How does a website become part of SciLinks? Potential topics are identified from the content of SciLinked textbooks or NSTA publications. (The SciLinks homepage has a list of textbooks). Sites are then selected from the database, or spotters are asked to search the web for potential sites. All sites in the database have been through a review process that includes a rubric.
Reviewing the Sites – Content
The vast majority of sites suggested and screened by the spotters are included in SciLinks. Some get higher ratings than others. I’ve taught classes in web design at the high school and college level, and over the years, I’ve seen improvements in design, either because we’re more design-savvy or because the technology is getting better. My personal guideline is “Would I want my students spending their time with this site?”
I certainly want our students to have access to accurate content. One of the first sites I reviewed noted that “the tide comes in in the morning and goes out at night.” Needless to say, this site did not make it into SciLinks! But the SciLinks spotters are good at filtering out sites with incorrect information.
I also want our students to have access to interesting and meaningful content. In my state, the reading tests show weaknesses in reading and interpreting nonfiction or informational text (aka “expository text”) at all grade levels. Here is where SciLinks can provide a wealth of good content reading. However, one of my concerns is with sites geared to younger students. I think sometimes that we adults don’t quite get it. Some sites are designed to be cute, with dancing earthworms and talking spiders. The research on reading shows that students have an interest in nonfiction, so why do site developers continue to decorate their sites with cartoonish graphics (rather than photographs or accurate drawings) or try to be “with-it” by using teenage slang, which becomes outdated very quickly? Another component of many sites for younger learners is the “fun” link that often leads to coloring pages, mazes, or find-a-word puzzles. In an era when the time for science classes is shrinking to accommodate more time for reading and math, I don’t think I would use precious class time for activities that have little science in them. Not that these wouldn’t be perhaps OK for indoor recess or take-home packets (not graded homework, though), but even then, there are so many other activities that are both enjoyable and meaningful (and now I’m off my personal soapbox!).
The SciLinks sites also provide a way to extend what is in your textbook for interested students. One criticism of American science textbooks is that they do not treat topics in depth. The SciLinks websites can supplement textbook topics with additional information and features such as animations, graphics, and video clips. Sometimes the sites reiterate basic textbook information. I think that’s OK – some students may need to see the information displayed in a different format or with different graphics to understand. I know one elementary teacher who puts the 10-year-old textbooks on the shelf and uses nonfiction trade books and web resources to implement the school’s science curriculum!
Many of the sites have links for teacher resources. These include suggestions for incorporating the site into science lessons, hands-on activities, and inquiry learning. The sites also are correlated to the National Science Education Standards (NSES). Although the states have their own lists of standards, most are reflected in the NSES, perhaps in different terminology.
Each month in this blog, I’ll describe a few components of the rubric we use to evaluate the sites.
Reviewing the Sites – Credibility
Assuming that the content of the site seems correct, the site moves to the review process with its rubric. Two of the categories deal with the credibility of the site. The reviewers look at a site’s “Authority.” In general, sites from colleges and universities (and their professors), scientific and environmental agencies (including NOAA, NASA, USGS), other research agencies, museums and libraries, and zoological parks and botanical gardens rate high in this category. Some commercial sites are free of sales pitches and are very good; those that are basically commercials or sales pitches for products or services are not included. Personal sites probably do not rate as high, unless the author notes his or her credentials and includes sources with the site.
Having a way to contact the site developer via e-mail is part of the “Collaboration” category. Giving users the opportunity to contact the author with questions or feedback adds to the site’s credibility. Another form of collaboration occurs when the site fosters communication and dialog between users (to date, this has not been very common).
I’m not sure we have a decision on whether to include articles from wikis, blogs, or YouTube. I know there are teachers that discourage students from using these as formal sources of information, especially if they cite no sources for the information. Any thoughts?
No matter how reputable the site’s author, the design of the site is what captures our attention. I’ll describe this part of the rubric next month.