ENGL week 4 discussion

ENGL147N-60265 Modules Week 4 Discussion: Source Evaluation!

"

This is a graded discussion: 25 points possible

due Aug 5 at 1:59am

Week 4 Discussion: Source Evaluation

5 8

Search entries or author

# Reply

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)

Apply the following writing resources to your posts:

Link (multimedia presentation): Citing References in Text Link (website): APA Citation and Writing

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.

Topics Con-Position Articles

Patient Portals

Wong, D. & Morgan-Lynch, S. (2017, December). Patient portals and young people: addressing the privacy dilemma of providing access to health information . Journal of Primary Health Care, 9(4), 240-243.

Cosmetic Surgery

Khunger, N. (2014, September). Risk assessment and prevention of complications in aesthetic surgery . Journal of Cutaneous & Aesthetic Surgery, 7(3),141- 142. (Click on View record in DOAJ to access article.)

Cost of Cancer

Goldman, D.P. & Philipson, T. (2014). Five myths about cancer care in America . Health Affairs, 33(10), 1801- 1804. (Click on Full Text Finder to access article.)

Surrogacy Gullino, S. (2015, October). Surrogacy breaks the bond of motherhood . Ethics & Medics, 40 (10), 1-4.

Organ Donation

Shaw, D.M. (2017, July). The consequences of vagueness in consent to organ donation . Bioethics, 31 (6), 424-43.

Private Hospitalizat ion

Natterman, J. & Rayne, P. (2017). The prisoner in a private hospital setting: What providers should know . Journal of Health Care Law & Policy, 19 (1), 119-147.

Workplace stress

Langille, J. (2017). Fight or flight...or fix? Employers must work with employees to address workplace stress

. Canadian Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, 79(4), 26-29.

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.

Example

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

Grading This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:

Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines

Course Outcomes (CO): 4, 6

Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

The signal phrase should include the author (or article title if no author is noted), date of publication, statement of credibility, an interesting verb choice, a cited quote or paraphrase -- all in one complete sentence!

1 Dr. Seuss (2 2013) 3 renown author of numerous and beloved children’s books, 4 queries, 5 “Do you like green eggs and ham?” 8).

Unread

$ %

& Subscribe

THERESA GERGELA (Instructor) Jun 9, 2019

Edited by THERESA GERGELA on Jul 5 at 5:42pm

# Reply '

"

Hello, Class, and welcome to Week 4!

This week we look at the important topic of evaluating sources. I think you will find the “CRAAP” model helpful; on a daily basis we read, ingest, interpret, discard, or accept copious amounts of information through written and visual texts, and discerning the credibility of them is a useful skill.

Sparks and Rapp (2011), doctorate holders in Learning Sciences, assert, “Knowledge about an individual source (e.g., a respected public figure vs. an accused wrongdoer) could influence whether readers rely on or disregard the propositions provided by that source.” We may already have preconceived ideas about the credibility of, for example, a newspaper or website; when doing research, the necessity of consciously and carefully evaluating writers and their sources is crucial.

All too often, in the media today, we see evidence of bias. This should be seen as a red flag when evaluating sources! Bias is not always easily discernible, however, and reading with a skeptical eye goes a long way towards uncovering it. Please pay special attention to the instructions for locating peer-reviewed sources.

Please begin posting on Monday, July 29, for credit this week. Try and include all the components of a signal phrase in your peer response suggestions. (Your scholarly outside source for the initial post should be from among the list provided, or contact me individually.) I look forward to reading your discussions of source credibility!

Theresa

Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers' reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 230-247. Retrieved from https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login? url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=edswsc&AN=000286544100016& site=eds-live&scope=site

Teresa Starner Yesterday

# Reply '

"

David M. Shaw wrote the article The Consequences of Vagueness in Consent to Organ Donation. He holds an MA in English lit., a Ph.D. in philosophy, and a Master of Medical Law. This article was written to inform and educate professionals what the potential barriers are to obtaining consent for organ donation from the deceased’s’ families. This article was published by Wiley-Blackwell in 2017 and revised in 2019 in the journal Bioethics which is peer-reviewed. It states it is peer-reviewed in the journal subset. The article is a secondary source which references numerous scholarly and peer-reviewed sources to support the claim that lack of concrete information surrounding the process of organ donation is a major reason families do not consent. All the sources referenced are appropriate to the subject as they give support to facts contained in the article which support the claim. Some sources date back to 2006 which is outside the 5-year rule of thumb for source material. This could be viewed as a weakness and give the basis for rebuttal by locating newer source information with up to date statistical data that refutes the older sources. Organ donation is an evolving subject so using newer sources would have given the claim more strength. Sources “over 5 years is usually considered outdated in the general education and healthcare fields” (Chamberlain University, 2019).

