ENGL147N Week 4 Discussion: Source Evaluation

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 TextLinks to an external site.

Link (website): APA Citation and WritingLinks to an external site.

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.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:ENGL147N Week 4 Discussion: Source Evaluation

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 informationLinks to an external site.. Journal of Primary Health Care, 9(4), 240-243.
Cosmetic Surgery	Khunger, N. (2014, September). Risk assessment and prevention of complications in aesthetic surgeryLinks to an external site.. 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 AmericaLinks to an external site.. Health Affairs, 33(10), 1801-1804. (Click on Full Text Finder to access article.)
Surrogacy	Gullino, S. (2015, October). Surrogacy breaks the bond of motherhoodLinks to an external site.. Ethics & Medics, 40 (10), 1-4.
Organ Donation	Shaw, D.M. (2017, July). The consequences of vagueness in consent to organ donationLinks to an external site.. Bioethics, 31 (6), 424-43.
Private Hospitalization	Natterman, J. & Rayne, P. (2017). The prisoner in a private hospital setting: What providers should knowLinks to an external site.. 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 stressLinks to an external site.. 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:

Currency: How up-to-date is the resource? Why is the date of publication important?

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?

Authority: What makes the source credible? What is the publishing body? What are the authors’ credentials? Provided info on both.

Accuracy: Was the source peer-reviewed (how do you know?)? Were sources cited in the work? What makes the source reliable?

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

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?” (p. 8).

Parts of the signal phrase

Author (or article title if no author is noted)

Date of publication

Statement of credibility

Interesting verb choice

Cited quote or paraphrase

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

Manage Discussion Entry

Hello All,

Welcome to Week 4! You may begin posting on March 23, 2019 for credit. This week we are learning more about information literacy and source evaluation. We have all read information online that seemed less than credible, and we have all likely done further research to determine if the source was trustworthy and the information accurate.

This week, you also learned about the CRAAP (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) Test, which is one way to determine the credibility of a source.

On this discussion board, you will be choosing one of several con-position sources. You will then discuss how credible the source is using the CRAAP evaluation model.

In this digital age, it is really important to consider sources. While the CRAAP evaluation model is a great starting point, we also have to look at little beyond those numbers when considering sources. While we are using this method to help determine credibility, there are some who argue that it doesn’t always “catch” the bad information.

I found the following source interesting if you’d like to check it out:

Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M., Ortega, T., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Why we need a new approach to teaching digital literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(6), 27. Retrieved from https://doi-org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0031721718762419Links to an external site.

Be sure to post before Wednesday night. See our discussion rubric as a reference when you are writing your initial post.

If you have any questions at all, email me or post to our class Q & A.

Best,

Manage Discussion Entry

The article I chose was Risk assessment and prevention of complications in aesthetic surgery, which was published in September of 2014. The date of publication is important in determining how current the information is. When it comes to healthcare, information that is over 5-years-old is considered out of date (Chamberlain University, n.d). The publication year of 2014, puts it just outside of the 5-year window, rendering the article no longer current.           

The topic of the article was managing compilations in cosmetic surgery through conducting a risk assessment prior to surgery. The source is a secondary source, as it is reviewing and analyzing information from other sources (American University, n.d.). It would be an appropriate source for an academic paper due to being a peer reviewed article in an academic journal, and the sources used to write it were also from academic journals. The article was written by a doctor and published in an academic journal, The Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery. This adds credibility to the article. When selecting search criteria for article results, and choosing “peer reviewed”, this article is listed as being peer reviewed. There are three additional sources cited throughout the article, which are all reliable sources from academic journals.       

I think the main focus of this article was to shed light on the prevalence of some of the more serious complications that can occur in procedures that are considered low risk, and to implore practitioners to be more proactive in reducing occurrences. The article also went into detail regarding complications that often do not get reported, and get swept under the rug, for various reasons. The author believes there should be a system in place to allow practitioners to anonymously self-report adverse reactions and outcomes without the fear of bad publicity (Khunger, 2014). 

American University. (n.d.). Primary vs. Secondary Sources. Retrieved from: https://subjectguides.library.american.edu/primaryLinks to an external site.

Chamberlain University. (n.d.). Module 4: Information Literacy.In ENGL 147N-10357: Advanced English Composition: Spring 2020. Retrieved from: https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/63322/pages/week-4-lesson-information-literacy?module_item_id=8547190

Khunger, N. (2014, September). Risk assessment and prevention of complications in aesthetic surgery. Journal of Cutaneous & Aesthetic Surgery, 7(3),141-142.  

Manage Discussion Entry

This article made me curious about how frequently complications occur, and in doing a little bit of research, I found another very interesting topic relating to plastic surgery: Medical Tourism. As nurses, you all probably are familiar with this term. It refers to those who go outside of the country to seek medical procedures. I have known a handful of people who did this. I always considered it really risky.

In a 2018 article, the authors conducted a study on 78 people who lived in the US but traveled to other countries to have cosmetic procedures done, and who were seen in a US academic medical center for complications following those procedures.

Ross, Moscoso, Bayer, Rosselli-Risal, and Orgill found that of those 78, the largest group suffered complications after abdominoplasty (35), while the second-largest group was those who had had breast augmentation (25); another large group, the third-highest, was those who had gotten injections (15) (2018). They also found that the most common destination country that people visited for surgery was the Dominican Republic.

The authors concluded that “Cosmetic surgery performed in developing countries can carry substantial risks of complications that can be challenging to patients, primary care providers, insurers, and plastic surgical teams not associated with the original surgery” (Ross et  al., 2018).

I just have to wonder how desperate people are for plastic surgery that they, as US citizens, are willing to travel to a developing country to get the procedure done. There are risks of complications with any surgery, anywhere, but this seems to be so much added risk. It is becoming more and more popular, though, and these complications are being treated here once the patients return.

Ross, K., Moscoso, L., Bayer, L., Rosselli-Risal, L. & Orgill, D.P.(2018). Plastic surgery complications from medical tourism treated in a u.s. academic medical center. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29595725 (Links to an external site.)