TEACHER RESOURCE

Assessing website credibility

judging the authority and credibility of information
targeted 4 posted on the Internet
adaptable

Learning outcomes
Primary
Intermediate
• assess the credibility of a website, based on specific criteria
Middle 4 • understand the value of comparing websites to ensure credibility and discover the best
Senior 4 sources of information

Learn about the strategy

Discuss author ➤➤ Introduce the concepts of author and authority and pose the questions for discussion.
and authority
➤➤ Following the discussion, record student-student responses to the last question under the
heading Criteria for credible authorities and leave visible for the second activity.

Student activity

Discuss the following questions. Possible responses

üü What does it mean to say that
someone is an author?
üü What does it mean to say that
someone is an authority on a topic?
üü Are all authors authorities on their
topic? Why or why not?
üü Under what conditions would an
author be an authority?
Share your discussion ideas with the
class.
üü author is someone who writes something
like a poem, essay, novel, blog, twitter post,
Facebook page
üü author creates, writes, describes
üü author can write fiction (not real / not true)
or nonfiction
(real / true)
üü authority is an accepted source of informa-
tion
üü authority is an expert on a subject, nonfic-
tion material
üü not all authors are authorities as could
be writing creatively or are not writing to
inform
üü anyone can write (be an author, though not
necessarily a good one), but an authority
needs to be quite informed on a topic
üü authors may be authorities when they are

30
experts on a particular subject and choose
to write about it
Assessing website

Opportunities for differentiation

credibility

üü Provide students with examples of authors and authorities.

Assessing website credibility 1 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium

 TEACHER RESOURCE

Rate website ➤➤ Explain that not all websites are equal and students must look carefully at each to ensure that
authorities the website creators are “authorities” on the subject they are discussing. Suggest that the crite-
ria for credible authorities could be extended and applied to assessing website credibility.
➤➤ Distribute Credible website authorities? (Activity Sheet A) and invite students to discuss
and rate the credibility of each website information source based on the criteria for credible
authorities.

Student activity
ACTIVITY SHEET
A
Credible website
How credible is
authorities?
each website for
the research topic?
Name

Based on the criteria for credible authorities developed by Research topic:

lung cancer
Credibility rating
Reasons for rating

the class, rate the credibility of the source of information for

No
Source of informat credibility High
ion: credibility
a website created 0
by 1 2 3
the tobacco industry 4 5

each website provided.

Research topic:
requirements for
at-
tending the Universit
y
of Toronto next No
fall High
credibility
Source of informat credibility
ion: 0
a University of 1 2 3 4 5

Possible reasons for rating

Toronto website
created in 1994

Research topic:
Canada’s Olympia
ns
No
Source of informat High
ion: credibility
a website created credibility

üü bias – the author has something to gain

by 0
the Canadian Olympic 1 2 3 4 5
Association

Research topic:

üü experience / age of the author

global warming
(for a
science project) No
credibility High
Source of informat credibility
ion: 0
a website created 1 2 3
by a 4 5
Grade 7 class

üü reputation of the author Research topic:

30
what type of car
to
purchase
No
Source of informat High

üü currency of the information source

credibility

Assessing website
ion: credibility
a website created 0
by 1 2 3
Nissan 4 5

credibility
Assessing website
credibility
5
© The Critical Thinking
Consortium

Develop criteria for ➤➤ Add newly suggested criteria to Criteria for credible authorities. Suggest that authorship is
website credibility only one dimension of assessing website credibility. Change the title of the list to Criteria for
a credible website.
➤➤ Following the brainstorming activity, guide students in grouping the criteria and identifying
the most important.

