I chose to compare InfoTrac Junior with InfoTrac Student for the first part of this assignment.

I
will begin with InfoTrac Junior:

Appropriateness: I found the content highly appropriate for the middle school level. It seemed
to be a bit basic for the high school level, however, so I would not personally encourage use of
this database past eighth grade. Reading through a few of the articles, I found that they conveyed
a few facts and some speculation but required no intense thought. This is great for middle
schoolers just beginning their research but is less than ideal for late high school years when
students are in college-prep type English classes.
Usability: It took me a little while to find a topic that was broad enough, even using generic
search as opposed to my usual advanced search, for there to be even a handful of sources. I did
have the results narrowed down to academic journals because most of what came up originally
was book reviews. This lowers the usability by lowering the usefulness of the database. It was a
functional database, though, so the searching itself was easy. It was just difficult to get results.
Content: As stated under usability, the content in this database was less than satisfactory, not
only on the search shown above but also on all searches I attempted. As far as quality of content,
the site was not bad, it was quantity that I was concerned about.
Credibility: I had the search narrowed to peer-reviewed scholarly articles and did not find any
gaping holes in credibility. The articles cited reasonable sources. Two of the articles were more
speculative than factual, and I will have to ensure that my students can tell the difference.

Appropriateness: The content in this database is appropriate for the high school level. It seems a
little too advanced for beginning researchers, so I would not recommend it to middle school
students. Some of the content I found when searching math/science-related topics was very
subject specific, so the students would have to have a firm grasp on the terminology and the topic
before understanding the article, but that is generally expected in a research project. Background
learning must come first.
Usability: The process of searching was much the same in the Student edition as it was in the
Junior edition. It was easy to use and to understand, even the advanced search and the narrowing
options for results. There was also a wider range of results, making the database better for actual
research.
Content: There was a larger amount of results in this database, though not all seemed
particularly relevant in a general search. This was fixed by using an advanced search, so I will
have to teach my students about advanced search and how and why to use it. I was pleased with
the amount and the relevance of the displayed content.
Credibility: Much like the Junior edition, the credibility, once the search was narrowed, was
pretty solid. There were a couple of sources displayed that I would not use in a college-level
paper, but I believe the students, once coached on reliability and credibility, would be able to
weed those out on their own.

When looking through Michigan Ebrarys list of databases, I found a few that may be
particularly good for my students.

The Ebook Database is just what it sounds like: a database of ebooks on a variety of subjects.
From what I see, students can use this for pleasure reading as well as for educational purposes.
There is a wide variety of ebooks on many different subjects, both fiction and nonfiction.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context is a database for controversial ideas, laws, practices, etc. The
resources in the database serve to present all sides of an issue in as unbiased a way as possible.
This is a great resource for students looking to do an argumentative or persuasive paper on a
controversial topic. It is always wise to know all sides of an issue before taking a side.

The Books and Authors database is a good place to look when writing or analyzing literature. It
provides background information on both literary works and their authors.

The page on the tree octopus can be found on the bogus/hoax list at 21things.
Credibility/Authority: The author of the page makes no references to any scientific journal or
news article. The reader is left to trust entirely the facts laid out by the author, who is Lyle
Zapato. An uncredited author and no references immediately and dramatically lowers the
credibility of a source.
Accuracy: I cannot say that the site is inaccurate, based on my level of knowledge. Instinct and
judgement tell me, along with the previously stated non-credibility, that the information is
inaccurate. Further research on the topic proves that the entire site is false.
Reliability: As there is no credibility or accuracy, I would say that the site has no reliability. It
does not even have the appearance of reliability. It is important not to completely judge a site by
its appearance, but it does factor in.
Relevance: The author of the site did a good job on this. If there was such a thing as a tree
octopus, almost all of the information here would be relevant.
Date: The website was last updated on August 12, so exceptionally recently.
Sources: none listed implies none used.
Scope and Purpose: These are clearly listed. They are to spread information and awareness
about the tree octopus.

The Buy an Ancestor Online site really made me laugh, so I chose it to analyze next.
Credibility/Authority: The site claims to be under the Losing Proposition Company, which does
not exist on the rest of the internet, so I would begin to question their credibility and authority.
Accuracy: The idea that you could buy an ancestor is a scientific impossibility. This makes the
entire site founded on an inaccurate principle.
Reliability: The site seems highly unreliable, based on the lack of credibility and accuracy. The
appearance is unreliable as well as the information.
Relevance: Once again, I cannot fault the relevance of this bogus site. If I was in the market for
an ancestor, they seem to have everything I could need.
Date: The stated copyright on the site runs from 1999-2012, so the site is outdated.
Sources: There are no sources listed.
Scope and Purpose: The scope and purpose of this site is supposedly to sell notable ancestors to
those who have none or cannot seem to trace them.

I used citationmachine.net to form this MLA citation for an article I read last year:

Sayili, Aydin. "Thbit Ibn Qurra's Generalization of the Pythagorean Theorem." Isis 51.1 (1960):
35-37. Print.

Before I allow students to use citation generators, I will first teach them how to do it manually. I
feel that this is a good base skill to have when beginning to write papers.