Week 4 discussion
Week 4 Discussion: Source Evaluation
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: pp. 273-280, 289-293
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (one of the listed con-position articles)
APA citation
Initial Post Instructions
Part 1: Research & Review
Choose one of the con articles below to review and discuss with your classmates. If you have a different con article you would like to use, please discuss it with your professor in advance
Part 2: Application
Discuss how credible the source is using the CRAAP evaluation model. Detail as many of the 5 components
as possible:
1. Currency: How up-to-date is the resource? Why is the date of publication important?
2. Relevance: How significant is the information in the resource to the topic? Is there a direct coalition to the subject matter? Is the source a primary or secondary source? What makes the source appropriate for an academic paper?
3. Authority: What makes the source credible? What is the publishing body? What are the authors’ credentials? Provided info on both.
4. Accuracy: Was the source peer-reviewed (how do you know?)? Were sources cited in the work? What makes the source reliable?
5. Purpose: Why was this source created? What is its original intent (inform? persuade? entertain?). Did you notice any particular agenda or bias in the source?
Please use specific examples and cite your sources in APA format. Sometimes, we have to do extra research on the authors or publishing bodies. Those sources should be cited as well.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Here, we have an opportunity to compare research notes with our fellow peers. Help your peers by composing a signal phrase based on the source’s credentials.
Address the following:
What weaknesses do you see, if any, in the source?
If you were to discredit this source is some way, what would be the best approach?
The goal here is not to attack the source, but to test it. When we begin preparing rebuttals later this term, knowing potential points of weakness and predicting what our opposition may question is key. Remember, the goal here is to find multiple perspectives, but those perspectives should be both professional and respectful. Ask questions to keep the conversation
going. Note: If you see that someone has already received feedback from two peers, please choose to help a peer who has yet to obtain feedback.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Initial Post Length: minimum of 3 college-level paragraphs
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
I already choose the topic and you have done week 3 discussion for me so you should be familiar with it.
Solution Preview
Post Responses
Response to Starner
Thank you for your post. Indeed the dating of the respursein addition to the qualifications of the researcher are critical factor in determining the potential authority in any source material. In this case, Shaw’s expertise in medical
(220 words)