Student activity
In a group, brainstorm elements that Possible responses
make a website credible. üü site has title, author / organization, date
üü URL (link address) has edu in it, so it belongs to
Collaboratively identify the five
an educational community
most important criteria.
üü site has been positively reviewed by others
Possible criteria üü website seems professional in layout and is well
üü authorship crafted (no technical mistakes like spelling,
üü sponsorship grammar, punctuation)
üü sources of ideas / information üü content appears balanced (not one-sided); no
üü indicators of care obvious “vested interest” by a certain person,
group, or organization that would create bias
üü information appears appropriate and accurate
credibility
Assessing website

üü content appears up-to-date (website has been

recently updated)
üü website suits audience (your) purpose (not too
simple, not too complex)

Opportunities for differentiation

üü Provide criteria and invite students to rank order, or select the five most important.
30

Assessing website credibility 2 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium

 TEACHER RESOURCE

Practise the strategy

Review a website ➤➤ Select an appropriate website for students to examine. Review the criteria for a credible
website. Using the Assessing website credibility data chart (Activity Sheet B), work
collaboratively with students to assess the credibility of the website. Encourage students to
identify positive and negative features.
Student activity
Go to the suggested website. Possible responses
Where to look
In your group, discuss where to look
üü URL (check the domain name, check for a
for evidence related to each criterion.
tilde symbol, ~)
Collaboratively identify evidence that üü resources / references at the end of the article
supports or rejects each criterion on the üü author (at the beginning or end of the article)
data chart. üü contact information
Discuss the difference between a üü content (fact or opinion, purpose, bias)
feature and the implications of that üü logos, symbols
feature. üü titles
üü pictures / images
üü reviews (balance, bias)
üü pose (not too simple, not too complex)

Assessment for learning

üü Ensure that students know where to look for evidence about website credibility.
üü Introduce the Assessing website credibility rating scale (Activity Sheet E). Use the
example students completed collaboratively to brainstorm descriptors for “excellent“
assessment of website credibility, using each criterion.

Compare websites ➤➤ Assign pairs of websites, from the sites provided on Website pairs (Activity Sheet C), to
student partners. Provide no clues (including title, as that might influence students) as to
which sites are reliable or unreliable.

Student activity
Assessing website
credibility data
B

Name of website chart

ACTIVITY SHEET

Consortium
REASONS FOR CONFID
ENCE

The Critical Thinking

Evidence from website REASONS FOR DOUBT

Go to the two websites you have been assigned.

Implications for ING
AUTHORSHIP believability Evidence from website Implications for
What do we know
about the creators believability
of
the website that
might
affect the believabi
lity
of its contents?

©
SPONSORSHIP

Rate the credibility of each website, using the

What do we know
about the individua
l(s)
or group(s) who
spon-
sored the website
that
might affect the
believ-
ability of its contents?

Assessing website credibility data chart (Activity

SOURCES OF IDEAS
What do we know
about how informat
ion
for this website

6
was ob-
tained and verifi
ed that
might affect the
believ-

Sheet B).
ability of its contents?

INDICATORS OF
CARE
Does the website’s
pre-
sentation style,
tone,
and format provide
clues about the
believ-
ability of its contents?

30
Share your findings with the class.
Overall, the website
has:  very high credibili
Justification ty  good credibili
ty  some credibili
ty  no credibility
credibility

Adapted with permission

(pending) from Liz
Assessing website

Austrom et al., Using

Electronic Informatio
n and Resources
(Vancouver, BC: The
Critical Thinking
Consortium, in press).

Assessing website
credibility
30

Assessment for learning

Assessing website

üü Encourage students to use the Assessing website credibility rating scale (Activity Sheet
E) to self- and peer-assess their analysis of the website’s credibility.
credibility

Assessing website credibility 3 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium


