Communication Teacher

ISSN: 1740-4622 (Print) 1740-4630 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmt20

Beyond the Google search bar: Evaluating source

credibility in contemporary research

Mary E. Sorenson

To cite this article: Mary E. Sorenson (2016): Beyond the Google search bar: Evaluating source
credibility in contemporary research, Communication Teacher

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2016.1139150

Published online: 17 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcmt20

Download by: [University of South Dakota] Date: 17 February 2016, At: 05:09
 COMMUNICATION TEACHER, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2016.1139150

ORIGINAL TEACHING IDEA—SINGLE

Beyond the Google search bar: Evaluating source credibility in

contemporary research
Mary E. Sorenson
Department of Communication, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA

Courses: Research Methods, Public Speaking, Communication ARTICLE HISTORY

Theory, any other course that requires college students to engage Received 4 June 2015
Downloaded by [University of South Dakota] at 05:09 17 February 2016

in a formal research process. Can be conducted in traditional, Accepted 19 December 2015

online, or hybrid courses.
Objectives: In this original single-class activity, students will be able
to evaluate source credibility for resources that extend beyond peer-
reviewed, published journal articles and books. Through the use of
Internet searches and social media outlets, students will engage in
an evaluation process that will promote more effective research
habits.

Introduction and rationale

With the rise in popularity of search engines (e.g., Google and Yahoo) and major shifts in
the media landscape, media literacy as it relates to the academic research process can be
difficult for both students and instructors. Individuals increasingly rely on Google for
information seeking, which in turn has changed the way in which academic research is
being conducted for classroom projects (Taylor, 2012). According to Pan et al. (2007),
college students are likely to rely on sources that appear at the top of a list of results,
regardless of relevance or credibility. Such habits are not simply an indication of laziness
or lack of skills, but rather a consequence of college instructors not adequately teaching
students how to research in familiar contexts that reach beyond the formality of library
websites (Becker, 2003). Hall (2002) indicated that decreases in quality of student research
could be remedied by increased efforts from instructors and librarians to teach students
actively about various research options. According to Weibe (2012), the role of instructors
should not be to limit student research to a prescribed formula, but instead to provide stu-
dents with the necessary skills to enable them to think critically about information. Thus, it
is necessary that students be taught how to assess the credibility and relevance of more
contemporary resources such as organizational websites and informative blogs.
According to McCroskey and Teven (1999), credibility is traditionally composed of
three constructs: competence, goodwill, and trustworthiness. Furthermore, Metzger
(2007) highlights five areas of credibility that should be considered when evaluating infor-
mation online: accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and coverage. Although peer-
reviewed, academic journals are often ideal, many student projects require information

CONTACT Mary E. Sorenson Mes793@mail.missouri.edu

© 2016 National Communication Association
 2 M. E. SORENSON

that exists beyond the confines of academia and campus libraries. Because of this, expand-
ing our understanding of source credibility becomes crucial. As instructors, we cannot
fault students for misunderstanding Google rank systems and the various ways in
which search results become individualized based on previous search habits (Griffin &
Cohen, 2012; Pariser, 2011). In his book, Pariser (2011) highlighted the importance of
understanding that Google search results are not ranked according to credibility, but
instead are guided by algorithms that personalize results. A research lesson presented
by Griffin and Cohen (2012) addressed this issue, but did not further explore ways to
assess credibility to determine whether they should be used for academic work. Thus,
with the growing media landscape, it is imperative that evaluations of credibility shift to
include new ways of assessing authorship and information.
For example, a well-established political blog may invite politicians or experts in the
field to contribute information. In this case, a researcher could explore the credibility of
Downloaded by [University of South Dakota] at 05:09 17 February 2016

the author in multiple ways, even through social media. Less traditional forms of credi-
bility may include a “verified” symbol on a Twitter account or an endorsement on a per-
sonal webpage. Furthermore, this type of exploration will allow students to evaluate issues
of professionalism or bias for authors. By explicitly exposing students to various types of
researching techniques and understanding new ways of assessing credibility, we can begin
to eliminate erratic habits (Taylor, 2012) and encourage critical thinking. Such lessons are
not to deter students from using academic resources, but provide a more nuanced picture
of the research process. The following activity provides a foundation for students to begin
thinking about research habits in new ways and better evaluate source credibility for
online resources.

The activity
The following activity is designed for a single-class period (50–75 minutes), and allows
students to work in small groups (three or four students) and think critically about
source credibility for contemporary resources. Each group will be instructed to use elec-
tronic devices (i.e., laptops, tablets, and smartphones) that allow them to search the
web through search engines or social media applications. If technology is not typically
used in class, instruct students during the previous class period to bring technology.
Working in groups allows students to share technologies if someone is unable to
provide his or her own. The purpose of this activity is to help students understand how
source credibility varies among sources. This activity should be conducted after students
have been exposed to information regarding credibility, assessments of validity, and
formal research on library databases and Google Scholar for academic sources. The follow-
ing describes the four steps of this activity: explanation and distribution of materials,
evaluation of source credibility, APA formatting, and a class discussion.

