I delivered a presentation on The eLearning 2.0 Survival Guide – Assessing the Credibility of Web Sources at the Brandon Hall Innovations in Learning 2008 conference which was held in San Jose, September 2008. Presentation Summary It is no surprise that integrating Web 2.0 tools to learning is an innovative practice that is catching on quickly. Pushing the Web’s potential for democratizing information, Web 2.0 social computing practices are well aligned with constructivist learning strategies. Enabling learners to develop multiple perspectives can foster analytical and critical thinking. What is worrisome is the transition from a spoon-fed model of education to a self-discovery and self-directed model without reconfiguring the approach to learning. Are individuals applying fact-checking rigour to the content they access? What criteria are they using? What do they consider to be expert knowledge? Are they simply looking for other sources to confirm what they’ve found or are they actually analysing the source of the information? Are they aware that information, correct and otherwise, spreads like memes on Web? My presentation was largely be based on research I have done for my M.A. in Educational Technology thesis which is a qualitative study of people who write blogs on training to be used in the professional development of people who work in the field. The question lies in the authority and credibility of these blogs, and by extension Web content in general.

1. Innovations in Learning 2008
Brandon Hall Conference
Assessing the Credibility of Web Sources
The eLearning 2.0 Survival Guide
Kristina Schneider, M.A. Educational Technology
Director of Blended Learning Strategies, Documedia Inc.

2. Assess a Web Source
Assess a Web Source
Find an online source that you go to
regularly and assess that source according to
the following criteria:
1. Identify whether or not you find it to be a
credible source and why/why not
2. Identify whether or not the author writes with
authorityy
Write down the name of the source on a
piece of paper to be collected
collected.

3. How Do You Assess Content Sources?
How Do You Assess Content Sources?
Your trusted Your criteria for
sources?
? new sources? ?
Common craft Seems credible
S dibl
Wikipedia
Referenced by people who
New York Times you trust
MSN.com Tested theories presented by
site
it
Google
Content appearing in other
Caesar Milan sources

4. What is Credibility?
What is Credibility?
• Can be verified by an objective
What is credibility? source ( i h
(without a stake)
k )
How can you tell if
• Pragmatism as a sign, both sides of
a source is the coin
credible?
• By referencing, especially outside
How does one gain network
credibility?
y • Citing other sources corroboration
sources,

5. What is Authority?
What is Authority?
How does • Vested in stakeholders, might come
authority differ from position as opposed to
from credibility? credibility from reputation
How can you tell if
• Clarity, confidence and differentiate
a source is written from arrogance, fact-based
fact based
with authority?
How does one gain • Deep knowledge of a topic,
recognition by others, new insights,
authority?
y connect the dots between sources

6. Integrating Web 2 0 Tools to Learning
Integrating Web 2.0 Tools to Learning
Can foster
Democratizes
analytical and
information
critical thinking
Aligned with Enables
constructivist multiple
principles perspectives

7. Transition of the Way of Thinking
Transition of the Way of Thinking
spoon-fed
model of a self-discovery
education and self-directed
d lf di t d
model
without reconfiguring the approach to llearning
ih fi i h h i

8. Kristina Schneider
Kristina Schneider M A Ed Tech
M.A Ed Tech
M.A. Thesis
on the
10 years authority &
d i
designer & dibilit
credibility
consultant of bloggers
in blended & their
Educational
Ed i l learning blogs
Technologist

9. Background of the Problem
Background of the Problem
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Research questions
• Who are the bloggers in the field? That is, what
motivates them to blog and what qualifications do they
believe they bring to the task?
• What is their purpose in blogging? That is, what do they
hope to accomplish? What influence do they hope to
achieve, if any?
hi ?
• What do professionals in the educational technology
who choose to blog choose to write about?
g
• How do they select the content to report? How do they
verify the content, if at all?
• What evidence do the bloggers have of their influence?

10. Literature Review
Literature Review
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Key Themes Key Discoveries
Forms of • 3 types: structured, semi-structured or informal
Training
T i i (Herrington t l 2003; Herrington, Herrington, Kervin, Ferry,
(H i t et al., 2003 H i t H i t K i & F
Professional 2006; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002)
Development • requires self-directed participants
• is about sharing of experiences
Social • allows for enables co-creation of knowledge (Boyd, 2001)
Computing for
p g • facilitates the linking of theory to practice (Laurillard, 1999)
Professional • enables reflective interaction (Rovai, 2000)
Development
• promotes development of critical thinking skills (Greenlaw and
DeLoach,
DeLoach 2003)
Early Social • discussion boards, LISTSERVs, BBS
Computing • promoted exchange and support
Applications

