Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to CRAAPR_GLA Presentation Draft_June2022.pptx
Similar to CRAAPR_GLA Presentation Draft_June2022.pptx (20)
More from ElementalPea
More from ElementalPea (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
CRAAPR_GLA Presentation Draft_June2022.pptx
- 1. Considering Rhetorical Situation in Source Evaluation Brandy R. Horne, MLIS, Associate Professor, Instruction/Reference Librarian, Gregg-Graniteville Library Amanda R. Warren, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of English GLITR Conference 24 June, 2022
- 2. Brandy Horne Amanda Warren Instruction/Reference Librarian Associate Professor of Library Science Assistant Professor of English
- 3. As an academic librarian, my primary goal is to help our students become more sophisticated information consumers.
- 4. As a writing instructor, my primary goal is to help our students improve their critical thinking skills and understand their choices as writers.
- 5. Common source evaluation tools, such as PATS and CRAAP , help students assess sources of information based on considerations specific to the source itself, such as purpose, authority, timeliness/currency, scope/relevance, and accuracy. What these tools do not consider is the source’s appropriateness within different rhetorical situations. By teaching students to consider a source’s potential appropriateness within different rhetorical contexts (in an opinion paper vs. a research paper, or as a primary vs. a secondary source) we provide students a framework for more meaningful source evaluation and a means by which to articulate how, why, and when sources are used.
- 6. Rhetorical Situation Rhetorical Situation is the CONTEXT of any piece of communication—the situation you find yourself in regarding WHY you are saying something at all, WHAT you have to say, and WHO you are trying to communicate with. Or, in other, it is the purpose, message, and audience for your work. Other factors like scope/length and time frame may be part of a rhetorical situation as well. Rhetorical Situation Writer/ Purpose Topic/ Message Other Considerations Readers/ Audience
- 7. Purpose/Writer This is you, and your purpose for communication…THE WHY! The perspective you communicate from helps define the context of that communication, as does your stance on a topic (which is influenced by your life situation and experiences and/or your familiarity with previous work on the topic). Are you in a professional office setting writing a memo? Are you in front of the city council arguing against a city development project? Are you a student who has been given an assignment? Is that assignment a lab report, a poem explication, or a sociology capstone project?
- 8. Message/Topic This is WHAT you choose to communicate about. Even when you are given an assignment, a lot of the topic or message of your writing is left up to you. What do you want to say? That’s the topic or message.
- 9. Audience/Readers You must know WHO your audience is and what they expect of you. This will help you determine what your target reader may already know and what challenges you might be facing.
- 10. Scope/Length, time frame can influence the choices we make as well. A lengthy, in-depth piece of researched writing (like a thesis, dissertation, or professional publication) allows for more time to investigate and discuss the nuances of a topic, while a 2-page overview may only touch on surface details or provide a summary.
- 11. A modification of the popular CRAAP test created by the CSU Chico, Meriam Library. This version incorporates Rhetorical Situation into the evaluation process.
- 12. Currency •Does the timeliness of the information matter for your research? •When was it published or last updated? •Is there another source that provides more current information? Relevance •Does this information help you answer your research question? •Does this information help you better understand your topic? Authority •Who is responsible for this information? Is it a person or an organization? •What are their qualifications/credentials and/or affiliations? •Are there any obvious or potential conflicts of interest? Accuracy •Is this a peer-reviewed article or research produced by a government agency? •What evidence do they provide? •Can the information be verified elsewhere? Purpose •Why was this source created: Inform, educate, entertain, satire, convince, market/sell, mislead, propaganda, etc…? Rhetorical Situation •What is your research project? •How would you use this in your research project? •Would you use this as a primary, secondary, or tertiary source? •Does it present specific perspective(s) you plan to discuss? https://library.csuchico.edu/sites/default/files/craap-test.pdf
- 13. Examples Different types of writing require different types of sources.
- 15. In terms of academic research, information isn’t inherently good or bad. What’s important is how it’s being used and presented. While tools like CRAAPRs highlight specific aspects of information for evaluation, a negative evaluation in an area isn’t necessarily a deal breaker. Appropriateness of information depends on the context in which it’s presented. Evaluating Information
- 16. Breitbart Weekly World News ExxonMobil Climate Change Research Wikipedia Comments Sections PrimaryAnalysis of language, framing, coverage Humor, satire, “fake news” examination Comparing climate change data between different types of sponsors Accuracy and timeliness of Wikipedia articles; Analysis of quality of sources cited Explore/examine the public perception/reaction to something SecondaryConservative perspective on current events Climate change data Tertiary Encyclopedia, Establish basic factual information Every Source has its Use
- 17. And here are our sources and resources: Artman, Margaret, et al. “Not Just One Shot: Extending the Dialogue about Information Literacy in Composition Classes.” Composition Studies, vol. 38, no. 2, fall 2010. pp. 93-110. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/compstud.38.2.0093 Gilmer, Marcus. “Wikipedia Demotes Breitbart to Fake News.” Mashable, 3 Oct. 2018. https://mashable.com/article/wikipedia- breitbart-ban-fake-news Hackney, Sean and Brian Newman. “Using the Rhetorical Situation to Inform Literacy Instruction and Assessment across the Disciplines.” The English Journal, vol. 103, no. 1, Sept. 2013. pp. 60-65. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24484062 Lunsford, Andrea. “A Writer’s Choices.” Easy Writer with Exercises. 7th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2018. pp. 2-10. Weekly World News, https://weeklyworldnews.com/. Accessed on 17 June 2022. “Wikipedia and Fact-Checking.” Wikipedia, 24 May 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_fact-checking.
