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19---kind of outdated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