References

Chamberlain University, 2019. Week 4 lesson: information literacy. retrieved from:

https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/468 38/pages/week-4-lesson-information-

literacy?module_item_id=5905678

Shaw, D. M. (2017, July). The consequences of vagueness in consent to organ donation.

Bioethics, 31(6), 424-431.

http://dx.doi.org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc. org/10.1111/bioe.12335

Kimberly Evans Yesterday

# Reply '

"

The article I chose to evaluate using the CRAAP evaluation model is, The Consequences of Vagueness in Consent to Organ Donation. This article was informative. It discusses how potential donors and families are not fully informed of all the details that surface when immediate decisions need to be made at the time of organ donation. This is a complicated process and there are many decisions to be made that many are not aware of. It emphasizes lack of communication with the donor’s family. Even if one is registered to be a donor, there can still be many conflicts. It suggests that the validity of the consent can be questionable, as well as what the donor would consent to during the organ donation process. This can be very distressing to the potential donor’s family. It can lead to refusal of consent which can also cause harm to the potential recipients and their families. The article does suggest need for more informed consent and education. It also offers some strategies to reduce the vagueness. The information thoroughly covered the topic.

As the article is information not obtained firsthand, it is a secondary source. The article was obtained from Bioethics, which “is a monthly peer-reviewed academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell” (Wikipedia). Peer review was also noted in the Journal Subset. Bioethics has been publishing for over 30 years. (Wikipedia) This article was published July 2017. There is a possibility there has been changes in the past two years to improve the consent process, but I did not research for any updated information.

The author, David M. Shaw, has a PhD in philosophy and has a Master of Medical Law. He has worked at the Institute for Bioethics since 2012 and is affiliated with the Department of Health, Ethics and Society. Dr. Shaw’s primary interest is in organ donation and research ethics. (Shaw, 2017) Sources in this article are cited. With the above information on the author and journal, I feel this is a credible source.

References

Shaw, D. M. (2017, July). The consequences of vagueness in consent to organ donation. Bioethics, 31(6), 424-431. http://dx.doi.org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/1 0.1111/bioe.12335

Wikipedia. Retrieved July 30, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics_(journal)

Cindy Pemberton Yesterday

# Reply '

"

Hello Kimberly,

In Shaw (2017) , Dr of Philosophy with Masters in Medical Law, Enquire, The consequences of vagueness in consent to organ donation, I feel that the article should have included the origin of this obtained research information and included actual donnor accounts to add to the credibility and validity of the article; being a doctor of philosophy with a masters in medical law, I would think Mr. Shaw should have anticipated this type of critique and incorporated those points in his article.

Thanks,

Cindy Pemberton Yesterday

# Reply '

"

Hello Professor & classmates,

I will be evaluating an article on The Cost of Cancer, there is a lot of talk on cancer these days; in the news, in magazines and in advertisements. It is important to get accurate information out to the general public and establish credibility for us to trust the health care system.

This resource was not up to date, as it was written back in October of 2014, that’s 5 years of new information that is not included. The date of the publication is important because you want to retrieve the most up to date information possible (Seyler & Brizee, 2018, pg. 275), especially if you are doing a research paper. In my opinion the information found in the resource, which is on 5 myths about cancer, does not support the topic. I thought I would be reading about the high cost of cancer from the topic, so there is no coalition to the subject matter. This article goes into specific myths on cancer and misconceptions regarding cancer treatment.

I believe the source is primary, because it is original research from the authors. The source is appropriate for an academic paper because it is from a credible source, it is peer-reviewed and peer reviewed journals are always scholarly in nature (Nelson, 2014); and it identifies the authors responsible for the information provided (Seyler & Brizee, 2018, pg. 281). The publishing body is The People to People Health Foundation, Inc., Project HOPE. One author, Dana P Goldman, is the Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair and director of the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, in Los Angeles. The other author, Tomas Philipson, is the Daniel Levin Professor of Public Policy Economics and Law at the University of Chicago, in Illinois. The source was peer reviewed, and I ascertained this by filtering for it in the library. I did not see any sources cited in this article to note, so I can’t be sure how the authors obtained the information or the accuracy of the information itself.

This source was created to discredit certain myths about cancer and to inform the general public about those myths. I was actually saddened to read a couple of those myths, because I was led to believe otherwise from what I have heard on the news and other publications. Then again, this article is 5 years old, so there may not be as much credibility to some of those myths anymore; at least I would hope so. I was unable to find and bias in this article, the authors just stated the facts mostly, and gave stats to back up the arguments.

