CIS101 Honors Internet Research Assignment
Since all of you grew up with the Internet, you are already quite sophisticated information
consumers. Nevertheless, it is important to develop a philosophy or strategy that guides your
search for information. Does how your search depend on what you are looking for? What criteria
do you use to judge the value of information? What is the most important criterion? Does that
also depend on what you are looking for?
Here is a valuable resource for refining your online search strategy. Read the online article by
Robert Harris, “Evaluating Internet Research Sources,” found at
http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm. Pay particular attention to the material related to
evaluating a website (the CARS checklist, Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support).
Find another resource that addresses the same issue, i.e. how to find reliable information online.
Compare the two articles, and describe instances where your own personal experience either
validated the recommended approach, or actually turned out not to be useful. Include in your
paper a working link to that second resource.
Select a technology topic that you are interested in. For suggestions, look at the back of the
chapters in the concepts book for topics. You can also look at online technology sites, such as
cNet and Computerworld. Then find two different web sites on your topic, one that you can
argue is a credible, reliable source, and one that is not as reliable a source for information.
Write a 5-7 page double spaced paper that describes the following:
1. Provide a summary of the Harris article and a second article you find on the same topic.
Compare the two approaches, and synthesize your summary with your own personal
experience as an “information consumer.”
2. Then describe the technology topic you have decided to research. Provide a
description/introduction/overview of your topic, and why it is of interest to you.
3. Describe how you found each web site, i.e. what search engine or directory did you use.
4. For both web sites, use the CARS checklist as well as your own personal criteria for
evaluating the web site. For each part, argue why the web site matches or does not match
the criteria described in each category.
5. In summary, reflect and comment on Harris’s statement that “information is a
commodity.” What are the implications of this statement? Do you agree or disagree?
Explain how the material in Harris relates to your own perceptions of the information
available on the Web.
You must submit an electronic version of the document in either Microsoft word (.doc) or .rtf
format. You are to post your document to the digital dropbox with the format:
YourLastName_YourFirstInitial_paper.doc
Due Date (must be posted by 11:59 pm):
Tuesday, March 23
Internet Research Assignment Grading Rubric
Your grade is based on how your assignment meets the following criteria:
Excellent
Technical requirements
Topic
document posted in
Blackboard by due date
technology topic
closely related to
computing profession
addresses completely and
clearly each of the
requirements
CARS/Personal
Analysis
full analysis of each
part of CARS
provide specific
evidence from web
site of how it meets or
does not meet criteria
contains working links
no grammatical or spelling
errors
Average
document posted on time
addresses in a simple and
basic way each of the
requirements
technology topic
related to consumer or
personal interests, not
a business or
professional
application
has web site address but it is
not a link
Poor
has a few spelling or
grammatical errors
document not submitted on
time
does not address each
required element
no links at all for web site
lots of spelling or
grammatical errors
integrates CARS and
other evaluation
techniques with
personal experience
discusses each part of
the CARS checklist
provides some
evidence of how the
site meets each
criteria
does relate to some
personal experience
not a technology topic
does not completely
apply each part of the
CARS checklist
contains statements
like “the site was
reasonable” with no
supporting evidence