Supplementary Material for Chapter 35

Supplementary Material for Chapter 35

The Story of Source Reliability: Practicing Research and Evaluation Skills using “The Story of Stuff” Video

This chapter is published as:

LaFantasieJJ. 2016. The Story of Source Reliability: Practicing Research and Evaluation Skills using “The Story of Stuff” Video. In: Byrne L (ed) Learner- Centered Teaching Activities for Environmental and Sustainability Studies. Springer, New York. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28543-6_35

J.J. LaFantasie

Colorado State University Agriculture Experiment Station, Grand Junction, CO USA

Department of Biological Sciences, Fort Hays State University, Hays, KS USA

This file contains the following supplementary material:

• D: Student worksheets and resources … beginning on p. 1

This chapter also has the following supplementary material, available on the chapter’s website:

• A: Additional sources
• B: Examples of student responses for Part 1 and 2
• C: Further assignments and assessments

page1

Supplementary Material D: Potential student worksheets and resources

Suggested Worksheet for Activity Part One

Source Reliability: The Story of Stuff Part OneDue: In Class

Objectives:

• Critique the “Story of Stuff” based on the RADAR criteria.
• Distinguish between advocacy and information-based sources

Instructions:

1. Assemble into groups of two or three.
2. As a group, read the RADAR steps for critically evaluating information in Table 1 and additional handouts. Consider what each of these criteria mean and how they might influence how reliable or credible a source of information might be (note to instructor: additional clarification and information on the RADAR criteria are provided in Mandalios, 2013, Figure 1. This may serve as an additional handout to improve student comprehension.)
3. Divide the RADAR steps among group members and record these assignments in Table 1. Each member will use their assigned steps to critique the video.
4. As a class, discuss what each of the RADAR steps mean and why they would be important to assessing information sources.
5. Watch the video. Each member should take notes on the following (don’t worry…you will have time to finalize these thoughts after watching the video):
6. How does the video measure up to your assigned RADAR criteria? List examples to support your determination.
7. Any claims or factoids that seem outrageous or biased that you would like to investigate further (note to instructor: if Part two will not be used, this step will be unnecessary and should be removed).
8. Take 5-10 minutes after the video to discuss and record your RADAR findings in Table 2 as a group.
9. For each criteria provide at least one example or statement from the video that supports your conclusions.
10. As a group, choose at least two strengths and two weaknesses of the “Story of Stuff” as a source of information, list them below and be prepared to share them with the class.
11. List at least three claims or factoids that you questioned and would like to further investigate as a group (note to instructor: if Part two will not be used, this step will be unnecessary and should be removed).
12. Join the class in a discussion about the RADAR Criteria and the “Story of Stuff.” Would the video be a reliable source of information? What are your final conclusions as a class?

page1

Table 2: RADAR Evaluation

Strengths of “Story of Stuff:”

Weaknesses of “Story of Stuff:”

Outrageous factoids or claims that should be investigated further (note to instructor: if Part two will not be used, this step will be unnecessary and should be removed):

page1

Suggested Worksheet for Activity Part Two

Source Reliability: The Story of StuffDue:

Objectives:

• Investigate a “factoid” or claim presented in the Story of Stuff by Annie Leonard to determine its validity.
• Locate two reliable and one unreliable source on the web to aid in your investigation and to present to the class.
• Provide information to the class about how you determined whether your sources were reliable or unreliable using the RADAR criteria.

Sources that will be useful to you for this assignment, including links to the Story of Stuff, a summary of the RADAR criteria and other helpful steps for determining the reliability of web sources are provided in the following LessonPath(note to instructor: this LessonPath was developed for an online course and will probably need to be modified for use for your class):

Instructions:

1. Choose or have your factoid assigned. The main idea is to learn more about the claim or factoid, and determine whether Ms. Leonard’s use of the factoid was valid.
2. Read about the RADAR approach and other approaches for determining the reliability of a web-source.
3. Using your favorite search engine, conduct your factoid research online. You will want to read several sources to help you make a determination in 1 above.
4. Bookmark (for your presentation) and list in the table, links to three sources as follows. You will be expected to share these with the class during your presentation.
5. Find and list at least two reliable sources
6. Find and list at least one unreliable source (it must be a source other than the Story of Stuff.org)
7. Provide the information you compile into the table on the reverse of this page or in your own typed document. These data will be handed in, but will primarily serve as your notes for presenting your results to the class.
8. Prepare for your presentation. Presentations should be no longer than five minutes and should address all information required on the reverse.

page1

Claim/ factoid to be researched (please include time at which factoid is introduced in the video): ______

Please answer the following:

1. What is your conclusion about the factoid (was it accurate, exaggerated, biased, inaccurate)?

1. Why?

1. What was your most important source in making this determination?

page1

Suggested activity worksheet: Reliability of .org websites:

.org Sources and ReliabilityDue:

Objectives: For a topic relevant to Environmental Science or Sustainable Development, find reliable and unreliable sources of information about your topic. Present these sources to the class and tell us why you categorized them as reliable or unreliable. We will focus on the realm of “organizations” (.org) for this activity.

In groups of two or three:

1. Your group will be randomly assigned a broad environmental science topic. (Note to instructor: Topics here could focus on anything that is relevant to your current unit or class curriculum. One method is to create strips of paper, each with a topic, and have students choose them out of a hat at random. For a broad scale environmental science classroom, controversial topics might include climate change, nuclear energy, wind energy, walkable communities, urban farming, household energy use, ecological footprint, environmental economics, public land management, pesticides, landfills, urban sprawl, and many others.) Do a little bit of looking around to help you narrow the topic down, if you need to.
2. Determine one controversy or point of argument over this particular topic. Any controversial components you can pin down within your topic are probably acceptable, but please communicate with the instructor to be certain. (For example, if one of the topics was Nuclear energy, a point of controversy might be over the safety issues associated with that type of energy.)
3. What are the “sides” or “viewpoints” on the issue?
4. Record at least two opposing “viewpoints” in the table (reverse).
5. Using the internet and your favorite search engine, find examples of web sources detailed below. Recall the RADAR approach to evaluating information in websites from previous assignments. Use these criteria to determine the reliability of .org websites you locate.
6. Save your websites with bookmarks or hyperlinks so you can show the webpages to the class. Make sure you copy the URL and paste it in the table to hand in, as well. For each of your two viewpoints on the issue find:
7. Two unreliable examples of .org webpages
8. Two reliable examples of .org webpages
9. One example of a webpage that you would have assumed to be reliable, but it turns out it is not (this page can have any extension….org, com, gov, etc)
10. Prepare your presentation. Presentations should be no longer than five minutes and should address all information required on the reverse.

Your environmental topic: ______

Please answer the following:

1. Was it challenging to locate sources on this environmental science topic?

1. Of all of the web-sources you investigated, what percentage would you estimate were biased or advocacy webpages?

1. Would #2 matter in a situation where you trying to get information to help you decide how to vote? What about a research paper for class? Why or why not?

page1