Find the best website:
extension activity
Review the strategy
credibility
Assessing website
Assess the sample
30
Assessing website credibility 4 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium
TEACHER RESOURCE
Use the strategy on your own
➤➤ Discuss with students the importance of website credibility. Overall website
assessment
ACTIVITY SHEET
D
Suggest that an important task in researching any topic is to
My research topic
Four sites assessed,
with the most credible
one starred.
Titles of sites and
select the most credible websites as sources of information.
URLs (link addresse
s)
1.
2.
3.
4.
My most importan
t reasons, with specifi
c evidence, are as
Student activity
1. follows.
2.
3.
4.
Find four relevant websites as sources for a research topic of 5.
I recognize that
your choice.
the other website(
particular, the importan s) has (have) some
t strengths, with strengths relative
specific evidence to the one I have
, are as follows. selected. In
1.
2.
3.
Gather evidence and assess the credibility of each site, using 4.
credibility
Assessing website
5.
the criteria for a credible website. Nevertheless, I believe
credible, for the
1.
these are not as
following reasons.
significant as the
strengths of the
website I have judged to be most
30
2.
Identify the most credible website and justify your decision, Adapted with permission
Consortium, in press). (pending) from Liz
Austrom et al., Using
Electronic Informatio
n and Resources
using Overall website assessment (Activity Sheet D).
(Vancouver, BC: The
Assessing website
Critical Thinking
credibility
8
© The Critical Thinking
Consortium
➤➤ Explain to students that assessing website credibility is not
only useful for research in all the disciplines, but also when Assessing website
judging the authorit
y and credibility
of
credibility
information posted
STUDENT RESOU
RCE
“surfing the web” outside of school. Point out that this
on the Internet
Purpose
This strategy helps
Instructions
me • Examine the website
to understand that
some carefully. Look for
strategy determines the credibility of the website, but further
websites are not credible. of authorship, sponsors positive and negative
hip, sources of ideas, evidence
also helps me to compare It and indicators of care.
• Carefully review
websites and select each element of the
the website.
most credible ones  URL: What is the
for my domain address? Is
research. dividual (~ is an indicator this website created
by an in-
examination may be required to decide whether or not the
)?
 Title: Does the
title indicate a purpose
for the site?
 Date of creation
or recent changes:
information? How current is the
site is useful. Provide students with a copy of the Student
 Resources / reference
For a sample use
of the s: Are quality sources
of information cited?
strategy, see the
next page  Reviews from peers:
What comments have
others made about
 Content: What is the site?
the purpose of the site?
Is bias evident in the
content?
Resource. Suggest that this resource will help them apply the
 Presentation: Does
the style, tone, and
believable? Is the format indicate the content
site free from technica is
l errors?
 Contact informat
ion: Is contact informat
ion provided?
• Click on some of
the links / sidebars
strategy on their own.
to look for further
• Record evidence evidence.
that supports the credibili
evidence that raises ty of the website and
doubts about it.
• Consider the implicati
ons of each piece of
evidence.
• Consult another
website with the same
and your findings. topic to confirm the
information
• Revise your assessme
nt, if necessary, based
information on this new
credibility
Assessing website
30
Assessing website
Student activity
credibility
10
© The Critical Thinking
Consortium
Explain to a partner the purpose of Possible responses
assessing website credibility. üü better to judge an author and whether he or she
is an authority on a topic and not taking things
Brainstorm the steps in assessing
at face value
website credibility. Compare your
üü become a critical thinker who looks at a web-
suggestions to those in the Student
Resource. site’s source (author, structure, purpose, up-to-
date information, bias) carefully before using it
Discuss possible ways to use the for research or surfing the web at home
Assessing website credibility üü understand that every site has an author but not
strategy both in and out of school.
every site is an authority on a subject
➤➤ Review the sample use of the strategy found in the Student Resource. Invite students to use
the rubric to assess the sample.
Student activity SAMP LE
use of the strategy
30
credibility
RCE
Assessing website
Assessing website
credibility data
STUDENT RESOU
Name of website http://en.wik
Use the Assessing website credibility data chart
ipedia.or g/wiki/Stephen_Harper chart
Consortium
REASONS FOR CONFID
ENCE
REASONS
The Critical Thinking
Evidence from website Implications for FOR DOUBTING
or the rating scale to assess the sample use of the
AUTHORSHIP Under the Discussio believability Evidence from website
n tab, people People Implications for
What do we know have written critiques are “watching” what
about the creators of the is put There is no believability
of information they think on Wikipedia and are formal peer review and
the website that is really making the no real author of the Unless researchers
might one-sided or wrong. effort to correct misinform material, so another use
affect the believabi Anyone can ation the reader website to confirm
lity or mistakes. can never be sure that
of its contents? edit the materials. the information, there
the author is an authority is no
strategy.
on the guarantee
©
SPONSORSHIP subject or that all that the informatio
the mistakes is n
What do we know The About Wikipedia tab at the have been caught. balanced or correct. Anyone
about the individua bottom states that A not-for-profit organizati can say anything on
l(s) the site is on The About the subject.
or group(s) who run by a not-for-pr means that they are Wikipedia tab
spon- ofit parent not trying discusses that it has This hurts the believabilit
sored the website organization, The Wikimedia to “sell you” on a point a policy of site because y of the
might affect the
that of view for neutrality infl anyone, including
believ- Foundation. profit. uenced by founder
ability of its contents? Jimmy Wales. But, the founder of Wikipedia,
Wales revised change can
his own biography, something information they deem
SOURCES OF IDEAS
What do we know Wikipedia will not allow Wikipedia does not “unacceptable” to them.
original Every fact on Wikipedia permit.
about how informat research and states must
ion that all be able to be double-ch The About Wikipedia
for this website
was ob- material must be verifiable. One ecked tab at the The site is so huge
11
tained and verifi by someone, and people bottom states that that it would
ed that can also check edits completed cannot the site is be impossible for volunteers
might affect the be anonymous as they run by volunteers. to
believ- by looking at the need catch every mistake
ability of its contents? History tab and an and verify
must have an account. account for tracking and every piece of informatio
INDICATORS OF accountability. n that
CARE Wikipedia has a table people post.
Does the website’s of contents The style,
pre- (for organization), visuals, tone and format
sentation style,
tone, strengthe Much of the informatio
and format provide graphs, few technical n the site’s believabilit n on The site loses credibility
mistakes as it looks profession y Stephen Harper when
and a formal format ally had multiple
clues about the
believ- that created. edits and complaint hundreds of complaints and
ability of its contents? includes endnotes. s about the changes have been
content and bias. made to the
materials.
Overall, the website
has:  very high credibili
Justification ty  good credibili
Some of the informatio ty x some credibili
n may be checked and ty  no credibility
credibility
the author of the informatio edited for accuracy,
n and there are no but there is no evidence
we do not know anything reviews or research of the qualifications
about these critics. cited for the informatio of the volunteers who
Wikipedia has been n. The comments indicate edit the site. It is not
around for a long time some people feel the clear who is
Assessing website
Adapted with permission
(pending) from Liz and their policy is that information is biased;
Austrom et al., Using information must be however,
Electronic Informatio
n and
verifiable.
Resources (Vancouve
r, BC: The Critical
Thinking Consortium
, in press).
 ACTIVITY SHEET A

