Database Evaluation
I chose to compare e-Library Elementary and Kids InfoBits. On these websites I searched the “water cycle”.
a) Appropriateness: Kids InfoBits provided information that was much more appropriate for lower elementary children. This website provided a simple explanation of the water cycle. Then I felt as though e-Library Elementary had a more in depth explanation of the water cycle that would have been appropriate for high elementary or middle school.
b) Usability: Both e-Library Elementary and Kid InfoBits were very easy to use. Overall I felt as though Kids InfoBits was easier to use though. The organization of the different types of articles was much easier for an Elementary student to use and understand. On InfoBits there was a title above a group of articles such as books, pictures, magazines. This made it very easy for me to find what I was looking for. Where as e-Library had an image next to it that categorized it as books, magazines, and other items. All of the different types of articles were mixed in together which made finding what I needed harder. Also the images next to it are not user friend for children because they may not understand what each image means.
c) Content: I found the content of both websites to be very strong, each catered to a different level of elementary school. The content of e-Library articles was more for the upper elementary students. This was because the level of worlds used were at a high level scientificly. Then on Kid InfoBits the content was very easy to understand using surface level termonalogy to explain the water cycle. I felt as though this content was targeted more toward the lower level elementary students who are just beginning to learn about the water cycle.
d) Credibility: The information on both websites is very creditable. They both have the information of where the document came from or the author of who wrote it. Also at the bottom they have the MLA formatted citation already created. Although they both seem creditable I do think that e-Library is a more creditable. It overall has better articles such as scholarly journals. Scholarly journals are one of the highest creditable articles a student could read and I did not see any scholarly journals on Kids InfoBits.
e) Both of theses websites support the best practice of “generating and testing hypotheses” by providing students a place where they can research information on their hypothesis. Then they can form a test experiment to determine whether or not their hypothesis is true.
Helpful Databases
The following are resources that you may find my students using in order to complete their classwork. These resources are easy to use and a geared more toward elementary school aged students.
a) BookFlix pairs up stories in which you and your children can read one story and watch the other. Both of the stories cover the same topic!
http://bkflix.grolier.com/pb/wwbkcat03b
b) Early World of Learning is a resource that allows students to read, play games, watch things, and print of coloring worksheets.
http://worldbookonline.com/ewol/home?subacct=O6106
c) Kids InfoBits is a website that my students will use as a search engine in order to complete research. I feel comfortable with my students using this site because it is safe and easy for them to navigate.
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=ITKE&u=lom_accessmich&authCount=1
Hoax Articles
The first article I reviewed was called Welcome to the Ova Prima Foundation using the Joyce Valenza BASIC Test.
http://www.ovaprima.org
a) Content: The content of this article is not well written. It gives a little bit of background on the non profit organization but it was not well supported. Also they did not explain the purpose of their organization very well.
b) Authority/ Credibility: The content is not creditable at all! None of the information on the first page is cited nor is it well explained. Also the website is copy written by their organization rather than an outside source. Last the person that wrote the informative letter that appears when you first get on the website is not the president, which makes me wonder if there even is a president.
c) Bias/ Purpose: The purpose of this website it to raise money to research the egg. It is a non- profit organization but where does the money go? I truly think this website is biased to scam people of their money.
d) Usability/ design: The website is easy to use however the design is not professional at all. It is not very organized and the imaged are not clear.
The next article I reviewed was called Save the Rennets using the Joyce Valenza CARRDSS test.
http://savetherennets.com/mp.php
a) Credibility: The information on this website comes across as credible because it is has a copy write on it, but the copy write is not a company it is the name of two individuals.
b) Accuracy: The information is not accurate. I googled rennet and it said that rennet is an enzyme used to make cheese. The website says that rennets are rodents and that are slaughtered in order to get an enzyme to create cheese.
c) Reliability: The site is not reliable due to the fact that nothing is cited. I have no idea where the information came from in order to research it further. Also the website is copy written by two people and only there first names are written.
d) Relevance: The site is not relevant to anything that people are concerned about. People do not even know that rennet exists making this website that no one would donate to.
e) Date: The only dates on this website is the copywrite dates 2005-2010.
f) Sources Behind the Text: There are no sources listed behind the texts that I read or looked at.
g) Scope and Purpose: The purpose of this website is to raise awareness to the fact that rennets are slaughtered in order to make cheese.
Citation
I used BibMe to create the citation for a book I found called Universal Algebra. BibMe was very easy to use. All you have to do is type in the book you are using and see if they have it on their website. If they do the information you need in order to create the citation is already entered into the citation.
Cohn, P. M.. Universal algebra. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Print.
