The Fetal Stem Cell Debate: How High School Biology Students Separate Factual Information from Agenda on the Internet Brenda Steiger CEP 806 Internet Inquiry Report

My purpose for this inquiry: My purpose for this inquiry: I wanted to know more about how my students use the internet to form opinions and obtain information about science issues.

Internet Issues: According to Bruce Bertram in his article, Credibility of the Web: Why we Need Dialectical Reading (2001), users of the web hold different perspectives on the reliability of its text. Where are my students at?

Internet Inquiry Project Questions: Through online discussions with other teachers and my readings, I have formed three questions that I think will help me uncover what my students think about the internet as a source of information….

How do high school biology students come to terms with conflicting information regarding fetal stem cells on the internet? How do high school biology students come to terms with conflicting information regarding fetal stem cells on the internet? Question #1:

Are they able to separate information that is more factual in nature from information that has some underlying agenda? Are they able to separate information that is more factual in nature from information that has some underlying agenda? Question #2:

Which criteria do they use to evaluate the credibility of different websites relating to fetal stem cells? Question #3:

How would my 21 biology students respond to the three questions? Here’s what I thought…. Predictions:

How do high school biology students come to terms with conflicting information regarding fetal stem cells on the internet? How do high school biology students come to terms with conflicting information regarding fetal stem cells on the internet? Their opinions will first be based on their initial feelings about the issue, regardless of the information the websites contain. Given their reliance on particular search engines, I then predict that a few students will want to look to sites for information other than the three that I provide. Prediction #1:

Prediction #1: Background Through my online discussions, I base my prediction on a common theme among students: they prefer to rely on typical sites like Wikipedia as a source of information they prefer to rely on typical sites like Wikipedia as a source of information Websites with user-friendly formats are preferred over those of less familiar sites Websites with user-friendly formats are preferred over those of less familiar sites

How do they separate information that is factual from information that has some other agenda? Students will have difficulty in determining the underlying purposes behind any particular site’s content. Prediction #2:

Prediction #2 Background: My students may not yet have the skills to differentiate between the treasures and the junk of science information on the internet. “The web today hides its precious treasures behind a greater mass of semiprecious or junk-grade texts.” --Bertram, Bruce. Digital Content: The Babel of Cyberspace. JAAL (1999)

Prediction #3 What criteria do they use to evaluate the credibility of different websites relating to fetal stem cells? Most will have a few ideas about how to identify a legitimate site, but will not be able to name more than one particular criteria to evaluate it. Most will know what the domains.com,.org, and.gov stand for, but will not have opinions as to legitimacy for each.

Prediction #3: Background Information Like spoken language, technological literacy is continually evolving, and students will need the training and experience to cope with these changes, according to the article, Twenty-First Century Literacy (1998) J Flood, S.B. Heath, & D Lapp (Eds,). Are my students prepared to deal with these changes?

My Inquiry Plan: Project Steps

Step 1: I introduced basic information to the students regarding the biology of the stem cell to get them thinking.

Step 2: I provided my students with the addresses of three websites of differing points of view…. I provided my students with the addresses of three websites of differing points of view….

Right to Life of Michigan (RTL) html National Institute of Health (NIH) Medra, Inc.

I allowed students time to browse each of the three websites, and then they filled out a questionnaire based on the three inquiry questions. Step 3:

I compiled questionnaire information and conducted follow-up interviews with a few representative students. Step 4:

Student Task #1 Results: Students compared and contrasted the positive and negative aspects of fetal stem cell research presented on each of the three websites. How did the students handle conflicted or perhaps de-emphasized information about fetal stem cell research contained on each site? How did the students handle conflicted or perhaps de-emphasized information about fetal stem cell research contained on each site?

Task #1 Results: Typical Student Responses “All of the sites had good information. Maybe more science should be done to figure it out.” “All of the sites had good information. Maybe more science should be done to figure it out.” “Medra says that it helped people. It (fetal stem cell therapy) should be allowed.” “Medra says that it helped people. It (fetal stem cell therapy) should be allowed.” “I don’t think fetuses should be killed, because there may be other ways to cure diseases.” “I don’t think fetuses should be killed, because there may be other ways to cure diseases.”

Task #1 Results: Five students indicated that they weren’t sure what to do with the conflicted or de- emphasized information on these three sites. They spent some time looking up information elsewhere.

Task #1 Analysis: Some students expressed strong opinions from either side of the debate based on both what they saw on the sites and through some preconceptions that they held. Unfortunately, they were more eager to express an opinion about the issue than to give an indication of how they arrived at it.

Task #1 Analysis: The students responded as I predicted, evaluating the positive and negative sides of stem cell use from a limited perspective. This issue turned out to be new for most of them, so many didn’t know what to think when presented with various sources of information.

Student Task #2: Students matched the following statements with what they thought would characterize each of the three sites… Students matched the following statements with what they thought would characterize each of the three sites…

Task #2 Students chose all that applied to each of the 3 sites: to make money. to make money. to persuade people into thinking a certain way. to persuade people into thinking a certain way. to simply inform people about this topic. to simply inform people about this topic.

Task #2 Results: Categorizing sites by agenda

Task #2 Analysis: All of the students indicated that the NIH website intended to be informative in nature. In my prediction, I underestimated their ability to notice this.

Task 2 Analysis: Most students placed the Medra, Inc website into all three categories. Some indicated that the testimonials from patients on this site made it particularly informative in nature. The site doesn’t explicitly state the costs of their services, yet most students recognized that Medra, Inc is a business. I did not predict that they would see this.

Task #2 Analysis: The Right to Life website elicited various responses, but most agreed that it was persuasive in nature. Many students indicated that they associated this organization with its anti-abortion stance.

Student Task #3 Students were asked to make a list of the items found on a website that would indicate that it was a good source of information. Students were asked to make a list of the items found on a website that would indicate that it was a good source of information.

Task #3: Typical Student Responses How do you know a website contains factual information? “It explains things well.” “It explains things well.” “If it’s like wikipedia.” “If it’s like wikipedia.” “It has lots of information.” “It has lots of information.” “It isn’t selling something.” “It isn’t selling something.” “If it was posted by a scientist.” “If it was posted by a scientist.”

Task #3 Analysis: My students already have some good ideas as to what constitutes a reliable website. When comparing the considerations listed on the Johns Hopkins University website, Evaluating Information Found on the Internet, my students matched a few….

Task #3 Analysis: Students already have some concept of these criteria: Authorship Authorship Publishing body Publishing body Point of view Point of view

Task #3 Analysis: Students need reminders or instruction in these evaluation criteria: Referral to other sources Referral to other sources Verifiability Verifiability Currency Currency Distinguishing propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation Distinguishing propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation

Emergent ideas: High school students have “grown up” with the web; their experiences have provided them already with some of the tools for finding reliable information. High school students have “grown up” with the web; their experiences have provided them already with some of the tools for finding reliable information. They still require instruction in evaluating science information on the web. The more they know about a topic, the better they get at such evaluations. They still require instruction in evaluating science information on the web. The more they know about a topic, the better they get at such evaluations.

Emergent Ideas: In such a survey, the way a question is presented can determine the quality of the data collected. In such a survey, the way a question is presented can determine the quality of the data collected. I would like to take more time in comparing my results with those of my online colleagues, to see if my results are typical for other students. I would like to take more time in comparing my results with those of my online colleagues, to see if my results are typical for other students.