11. Literature Review
Literature Review
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Key Themes Key Discoveries
Early Social • discussion boards, LISTSERVs, BBS
C
Computing
ti • promoted exchange and support
Applications
Emerging Body • focused on edublogger practices and communities (Crainer, 2002;
of Literature on Downs et al., 2002; Coates, 2003)
Blogs • concern about major media publishers (Coates, 2003)
• blogging as journalism—no editorial filters means potential of
gg g j p
increased credibility (Lasica, 2002; Grabowicz, 2003)
• 4 types of posts - opinion, vote, reaction, summation (Coates,
2003))
Credibility of • reliability of Web-based information / credibility is given by the
Blogs reader (perception/popularity) (Flanagin and Metzger, 2007)
• 4 types of credibility: presumed, reputed surface, experienced
presumed reputed, surface
(Constantinides and Swenson, 2000)

12. Research Methodology
Research Methodology
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
looking for
Phenomenological
emic
pp
approach
perspective
artifact interviews
Mixed data
analysis
l with
h
collection methods
of the blogs bloggers
grounded
open coding
Data analysis theory case studies
technique
methodology
Trustworthiness frame triangulation
data audit
a c e b ty
and credibility te v ew
interview o ata
of data

13. Summary of the Findings
Summary of the Findings
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Categories How Consequences
Origin of blogging for · Opportunities to · Exploration
th edublogger
the d bl t h d
document, share and
d ·E i t ti
Experimentation
promote content and ideas. · Innovation
· Openness to explore,
innovate experiment with
innovate,
software and the Web
Motivation to blog · Share and promote and · Sharing
d
today / Purpose
P exchange on content and
h d Feedback
· F db k
ideas · Promotion
· Manage content (archiving · Content management
and indexing)
· Need to explore, innovate,
experiment
· Need for feedback

14. Summary of the Findings
Summary of the Findings
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Categories How Consequences
Qualification to Blog / · Self-qualified as bloggers on As a content expert:
Bl about a T i
Blog b t Topic bj t
a subject Work-experience
·W k i
· Maintaining and posting · Formal graduate education
regularly to a blog · Informal
As a edublogger:
· Earned by blogging regularly
Influence the · Generating new ideas, · Readers
d bl
edublogger hopes to
h i
conversations and contacts
d ·R f
References
achieve · Recognition for their · Recognition
contribution · Credibility

15. Summary of the Findings
Summary of the Findings
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Categories How Consequences
Topic / Content · Reacting with an opinion on · Personal / professional
l ti
selection ti
area of expertise
f l blurred
realms bl d
· Reflection on topics related · Reaction / Reflection
to their area of expertise · Expertise
(requires more elaboration) · Sharing opinion /
perception
· Need to dialogue / for
feedback
Use of text and media · Illustrative uses of media · Illustration
(mainly photos, images and · Information
logos) not always justified · Communication
· Informative uses adds
information to the post

16. Summary of the Findings
Summary of the Findings
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
Categories How Consequences
Content verification · They check for form but · Opinions
not necessarily content
t il t t ·R f
References
· Links
· Desire for a certain non-
quantified degree of
polished form / writing
Evidence of influence · Quantitative – number of · Quantitative
comments or trackbacks
kb k ·R f
Reference within the
i hi h
· Quantitative – number of edublogger community
links back reported by
search engines
· No qualitative – rankings
about appreciation of
contribution
contribution.

17. Summary of the Conclusions
Summary of the Conclusions
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
• edubloggers share: benefits of the
public exchange
• edubloggers explore: discovery
P t it of
Portrait f process and learning
• edubloggers self-promote:
an seriousness devotion, authority
seriousness, devotion
edublogger • edubloggers develop: learn through
blogging
• edubloggers perceive: offer their
perceptions and wait for feedback

18. Summary of the Conclusions
Summary of the Conclusions
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
• edubloggers discuss: generate new
ideas, conversations and contacts
• edubloggers juxtapose: text/media,
resources,
resources ideas
P t it of
Portrait f • edubloggers reference: but they do
an not verify
• edubloggers quantify: awareness of
edublogger traffic and contribution to blog
• edubloggers support one another:
comment on and refer to each
other’s blogs

19. Suggestions for Further Research
Suggestions for Further Research
A Qualitative Study of Five Authors of Five Blogs on Training and Development
• Qualitative study: cannot generalize findings
Limitations of the
• Throughout the study, new Web tools
Study emerged
• Blogger Evolution and Self-Directed Learning
Emerging • Gender and Social Media
Questions and • Reader Participation and Contribution
Recommendations
R d ti • Q lit ti Assessment of Bl C t t
Qualitative A t f Blog Content
for Future Study • Responsibility to Verify Facts
• Value Judgments about Media and Copyright

20. What Needs to Change?
What Needs to Change?
The notion of credibility or authority?
Read/write joint responsibility?
Looking for qualitative measurement as
opposed to just quantitative

21. Re‐Assess a Web Source
Re Assess a Web Source
Randomly select one of the sources noted
by another participant (ensure it is not the
same as the one you originally assessed) and
assess that source according to the following
criteria:
1. Identify whether or not you find it to be a
credible source and why/why not
2. Identify whether or not the author writes with
authority