Credible website authorities?

How credible is each website for the research topic?

Name

Credibility rating Reasons for rating

Research topic:
lung cancer No High
credibility credibility
Source of information:
a website created by 0 1 2 3 4 5
the tobacco industry

Research topic:
requirements for at-
tending the University
No High
of Toronto next fall credibility credibility
Source of information: 0 1 2 3 4 5
a University of
Toronto website
created in 1994

Research topic:
Canada’s Olympians
No High
Source of information: credibility credibility
a website created by 0 1 2 3 4 5
the Canadian Olympic
Association

Research topic:
global warming (for a
No High
science project) credibility credibility
Source of information: 0 1 2 3 4 5
a website created by a
Grade 7 class

30
Research topic:
Assessing website

what type of car to

purchase No High
credibility credibility
credibility

Source of information:
a website created by 0 1 2 3 4 5
Nissan

Assessing website credibility 5 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium

 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium
Assessing website credibility data chart
ACTIVITY SHEET B

Name of website
REASONS FOR CONFIDENCE REASONS FOR DOUBTING
Implications for Implications for
Evidence from website Evidence from website
believability believability
AUTHORSHIP
What do we know
about the creators of
the website that might
affect the believability
of its contents?
SPONSORSHIP
What do we know
about the individual(s)
or group(s) who spon-
sored the website that
might affect the believ-
ability of its contents?

6
SOURCES OF IDEAS
What do we know
about how information
for this website was ob-
tained and verified that
might affect the believ-
ability of its contents?
INDICATORS OF CARE
Does the website’s pre-
sentation style, tone,
and format provide
clues about the believ-
ability of its contents?

