2nd Info Evaluation Source Group Scores Rust 10-3-14
2 likes5,284 views
Students in a class evaluated 7 different information sources on a security breach involving the Secret Service using the CRAAP test to assess credibility. For Source 3, a CNN news video, most students gave it high marks for being recent, factual, and directly related to the topic. Source 5, an NPR podcast, was also viewed favorably by many students for directly addressing the issue in an unbiased way from a reputable source, though a few noted some opinion. Source 7, a Congressional Research Service report, provided many facts but was not always current and did not focus directly on the specific event in question.
2nd Info Evaluation Source Group Scores Rust 10-3-14
- 1. 1 2nd Period Scores/Notes from Large Group Share on Collaborative Info Source Evaluation Using CRAAP test, October 3, 2014 Source Promy/Francisco Chris, Jose, Aisa Stephanie, Osiel, Charity, Tommy Anthony, Alex, Oscar, Kevin, Unique Peyton, Jalyn, Tina Samina, Adam, Maggie, Thomas, Brooke Source 1: Washington Post Newspaper Article Online 23—was recent, authoritative 22 21 23—most relevant, recent, was not opinionated 21—recent and relevant 22—was recent and the information was good; author had contact info, news reporter qualified Source 2: American Thinker Blog Post 13—lots of bias, opinions 14—scored lower because of the opinionated nature of it 11 17—it was very biased 16—did not address the issue; has opinion and bias It was somewhat recent; had grammar issues, EXTREMELY biased and opinionated (politically); it had no references Source 3: CNN News Video 21—was recent and info was specifically about the security breach 24—directly related to topic and was timely 24 19— extremely current, solid facts but not all the facts (shorter) 23—recent and information related to topic 21 Recent, relevant, credibility was good (news source/expertise)
- 2. 2 2nd Period Scores/Notes from Large Group Share on Collaborative Info Source Evaluation Using CRAAP test, October 3, 2014 Source Promy/Francisco Chris, Jose, Aisa Stephanie, Osiel, Charity, Tommy Anthony, Alex, Oscar, Kevin, Unique Peyton, Jalyn, Tina Samina, Adam, Maggie, Thomas, Brooke Source 4: Reference article through Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context database 14---was not about the actual event and was from 2010 18---copyright date, no reference to the actual research event/topic 11 17— published 2010 (deducted) 22—was somewhat on topic but not as recent 21—a database, had citations, lost points on relevance and date/did not relate to topic—was a general overview Source 5: Podcast through NPS (All Things Considered) 22—really talked about the issue 24—unbiased, related directly to the event, knowledgeable 24 21 22 directly addressing the cause of the issue—took off points because of the authority, slight bias 23—overall it was fairly good; it was a little opinionated toward the end. From NPS which is reputable (students not familiar with NPR)---had a byline and description of author Source 6: Google Book 14—not published recently 17---was only about the Secret Service and not about the event 14 19---kind of outdated 19---was not recent and not about the specific problem in the topic 21—a little dated and the book did not exactly relate to topic we were trying to research although it had some background info
- 3. 3 2nd Period Scores/Notes from Large Group Share on Collaborative Info Source Evaluation Using CRAAP test, October 3, 2014 Source Promy/Francisco Chris, Jose, Aisa Stephanie, Osiel, Charity, Tommy Anthony, Alex, Oscar, Kevin, Unique Peyton, Jalyn, Tina Samina, Adam, Maggie, Thomas, Brooke Source 7: Congressional Research Service Report on Secret Service 19---lots of facts but did not talk about the actual issue/event 24------the overview and content was relevant 24—relevant and facts but not always current 24-they did do research that could be valuable 21—was current and a lot of accurate info on Secret Service; we wondered about bias because it is published by govt. who has an interest in protecting interests. 22 covered a lot of info; from govt but depending on how you look at that could be biased or not; it was not directly on the topic