I chose to compare e-Library Elementary and Kids InfoBits. On these websites I searched the “water cycle”.
a) Appropriateness: Kids InfoBits provided information that was much more appropriate for lower elementary children. This website provided a simple explanation of the water cycle. Then I felt as though e-Library Elementary had a more in depth explanation of the water cycle that would have been appropriate for high elementary or middle school.
b) Usability: Both e-Library Elementary and Kid InfoBits were very easy to use. Overall I felt as though Kids InfoBits was easier to use though. The organization of the different types of articles was much easier for an Elementary student to use and understand. On InfoBits there was a title above a group of articles such as books, pictures, magazines. This made it very easy for me to find what I was looking for. Where as e-Library had an image next to it that categorized it as books, magazines, and other items. All of the different types of articles were mixed in together which made finding what I needed harder. Also the images next to it are not user friend for children because they may not understand what each image means.
c) Content: I found the content of both websites to be very strong, each catered to a different level of elementary school. The content of e-Library articles was more for the upper elementary students. This was because the level of worlds used were at a high level scientificly. Then on Kid InfoBits the content was very easy to understand using surface level termonalogy to explain the water cycle. I felt as though this content was targeted more toward the lower level elementary students who are just beginning to learn about the water cycle.
d) Credibility: The information on both websites is very creditable. They both have the information of where the document came from or the author of who wrote it. Also at the bottom they have the MLA formatted citation already created. Although they both seem creditable I do think that e-Library is a more creditable. It overall has better articles such as scholarly journals. Scholarly journals are one of the highest creditable articles a student could read and I did not see any scholarly journals on Kids InfoBits.
e) Both of theses websites support the best practice of “generating and testing hypotheses” by providing students a place where they can research information on their hypothesis. Then they can form a test experiment to determine whether or not their hypothesis is true.
Helpful Databases
The following are resources that you may find my students using in order to complete their classwork. These resources are easy to use and a geared more toward elementary school aged students.
a) BookFlix pairs up stories in which you and your children can read one story and watch the other. Both of the stories cover the same topic!
http://bkflix.grolier.com/pb/wwbkcat03b
b) Early World of Learning is a resource that allows students to read, play games, watch things, and print of coloring worksheets.
http://worldbookonline.com/ewol/home?subacct=O6106
c) Kids InfoBits is a website that my students will use as a search engine in order to complete research. I feel comfortable with my students using this site because it is safe and easy for them to navigate.
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=ITKE&u=lom_accessmich&authCount=1
Hoax Articles
The first article I reviewed was called Welcome to the Ova Prima Foundation using the Joyce Valenza BASIC Test.
http://www.ovaprima.org
a) Content: The content of this article is not well written. It gives a little bit of background on the non profit organization but it was not well supported. Also they did not explain the purpose of their organization very well.
b) Authority/ Credibility: The content is not creditable at all! None of the information on the first page is cited nor is it well explained. Also the website is copy written by their organization rather than an outside source. Last the person that wrote the informative letter that appears when you first get on the website is not the president, which makes me wonder if there even is a president.
c) Bias/ Purpose: The purpose of this website it to raise money to research the egg. It is a non- profit organization but where does the money go? I truly think this website is biased to scam people of their money.
d) Usability/ design: The website is easy to use however the design is not professional at all. It is not very organized and the imaged are not clear.
The next article I reviewed was called Save the Rennets using the Joyce Valenza CARRDSS test.
http://savetherennets.com/mp.php
a) Credibility: The information on this website comes across as credible because it is has a copy write on it, but the copy write is not a company it is the name of two individuals.
b) Accuracy: The information is not accurate. I googled rennet and it said that rennet is an enzyme used to make cheese. The website says that rennets are rodents and that are slaughtered in order to get an enzyme to create cheese.
c) Reliability: The site is not reliable due to the fact that nothing is cited. I have no idea where the information came from in order to research it further. Also the website is copy written by two people and only there first names are written.
d) Relevance: The site is not relevant to anything that people are concerned about. People do not even know that rennet exists making this website that no one would donate to.
e) Date: The only dates on this website is the copywrite dates 2005-2010.
f) Sources Behind the Text: There are no sources listed behind the texts that I read or looked at.
g) Scope and Purpose: The purpose of this website is to raise awareness to the fact that rennets are slaughtered in order to make cheese.
Citation
I used BibMe to create the citation for a book I found called Universal Algebra. BibMe was very easy to use. All you have to do is type in the book you are using and see if they have it on their website. If they do the information you need in order to create the citation is already entered into the citation.
Cohn, P. M.. Universal algebra. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Print.