Assessing website credibility

Overall, the website has: r very high credibility r good credibility r some credibility r no credibility
Justification
Assessing website
credibility 30
 ACTIVITY SHEET C

Website pairs
Choose pairs of sites for students to explore. Do not include category titles as students should not know in
advance which sites are reliable and which are not.

Unreliable sites Reliable sites

California’s Velcro Crop Under Challenge

Welcome to the Velcro Companies
http://www.umbachconsulting.com/
http://www.velcro.com
miscellany/velcro.html

Experience the Newest Form of Water! Inter-Agency Connections for

Freshwater Management
http://www.buydehydratedwater.com/
home.html http://www.unwater.org

Behavior Problems in Cats

Feline Reactions to Bearded Men
http://www.peteducation.com/category.
http://www.sree.net/stories/feline.html
cfm?c=1+1310

Mankato, MN Home Page Elephant Butte

http://city-mankato.us http://cityofelephantbutte.com

Republic of Molossia Welcome to Digital Liechtenstein

http://www.molossia.org http://www.liechtenstein.li/en/

The Jackalope Conspiracy Endangered Species 30

http://www.sudftw.com/jackcon.htm http://www.worldwildlife.org/endangered
Assessing website
credibility

Assessing website credibility 7 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium

 ACTIVITY SHEET D

Overall website assessment

My research topic

Four sites assessed, with the most credible one starred.

Titles of sites and URLs (link addresses)

1.

2.

3.

4.

My most important reasons, with specific evidence, are as follows.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

I recognize that the other website(s) has (have) some strengths relative to the one I have selected. In
particular, the important strengths, with specific evidence, are as follows.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
credibility
Assessing website

Nevertheless, I believe these are not as significant as the strengths of the website I have judged to be most
credible, for the following reasons.

1.
30

2.

Assessing website credibility 8 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium

 ACTIVITY SHEET E

Assessing website credibility rating scale

I identify relevant
evidence. Excellent Not yet
“Look fors” (describe excellent): Evidence for rating:

I identify positive and

negative features. Excellent Not yet
“Look fors” (describe excellent): Evidence for rating:

I offer plausible
implications. Excellent Not yet
“Look fors” (describe excellent): Evidence for rating:

I justify my rating.
Excellent Not yet
“Look fors” (describe excellent): Evidence for rating:

30
Assessing website
credibility

Assessing website credibility 9 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium


Assessing website credibility
judging the authority and credibility of information posted on the Internet
Purpose
This strategy helps me
to understand that some
websites are not credible. It
also helps me to compare
websites and select the
most credible ones for my
research.
For a sample use of the
strategy, see the next page.
credibility
Assessing website
30
Assessing website credibility 10 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium
STUDENT RESOURCE
Instructions
• Examine the website carefully. Look for positive and negative evidence
of authorship, sponsorship, sources of ideas, and indicators of care.
• Carefully review each element of the website.
ßßURL: What is the domain address? Is this website created by an
individual (~ is an indicator)?
ßßTitle: Does the title indicate a purpose for the site?
ßßDate of creation or recent changes: How current is the
information?
ßßResources / references: Are quality sources of information cited?
ßßReviews from peers: What comments have others made about the site?
ßßContent: What is the purpose of the site? Is bias evident in the content?
ßßPresentation: Does the style, tone, and format indicate the content is
believable? Is the site free from technical errors?
ßßContact information: Is contact information provided?
• Click on some of the links / sidebars to look for further evidence.
• Record evidence that supports the credibility of the website and
evidence that raises doubts about it.
• Consider the implications of each piece of evidence.
• Consult another website with the same topic to confirm the information
and your findings.
• Revise your assessment, if necessary, based on this new
information
 30 credibility
Assessing website
PLE
SAMuse

