3rd period info evaluation source group scores

1. 3rd Period Scores/Notes from Large Group Share on Collaborative Info Source Evaluation Using
CRAAP test, October 3, 2014
1
Source John,
Patrick,
Mark,
Oscar,
Carlos
Edwin, Cate Sarah, Nate, Sam
G., Dylan
Connie, Armani,
Graeme,
Christina, Jared
David, William, Meghan,
Luis, Roland
Source 1:
Washington Post
Newspaper Article
Online
25 reporter
had twitter
handle and
it was
credible
24 newspapers
don’t always get
news right
24 credible and
relevant
24—felt slightly
opinionated (goes to
different newspapers
having leanings)
20 mostly lost points on
authority---it lacked a little in
information and we did not
know if the person who wrote
it if the person was an expert---
not sure if journalist
specialized in this topic or had
prior knowledge. Scored high
on accuracy and currency and
relevancy.
Source 2:
American Thinker
Blog Post
14 lost
points on
currency,
credibility
19 it was not
current or
relevant to the
topic; did not
seem
authoritative on
the blog
17 It was recent yet
did not look for
copyright date (?);
lost points on
relevance, accuracy,
authority—was
biased
13—biased and did
not say things very
well
22 Was current but writing
was very biased “we were
nice”
Source 3: CNN
News Video
24 The accuracy
could have been off
because it could
have been a little
biased because of
cultural lens of
America
23 accuracy, purpose gave a 4
was informing but could also
be persuading (hint of bias)

2. 3rd Period Scores/Notes from Large Group Share on Collaborative Info Source Evaluation Using
CRAAP test, October 3, 2014
2
Source John,
Patrick,
Mark,
Oscar,
Carlos
Edwin, Cate Sarah, Nate, Sam
G., Dylan
Connie, Armani,
Graeme,
Christina, Jared
David, William, Meghan,
Luis, Roland
Source 4:
Reference article
through Gale
Opposing
Viewpoints in
Context database
18 not
recent, not
relevant
They could
not find
contact info
on article
19.5 Copyright date
of 2010, not as
relevant; did not
talk about the
problems of Secret
Service now and
was more on the
history of it
18 Was harsh on it
for currency and
relevance—did not
address the issue—
better for the
background info. It
was credible GALE
reliable
23 lost points on currency
(gave it a 3) ; gained points for
accuracy and authority. Was
professional in the sources
listed—added to credibility.
Source 5: Podcast
through NPS (All
Things Considered)
23 took off for
authority and
purpose
*note—not all
students know what
a byline is; more
students knew NPR
in this class than
2nd
23—some opinion
since people were
debating
Source 6: Google
Book
13.5 It seemed accurate and
his authority seemed good; but
was not relevant to the topic,
slightly out of date

3. 3rd Period Scores/Notes from Large Group Share on Collaborative Info Source Evaluation Using
CRAAP test, October 3, 2014
3
Source John,
Patrick,
Mark,
Oscar,
Carlos
Edwin, Cate Sarah, Nate, Sam
G., Dylan
Connie, Armani,
Graeme,
Christina, Jared
David, William, Meghan,
Luis, Roland
Source 7:
Congressional
Research Service
Report on Secret
Service
21 was pretty recent right
after the breach; person
writing it from Homeland
Security so had knowledge on
the topic—knew more about
the topic than WP