written lesson plan was designed to meet the needs of an evaluator,
but it did not work well as an in-lesson reference. There was too much to review at a glance. In
the future, it may need to be cut down to a simpler list of key questions and ideas.

Ben Wightman

LIS 532 Sp. 2015

Video Lesson Reflective Essay

Framing of the guided practice (13:30-15:20) The Google doc reveals some students were
evaluating the websites based on content, rather than details about the author and publisher.
While this is not bad per se, it was not the focus of the lesson. I think the instructions and the
structure of the Google doc (see below) needed more emphasis on authority, bias, and the two
key questions. Also, when I designed the lesson with Geoff, I pictured the setup being more
exciting than it actually was. I wanted to cast the students as detectives, investigating
backgrounds and separating suspicious voices from trustworthy ones. That excitement was lost
in the version I delivered on the spot. I did think the instructions for using the Google doc
worked well, although I should have told them not to make silly comments, and perhaps
showed them how to pick a personal font color (14:50-14:55, they didnt know how to do it.)

The last five minutes My first mistake was leaving just five minutes to do everything I was
trying to do. My rationale was that the students needed time for the guided practice to develop,
but I should have been less ambitious. I think the review (16:10-19:35) was necessary,
especially given that every student missed the bias of the first website. However, during the
last minute (starting at 19:40) the discussion on patterns should have given way to my planned
closure. Although the pattern discussion could have been beneficial given time and
participation (neither of which I had in abundance), the connection to future research was
more important, and I allowed it to drop out entirely.

The Google doc The students are visibly less attentive during the closing discussion than they
were during the opening. Part of that may have been fatigue, but I also blame the Google doc.
Watching the buzz of student activity during the guided practice (15:23-16:00) was exciting,
for both me and the students (they enjoyed peeking in on what their classmates were writing),
but that same activity became a distraction during the closing discussion. Comparing this
earlier version of the document, which is from the moment I said hands off the keyboard
(15:58) to the final version, archived 4 minutes later (20:36), reveals how much of the
silliness was added during that closing session. I should have cut off their editing privileges at
the end of the guided practice.

Potential Changes for the Future:

Fewer websites We included nine in the guided practice because we wanted to expose students
to a variety of challenges, and ensure there would be enough space in the Google doc for
students to add ideas without too much repetition. However, the students ended up clustering
anyway, because they were inclined to work from top to bottom, and none were able to
evaluate all nine in 15 minutes. Assigning each student 1-2 specific websites, rather than
allowing open choice, would be one way to achieve full coverage, but after going over some of
the websites in the closing discussion I realize there is also value in a shared experience. One
reason I stopped reviewing after the third site, besides time, was that so few students had seen
the remaining ones. In this case I think the shared experience is more important than the
variety, and for that reason I might cut the number of websites from nine to a more
manageable four.

More structured worksheet Although the students had the handout, their analysis strayed from
the evaluation criteria the lesson was intended to emphasize. I think the open-ended pros and
cons column headings may have contributed to that. In future lessons, I might paste the
questions into the cells, and instruct students to answer them specifically (instead of relying on
the students to remember to use the questions).

More time? More time would allow students to evaluate the nine websites more thoroughly.
However, I am not sure a lesson with such a narrow scope merits an additional day.

Response: Both the students and the other adults in the room responded favorably to the lesson.