©    The Critical Thinking Consortium

of the strategy Assessing website credibility data chart
STUDENT RESOURCE

Name of website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

REASONS FOR CONFIDENCE REASONS FOR DOUBTING
Implications for Implications for
Evidence from website Evidence from website
believability believability
Under the Talk tab, people People are “watching” what is put There is no formal peer review and Unless researchers use
AUTHORSHIP
What do we know have written critiques of the on Wikipedia and are making the no real author of the material, so another website to confirm
about the creators of information they think is really effort to correct misinformation the reader can never be sure that the information, there is no
the website that might one-sided or wrong. Anyone can or mistakes. the author is an authority on the guarantee that the information
affect the believability edit the materials. subject or that all the mistakes is balanced or correct. Anyone
of its contents?
have been caught. can say anything on the subject.
SPONSORSHIP The About Wikipedia link at the A not-for-profit organization The About Wikipedia link This hurts the believability of the
What do we know bottom states that the site is means that they are not trying discusses that it has a policy of site because anyone, including
about the individual(s) run by a not-for-profit parent to “sell you” on a point of view for neutrality influenced by founder the founder of Wikipedia, can
or group(s) who spon-
sored the website that organization, The Wikimedia profit. Jimmy Wales. But Wales revised change information they deem
might affect the believ- Foundation. his own biography, something “unacceptable” to them.
ability of its contents? Wikipedia does not permit.

11
SOURCES OF IDEAS Wikipedia will not allow original Every fact on Wikipedia must The About Wikipedia link at the The site is so huge that it would
What do we know research and states that all be able to be double-checked bottom states that the site is be impossible for volunteers to
about how information material must be verifiable. One by someone, and people cannot run by volunteers. catch every mistake and verify
for this website was ob-
tained and verified that can also check edits completed be anonymous as they need every piece of information that
might affect the believ- by looking at the History tab and an account for tracking and people post.
ability of its contents? must have an account. accountability.
Wikipedia has a table of contents The style, tone and format Much of the information on The site loses credibility when
INDICATORS OF CARE
Does the website’s pre- (for organization), visuals, strengthen the site’s believability Stephen Harper had multiple hundreds of complaints and
sentation style, tone, graphs, few technical mistakes as it looks professionally created. edits and complaints about the changes have been made to the
and format provide and a formal format that content and bias. materials.
clues about the believ- includes endnotes.
ability of its contents?

Assessing website credibility

Overall, the website has: r very high credibility r good credibility x some credibility
r r no credibility
Justification
Some of the information may be checked and edited for accuracy, but there is no evidence of the qualifications of the volunteers who edit the site. It is not clear who is
the author of the information and there are no reviews or research cited for the information. The comments indicate some people feel the information is biased; however,
we do not know anything about these critics. Wikipedia has been around for a long time and their policy is that information must be verifiable.
 STUDENT RESOURCE

Assess website credibility

Excellent Very good Competent Basic Not yet able

I identify accurate, relevant, and comprehensive evidence

I find details that I find details that are I find several obvious I find a few obvious
are accurate, clearly accurate, relevant, and details that are largely details that are often
relevant, and thoroughly address each criterion. accurate, generally accurate and relevant,
address each criterion. I include some details relevant, and address and address some of
I include many details that are not obvious. each criterion. the criteria.
that are not obvious.

Evidence

I identify positive and negative evidence

I identify many features I identify some features I identify a few features I tend to identify only
that both support and that both support and that support and question those features that
question the website’s question the website’s the website’s credibility either support or
credibility to offer a credibility to offer a to offer a somewhat question the website’s
balanced assessment. balanced assessment. balanced assessment. credibility.

Evidence

I offer plausible implications

I suggest highly I suggest plausible, I suggest plausible I suggest the most

plausible, thoughtful thoughtful implications implications for most of obvious implications for
implications for all the for all the evidence. the evidence. some of the evidence.
evidence.

Evidence

I offer and justify realistic ratings

credibility
Assessing website

The ratings are all The ratings all seem Most ratings seem Some ratings are
very realistic given realistic given the realistic given the realistic given the
the evidence, and I evidence, and I offer evidence, and I offer evidence, and I offer
offer very thoughtful, thoughtful, insightful, relevant reasons for the only the most obvious
insightful, and relevant and relevant reasons ratings. reasons for the ratings
reasons for the ratings. for the ratings.
30

Evidence

Assessing website credibility 12 ©    The Critical Thinking Consortium