Step 1—Explanation and distribution of materials

Select a single topic for the entire class that will allow for multiple source types to be eval-
uated. Examples of topics that have worked well include current political issues, pop
culture, and technology in the classroom. The aforementioned topics work well because
they are often discussed in a variety of spaces and invoke subjectivity regarding perceived
 COMMUNICATION TEACHER 3

credibility. Each group will receive a different source type, and all students should be given
their own copy to read. Sources should cover a variety of Internet source types, including
formal (e.g., The New York Times, organizational website), informal (e.g., popular blogs,
personal blogs), and satire (e.g., The Onion). In order to compare Internet sources to an
academic journal, instructors can decide whether a student group will receive a journal
article or if they will present this comparison themselves. Be mindful that if the instructor
asks students to evaluate a journal article, he or she will need to provide guidance for
quick, efficient reading.

Step 2—Evaluation of source credibility

After reading their article, encourage students first to assess the credibility of the source
Downloaded by [University of South Dakota] at 05:09 17 February 2016

from face value. Students should indicate if the source includes an author, date, and prop-
erly referenced information (e.g., statistics or direct quotations) from credible and relevant
individuals. Next, students should use search engines to search general websites (e.g., news
articles, organization websites, blogs) and social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn)
to investigate the credibility of the source and author and data included in the article.
Because students’ searches may yield different results, encourage group members to
conduct similar searches as opposed to designating different searches to each group
member. Additionally, encourage students to use information such as number of followers
or social media style (e.g., professional, social, informal) and discuss how this influences
perceived credibility of an author or source. Using credibility standards provided by
McCroskey and Teven (1999) and Metzger (2007), all groups should rate their source
on a scale of 1–10 (10 being most credible), and provide a brief justification for their rating.

Step 3—APA formatting

If part of the course requires students to learn formal APA citations, ask each group to
write a citation for the article they were given. This will help students identify necessary
information for in-text citations and reference pages, which may further influence per-
ceived credibility if necessary information is missing. This step may also prompt students
to ask questions about proper citation formatting for more contemporary sources.

Step 4—Class discussion

As a class, discuss the process of evaluating credibility and the ways in which students can
distinguish a credible web source from those that are less credible. This process will high-
light ways in which individuals perceive credibility in different ways and will provide a
space for discussing subjectivity as it relates to credibility. The following questions may
be used to prompt the discussion:

(1) What types of general searches were conducted in order to investigate the source type
or author? Were there certain features of blogs that indicated certain levels of credi-
bility for your source?
 4 M. E. SORENSON

(2) How were social media sites used to evaluate author credibility? Did number of fol-
lowers, account verification, or professional versus social/personal use influence
your evaluation? If so, describe the type of influence.
(3) Consider the data that were presented in your article (e.g., statistics, direct quota-
tions). How did you use online resources to verify and evaluate the credibility of
the evidence that the author presented?
(4) Was satire or parody recognized at face value, or was further investigation necessary?
In what ways can we distinguish parodied material from actual news?

Debriefing
After discussing contemporary ways of assessing source credibility, engage students in a
Downloaded by [University of South Dakota] at 05:09 17 February 2016

debriefing conversation about how this activity changed their perception of the research
process. During this time, students should discuss why it matters that source credibility
is evaluated and how it can impact their academic work in a variety of classes. Further-
more, this discussion should push students to consider different types of projects that
would more appropriately lend themselves to contemporary sources (e.g., speeches or
papers about pop culture topics, sharing current events). If this activity is conducted
early in the semester, students should also be asked near the end to reflect on what has
changed about their research habits and how they might use these habits in future
courses or job opportunities.

Appraisal
In conclusion, this activity allows students to understand how to utilize familiar search
engines in collaboration with skills learned within more traditional research to better
evaluate source credibility. As opposed to eliminating online research in the classroom,
instructors are able to provide students with necessary media literacy skills to enhance
their research process. This activity helps engage students in the process and collaborate
with one another to discuss perceptions of credibility. Not only is this activity interactive, it
allows each student to have a voice in the research process and engage instructors with
questions or concerns. As opposed to restricting students to peer reviewed, academic
articles and books, this activity teaches them about differences in source value and pro-
vides a more complete foundation for understanding what constitutes quality research.
Additionally, using articles that cite academic research provides an opportunity to
discuss secondary research and issues that arise if journalists or bloggers use research
out of context. Overall, students have responded positively to this activity and have refer-
enced it later in the semester when doing their own research. Although the activity is
designed for a single day, its effects are lasting and memorable.

References and suggested readings

Becker, N. J. (2003). Google in perspective: Understanding and enhancing student search skills.
New Review of Academic Librarianship, 9, 84–99.
Griffin, T., & Cohen, D. (2012). Critical reading of the web. Communication Teacher, 26, 5–9.
 COMMUNICATION TEACHER 5

Hall, P. (2002). Not all sources are created equal: Student research, source equivalence, and the net.
Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 7, 13–21.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measure-
ment. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103.
Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online infor-
mation and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078–2091.
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust:
Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated
-Communication, 12, 801–823.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and
how we think. New York, NY: Penguin.
Taylor, A. (2012). A study of information search behavior of the millennial generation. Information
Research, 17, 1–20. Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/17-1/paper508.html
Weibe, T. J. (2012). Books and websites, e-Journals or print: If the source fits, use it. College &
Downloaded by [University of South Dakota] at 05:09 17 February 2016

Undergraduate Libraries, 19, 108–113.