Evaluating Claims: Facebook Edition

Submitted by cmoran on January 19, 2017 - 11:09am
Share this on: 

Students will be expected to find evidence to investigate a pseudoscientific claim or conspiracy theory. For their graded assignment, they will be submitting a two-page paper to their Chemistry professor (the lead professor for this class in which I’m embedding). In their paper, they make a case that either supports the claim or rejects it. They will be expected to use both library and credible online sources for support.

Learning Outcomes: 

• Students will construct various search phrases for use in online and library search tools
• Students will use certain evaluation criteria (e.g. CRAAP) to assess the credibility of online sources
• Students will identify specific library resources (e.g. databases) relevant to the field of study or content area of claims in which to search
• Students will examine sources for relevance to their research question and search need (specifically, to determine credibility of claims)

Course Context (e.g. how it was implemented or integrated): 

This lesson was created by a Chemistry professor, Dr. Perdian, for his Honors college Chemistry course. It has been enhanced for IL and adapted for our college's QEP (theme: critical thinking). It was also adapted throughout attending a Backwards Design class as an example (Library Juice Academy) thus the GRASPS instructional design tool was used.

Content will be uploaded into their online course shell (in the course management system) for them to view prior to an in-person library session. This will include a short library orientation video and another short using library resources video – both of which I created in the last year.

Students will attend a face-to-face library session – a full 75-minute class.

Additional Instructor Resources (e.g. in-class activities, worksheets, scaffolding applications, supplemental modules, further readings, etc.): 

See www.criticalthinking.org for relevant information about the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Models.

Individual or Group: