For this activity students are asked to imagine that they are organizing a party, specifically a scholarly party. Groups are given a starting article that they evaluate and use as a jumping off point for choosing a theme for their party and finding more sources. Their theme acts as an early version of a research question. Following citations backwards and forwards groups invite other scholars who would have relevant things to say about their theme. Students also assess gaps in their invite list and identify other scholars from different perspectives or discipline who should also be invited.

Syllabus and five assignments within a two-credit live course at undergraduate level. See "Relevant Links" section for access to all assignments. Assignments include a rubric.

This activity proceeds via Socratic questioning. The goal is to have students explain the common stumbling blocks they encounter as they look for information and as they write papers (if they have). The role of the librarian is to facilitate the discussion by providing a contextual framework for student experiences. By showing students that their research process follows a common pattern, they can make better choices about how, when, and where to look for information (e.g., not jumping straight to peer-reviewed articles when they can barely define their topic)

This set of assignments is designed to help students: (a) grow initial thoughts and questions into carefully scoped and well-reasoned research papers, and (b) develop critical thinking skills through interrogation of familiar images of religion and spirituality in American popular culture.

This assignment is meant to illustrate the differences between scholarly and popular information sources by presenting students with information on the topic of "fracking" from four different resources: a scholarly article, a magazine, a newspaper and a website. It introduces the idea that information can be presented in different formats depending on the context and information need.

The following activity is meant to demonstrate the concepts of authorship and authority to your students. It introduces the idea that context can influence the tone and writing style of a faculty member or scholar and also introduces the concept of the scholarly conversation. It can be used for any discipline.

This assignment asks students to compare and contrast a Wikipedia article and an article from a subject specific Encyclopedia owned by the library. It asks the students to evaluate each resource by assessing its Relevance, Authority, Date, Accuracy and Rationale. Evaluation using these five criteria is known as the RADAR framework. Although the wikipedia article in this assignment is from biology, it can be switched out for any discipline.

This assignment asks students to compare the dramatization of a historical event to the historical writing about the same event.

What is it?

An annotation is a brief evaluative summary of a book, article, or other publication. A bibliography is a list of resources cited in a consistent style format (such as MLA). An annotated bibliography, then, is a list of cited sources with brief explanations centering around one topic or research question. The purpose is to help the reader of the bibliography understand the uses of each source and the relationships of one source to another.

Your Assignment:

You are going to compile sources on the same topic for this annotated bibliography, cited in proper MLA format. When writing your annotations, be sure to compare and contrast the source with the other sources you have included. Discuss how this work relates to your topic and what perspective it provides. You can use the RADAR* (relevance, authority, date, accuracy, and rationale) framework to help you evaluate your sources.

Steps:

Follow these steps when writing each of your annotations.

1. Citation: Cite the source correctly using a referencing style (such as MLA).
2. Relevance/Main Purpose: How does this source relate to your topic? What does this source add to the general knowledge on your topic?
3. Relevance/Audience: What is the intended audience level of this source and is it appropriate for your topic?
4. Authority/Author: Qualifications of the author (e.g., John Smith, a Russian history professor at USC, based his research on recently discovered documents). Is this source cited by other sources writing on the same topic?
5. Accuracy/Evidence: Are the author’s claims supported by evidence in the form of references, citations, endnotes, or a bibliography?
6. Rationale/Bias: Is there a bias in relation to your topic (e.g., “However, Smith’s case is somewhat weakened by an anti-German bias”)? State whether or not bias is present.

*RADAR adapted from:
Mandalios, J. (2013). RADAR: An approach for helping students evaluate Internet sources. Journal Of Information Science, 39, 470-478. doi:10.1177/0165551513478889
Meriam Library at California State University, Chico. (2010, September 17). Evaluating information-Applying the CRAAP test. Retrieved from http://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf