for prof avril
PROFESSOR CALLEN
SCI 100 Module One Activity: Source Credibility Worksheet
Overview
In this activity, you’ll evaluate an article about a scientific topic to decide whether it’s credible—in other words, whether you can trust what it's telling you. As a student and in your everyday life, you need to be able to determine whether sources are credible.
Instructions
In this week’s discussion, you chose a news story from ScienceDaily to focus on for the projects in the course. The story was about a topic in the natural sciences that interests you—maybe it was something like deforestation, viruses, or pesticides.
For this activity, you’ll locate a second article on the same topic, and evaluate whether it would be credible enough to use in your academic work. This is valuable practice, because when you’re researching a topic, you should never just rely on a single source of information. Looking for multiple perspectives gives you a better sense of the complexities of your topic.
To complete this assignment, do the following:
1. Search for a second article about the same natural science topic you focused on in the first discussion. For this assignment, don’t use ScienceDaily; find an article instead from the Shapiro Library .
2. Choose an article and read it.
3. Fill out the Article Information table with relevant background information about your chosen article, such as the author’s name and when it was published. This information would help you if you needed to cite your article.
4. Score the article using the Article Evaluation Rubric. This will help you see how credible your chosen article is.
5. Finally, answer the reflection questions.
Part 1: Article Information
Fill out this table with as much information as is available about your article.
Author(s) |
Type your responses in this table. |
Title of the Article |
|
Publication Date/Date of the Last Update |
|
Publisher Name/Organization |
|
Publisher Location/Address (if it’s a book) |
|
Volume and Issue Number (if it’s a periodical) |
|
Link to Article |
|
Retrieval Date |
|
Part 2: Article Evaluation Rubric
One way to determine how credible a source is to use the C.R.A.A.P.O. method. This is an acronym that stands for:
· Currency
· Relevancy
· Accuracy
· Authority
· Purpose & Objectivity
The following rubric asks you to use the C.R.A.A.P.O. method to evaluate your chosen article. For each row in the rubric, enter a score for your article. Then, add up each row to get a total score for the article. A good article will have a total score of 20 to 24.
For more information on the C.R.A.A.P.O. method, check out the Shapiro Library’s Guide to Evaluating Sources Using the C.R.A.A.P.O. Method.
Criteria |
One (1 point) |
Two (2 points) |
Three (3 points) |
Four (4 points) |
Score |
Currency |
No publishing date is listed, or no updates have been made in over a year |
Updates have been made in the past year |
Updates have been made in the last six months |
Updates have been made in the last three months |
|
Relevancy |
Content is unrelated to your topic, and/or the level of the content is too simple or too complex |
Content is either related but at the incorrect level, or unrelated but at the correct level |
Content is related and at the correct level, but you are not comfortable using the resource in your research |
Content is related and at the correct level, and you are comfortable using the resource in your research |
|
Authority |
The author is not listed, and no contact information is provided |
The author is not listed, but contact information is provided |
The author is listed without credentials; you are unsure whether the author created the material |
The author is listed with credentials and is the originator of the information; contact information is provided |
|
Accuracy |
Information is not verifiable; resources are not documented |
Some resources are not documented; some links do not work |
Most resources are documented; links work |
Well-organized resource, and resources are documented; links work |
|
Purpose |
A lot of advertising makes the content unclear |
The purpose is to sell, entertain, or persuade; the resource contains a lot of advertising and bias |
The purpose is to inform and teach, but the resource contains some advertising; there is minimal bias |
The purpose is to inform and teach, and the resource contains little advertising; the resource is free of bias |
|
Objectivity |
It is unclear what institution or organization published and supports the resource |
It is unclear whether the author has any connection with a larger institution; the resource is .com, .org, or another generic domain |
The resource is supported by a larger institution, but some bias is apparent |
It is clear the resource was published and is supported by a reputable institution; the resource is free of bias |
|
Total Score |
|
Note: The CRAAP (or CRAAPO) Test was created by Sarah Blakeslee (University of California at Chico, Meriam Library). With her permission, this content was based on her original text with some modification.
Part 3: Reflection
Finally, answer the following questions:
What total score did you give your article, and what does this score say about the credibility of the article? |
Type your response in this table. |
What made your article credible (or not)? Discuss the specific criteria that showed your article is credible (or that it’s not). |
|
Why is it important to only use credible sources? |
|
How could you apply what you’ve learned about evaluating sources to your daily life? For instance, does the C.R.A.A.P.O. rubric make you think any differently about the media you interact with? |
|