Evaluate Science Communication
For this homework assignment, you will post your evaluation of a science article in the discussion thread and then respond to another student’s post.
First, find a science article that interests you. Then, in your post, include the title, author, and source (publication, website, etc. a URL is fine).
Second, provide a short summary of the article.
Third use the CRAP guidelines to evaluate the article. Do NOT post the guideline. Write (compose) a paragraph or two about how reliable the article is. Support your “ratings”. For example, if you say, this article is not current, state why you believe so (The article was not current. It was first published in 2018, so it is older than five years). Go through each of the components of CRAP. If you weren’t able to find information, say so – and give your ideas on if it hurts the article. For example, if the article does not provide an author, say something like, “I was surprised that the article did not disclose the author. I wasn’t able to use information about the author to evaluate either authority or bias.” (Get the idea?
After you posted, find someone else’s and read it. Then leave a comment. Be constructive and specific. Perhaps you might respond, “While I understand you did not say the article was current because it was published in 2018, It was published at the end of that year, so it is just barely outside the 5-year window”.
Don’t all pick the same post to comment on! If you see a lot of people providing information to one student, find someone who is not receiving much feedback.
This discussion is worth 4 points.
4 points – an excellent job at providing a CRAP evaluation of an article and responding to another student with specific feedback.
3 points – A CRAP evaluation of an article was completed, but the summary had weak support; the evaluation of another student was completed with specific feedback.
3 points – an excellent job at providing a CRAP evaluation of an article was completed, but there was no response to another student
2 points – A CRAP evaluation of an article was completed, but the summary had weak support; there was no response to another student
2 point – A summary of the article was completed, however there was not an evaluation of the article using the CRAP guidelines, there was a response to another student with specific feedback.
1 point – No article was provided by the student but they provided specific feedback to another student
Reply