Week 7

Audience

Week 7

This week, we will respond to our peers' annotated bibliographies by trying to evaluate their sources. Imagine that you are the audience for your peer's project. How convincing would these sources be? Will they help your peer get their point across, or will they hinder your peer's argument?

The assigned reading this week is short and sweet, because we will also be reading our peers' sources. The assigned reading this week is a video by Sarah Kurpiel called "The CRAAP Test." It is a brief explanation of one way to sort the good sources from the "craapy" sources. Then, I have supplied you with The CRAAP Checklist, which will help you evaluate the sources.

Once you have a handle on the CRAAP Checklist and what you are looking for in the sources, choose a few of your peers' sources to read and evaluate. You can skim these to get the relevant information that you need. It is not necessary to read them fully, but you do need to access them so you can get the information you need to make an informed decision.

Your responses to your peers this week will be running their chosen sources through the CRAAP Checklist and giving each aspect a score on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being an excellent source, and 1 being a terrible source). This will help you peer see how audiences might perceive their sources and which ones might be most helpful to their argument.

Due Monday, October 9

Read

The CRAAP Test by Sarah Kurpiel (Video)

AND

The CRAAP Checklist

AND

Choose sources that your peers have annotated (below) to read and evaluate.

Respond

Look at your peers' annotated bibliographies in the Google Drive folder below. As a comment on their document, run one of their sources through the CRAAP test. Choose a source you want to evaluate and score it on a scale of 1-10 for each aspect of the CRAAP checklist: Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy and Purpose. Give reasons for each score. Then give a final analysis for this source (see example below). Each source you run through the CRAAP test will be worth 2 points. It is recommended that you complete at least 5 sources, though you may do more for extra points.

Example:

Currency: 10/10. This source is very current. It was published last year.

Relevance: 4/10. It is not clear to me how this source is relevant to what my peer is trying to argue.

Authority: 8/10. This source has been peer-reviewed, so it can be trusted, but the authors seem to have a stake in the outcome.

Accuracy: 6/10. The information here comes from a survey, and respondents might not have been 100% truthful in their answers.

Purpose: 8/10. This source contains a lot of factual information, but it also seems like the author wants to persuade the audience.

Final analysis: This source might help bolster my peer's argument because it is current, trusted, and factual, but I am curious to see how the information is made relevant to their argument.

Comment on your peers' annotated bibliographies below.

Report abuse