- 18. Brandy R. Horne, MLIS Instruction/Reference Librarian Associate Professor Gregg-Graniteville Library USC Aiken BrandyH@usca.edu Amanda R. Warren, PhD Assistant Professor Department of English USC Aiken AmandaW@usca.edu
Editor's Notes
- My name is Brandy Horne, and I am a Instruction/Reference Librarian, and an Associate Professor of Library Science at the Gregg-Graniteville Library at the Univerity of South Carolina Aiken. I am Amanda Warren, and I am a member of the English Department at the University of South Carolina Aiken. I am the former writing center director at USCA and my area of study and expertise are composition, creative, professional, and technical writing. Today we are here to discuss a modifcation to the ubiquitous CRAPP test for source evaluation that includes an additional consideration… that of Rhetorical Situation.
- Rhetorical Situation: The Rhetorical Situation is the CONTEXT of any piece of communication—the situation you find yourself in regarding WHY you are saying something at all, WHAT you have to say, and WHO you are trying to communicate with. Or, in other words, it is the purpose, message, and audience for your work. Other factors like scope/length and time frame may be part of a rhetorical situation as well. Identifying the rhetorical situation, or context, for a piece of writing, allows us to make decisions about our writing’s style, format, word choice, content, description, organization, source use, evidence…all of it. Without an understanding of these three things we, as writers, are unable to proceed. There are certain expectations for communicating within specific purposes. Maybe those expectations have to do with formatting or organization, maybe they have to do with your goals (are you trying to prove or explain something, are you trying to entertain?), maybe they dictate the appropriateness of specific types of source material, how sources are synthesized or used, and how to appropriately document those sources…making good authorial choices means understanding expectations. And understanding those expectations means thinking deliberately about rhetorical situation.
- Purpose (Writer): This is you, and your purpose for communication…THE WHY! The perspective you communicate from (are you a member of a community, a member of a club, a businessperson, an employee, a son or daughter, a parent, a sibling, etc.?) helps define the context of that communication, as does your stance on a topic (which is influenced by your life situation and experiences and/or your familiarity with previous work on the topic). Actively considering purpose means reflecting on WHY you are composing this particular bit of communication Are you in a professional office setting writing a memo? Are you in front of the city council arguing against a city development project? Are you a student who has been given an assignment? Is that assignment a lab report, a poem explication, or a sociology capstone project?
- Message (Topic): This is WHAT you choose to communicate about. Even when you are given an assignment, a lot of the topic or message of your writing is left up to you. What do you want to say? That’s the topic or message. Are you for or against increasing minimum wage nationally? Are you arguing that Wikipedia is a valid source for university level research, or are you arguing that it is a resource but not a source? Are you criticizing or defending ownership of exotic animals? Are you writing a historical novel and want it to be super accurate? Are you investigating the rhetoric of pro- and anti-vaccination websites to determine key words, arguments, source use, and argumentative appeals and come to some conclusion about that rhetoric? Are you constructing an argument about the regional variations in contemporary hip hop lyrics and sampling? Don’t worry about starting a communication project without a solid position…remember, often we need information before deciding on a stance. And sometimes we don’t even really need a stance at all if we are focused on crafting an informational piece rather than an argumentative or analytical one.
- Audience: You must know WHO your audience is and what they expect of you. This will help you determine what your target reader may already know, and what challenges you might be facing. Knowing your audience helps you make choices about structure, types of examples and descriptions, source selection and use, and even word choice. A group of third graders is not the same as a group of police detectives. A group of concerned PTA mothers is not the same as a group of teens attending a concert. How you say something clearly, and convincingly, to a group of people will change even when your message and purpose is the same.
- Other Considerations: Scope/Length and Time Frame, as well as access to libraries and sources, can influence the choices we make as well. A lengthy, in-depth piece of researched writing (like a thesis, dissertation, or professional publication) allows for more time to investigate and discuss the nuances of a topic, while a 2-page overview may only touch on surface details or provide a summary. Limited library or database access can also affect our potential choices.
- A biased source would be perfectly acceptable in an argumentative paper; a Wikipedia entry might be fine for an informal blog post; highly partisan websites could be analyzed in a sociolinguistic context; and comment sections under news articles or Youtube videos could be used to gauge public perception or reaction to something.
- Breitbart Primary: Rhetorical Analysis, Linguistic Analysis, Directly Quoted Material from Interviews, Chatboard comment analysis. Can be used as a primary source (providing examples/analysis) for sociology, psychology, philosophy, linguistics, communications, composition, political science, history, economics, library science. Secondary: Of dubious/limited use in criticism, analysis, due to strong bias. Awareness of bias is crucial. Tertiary: Not a reputable source of information (Gilmer). Weekly World News (“The World’s Only Reliable News”) Primary: Rhetorical Analysis, Linguistic Analysis, Informational Essays/Articles. Can be used as a primary source for sociology, psychology, linguistics, communications, composition, history, library science. Secondary: Of dubious/limited use in criticism/analysis due to semi-satirical nature of publication. (Exception: They are the definitive authority on Bat Boy). Tertiary: No. ExxonMobil Climate Change Research: Wikipedia Primary: Rhetorical Analysis, Linguistic Analysis. Images, charts, and visuals. Can be used as a primary source for sociology, psychology, philosophy, linguistics, education, art, art history, architecture, English, computer science, communication, composition, history, library science. Secondary: Can be used as a resource for locating secondary sources. Tertiary: Provides overviews of limited use in academic settings. Provides accurate basic definitions of terms. (“Wikipedia and Fact-Checking”) YouTube Comment Sections Primary: Rhetorical Analysis, Linguistic Analysis. Can be used as a primary source for sociology, psychology, philosophy, linguistics, education, communication, composition, history, library science. Secondary: Not a reliable source. Tertiary: Not a reliable source.