References

Seyler, D. U., & Brizee, A. (2018). Read, reason, write: An argument text and reader. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Goldman, D.P. & Philipson, T. (2014). Five myths about cancer care in America. Health Affairs, 33(10), 1801 - 1804. Retrieved From

https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?

url=https://search.proquest.com/d

ocview/1613558910?accountid=147674

Nelson, H., (2014) Systemic Reviews to Answer Healthcare Questions. Retrieved From

https://library.chamberlain.edu/c.php? g=942828&p=6796294

THERESA GERGELA (Instructor) Yesterday

# Reply '

"

Hello Cindy,

thanks for your discussion post.

Excellent comment/note about the currency of the data. Technically, sources within a five- year range are considered credible for academic writing; however, as you note, sometimes one must take into account the topic and the rapidness of change with which it might be affected. Regarding your comment about sources, the article/authors do use numerous notes within it, the origins or subjects of which are included at the end of the paper. When considering an article, as you state, it is important to also consider the credibility of the sources used in it.

I like that you provide a paragraph about the credentials and expertise of the writers. Sometimes that bit of extra research can help determine these categories specifically.

I do believe that your identification of author purpose is correct; while many articles are informative, they also have a certain stance or specific intent to persuade the reader of that particular stance. Here, the aim appears to be to "debunk a number of the most common misconceptions about cancer treatment, such as claims that the war on cancer has been a failure and that treatment costs are unsustainable" (Goldman & Philipson, 2014).

APA: Did you click on the cite button for article? It is below.

(Note that volume numbers are italicized, and the article is associated with a doi.)

For the Nelson reference, there is no comma after the author first initial, and there should be period after the year. The title would not be capitalized.

Theresa

References

Goldman, D. P., & Philipson, T. (2014). Five myths about cancer care in America. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 33(10), 1801–1804. https://doi- org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.137 7/hlthaff.2014.0826

Cindy Pemberton Yesterday

# Reply '

"

Good day Professor,

Thank you for all the feedback, I do appreciate it. I did click the cite button, I'm not sure what happens when I copy and paste sometimes, it gets distorted. I noted the rest of your comments regarding APA.

Thanks

Sinead Lynch Yesterday

"

For the purpose of the discussion this week, I have decided to analyze the article “Fight or Flight… or Fix: Employers must work with employees to address workplace stress” by Jane Langille using the CRAAP method.

Currency: According to Seyler & Brizee, an article is considered outdated if the information is over five years old (2018). The date of publication is important simply because new research and studies are being conducted every day. Nearly as soon as the information is published, it can be considered out of date. The article in question was published in the winter of 2017 in the Canadian Journal of Medical Laboratory Science (Langille, 2017). This publication date falls well within the five year mark.

Relevance: The information in this article is significantly relevant to the topic. The article includes several quotations from a manager at the Anatomical Pathology Lab in Ontario, Canada (Langille, 2017). The name of the lab manager is Louis Litsas (Langille, 2017). He states his philosophy that by having a daily huddle and connecting to his staff on a more personal level helps to decrease the rate of burnout in his facility (Langille, 2017). He states that the daily huddle is a forum for individuals to bring up issues or stresses that they are experiencing in the workplace, and then everyone can input their ideas about how to solve these issues (Langille, 2017). This information provided by Litsas is a secondary source. The author also incorporates statistics from 2016 that was collected by the journal that the article was published in regarding workplace stress. The survey found that, “a surprising 59% (17/29) of participants reported that they have experienced a high level of stress at work at least once more or daily, and 76% (22/29) felt burned out at least weekly, if not daily, due to work stressors” (Langille, 2019. One issue is, however, that the information seems to be very specific only to mangers in charge in a laboratory setting.

Authority: The author for this article utilized source such as the Mayo Clinic and the World Health Organization for some of its source material (Langille, 2017). These are both highly though of organizations that are world renowned. The author references a Dr. David Posen who was interviewed on a podcast for the journal in which the article was published. The article does not establish much information on why Posen is considered an expert on this subject. She cites Dr. Posen as being an expert on workplace stress. The publishing body for this article is the Canadian Journal of Medical Laboratory Science that is owned by the Canadian Society for Medical Laboratory Science. There is not much available information on the credentials of the author. The article does not list any degrees that Langille holds. The only information provided states that she is a health and medical writer for the CJMLS. I was unable to find any further information

July 2019

Home

Syllabus

Announcements

Resources

Modules

Files

Grades

People

VoiceThread

Bookstore

Library Guides

Media Gallery

My Media

New Webex

Academic Sup- port

Surveys

Account

Dashboard

Courses

Groups

Calendar

Inbox

Help

�

7/31/19, 2)29 AM Page 1 of 1