Another Spotlight

Are you looking for inspiration for you Blog Phase 7? Check out Richelle's Blog Phase 6. She did a nice job pulling it all together.

Remember, phase seven is just like phase six. You need to find a new source and:

1. Complete a thorough CRAAP analysis (use the handout), 
2. Write a 2-4 sentence summary of the main points and final conclusion, 
3. Write a two paragraph response (use the questions I gave you in class), 
4. Record your new source in MLA Works Cited entry format, and 
5. Complete another Writer's Journal entry on Moodle.

This is the last source you're required to blog about, so make it a good one! If you have yet to find an academic journal article through the LBC Library databases, this is the time to do it.

I have also updated everyone's Blog grade through Moodle. With only two phases left for grading, you could have earned a total of 70 points so far. 

Happy blogging and see you for class tomorrow!

Take Notice

Two of your classmates have done an outstanding job with their most recent blog posts. I highly encourage you to check them out. These posts show careful attention to detail, both in simply following directions and in critical thought and response.

Nice work Derek and Yukiko! (Click their names for a direct link to their blogs).

"...plagiarism isn't a bad thing simply because it's an act of intellectual theft -- althought is is that. It's a bad thing because it takes the place of and prevents learning."

To correctly cite this quotation's source for an MLA works cited page, see the citation below:

Isserman, Maurice. "Plagiarism: a Lie of the Mind." Chronicle of Higher Education 49.34 (2004):
        B12-B13. OmniFile. Web. 9 February 2013.

Compare your attempt with mine. How'd you do?

Survey Time

Take this survey!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/K8S96YJ

But it's on the Library's Website...and Other Cop-outs

Evaluating credibility is a messy, strenuous process, and there are no good shortcuts. You have to think critically to answer all the necessary questions pertaining to credibility. And like it or not, how you evaluate the credibility of someone else's work directly reflects your own academic reputation.

We spent almost half of today's class figuring out ways to improve your credibility analyses, but I thought of one more "shortcut" to avoid.

If you've written a sentence like this -- "This article is credible because I found it through LBC's library's database" -- stop and think for just a minute. Yes, our library provides you access to amazingly credible sources. But, by leaving your credibility analysis at this brief sentence, you're short circuiting the learning process. Our brain is an incredible muscle but it requires exercise and stretching to capture the momentum of true learning!

What happens when you need to assess a source you didn't find through a library database? The old library shortcut won't cut it. Plus, the "R" in CRAAP stands for relevance. Not every source you find through the library's database will definitely be relevant to your research needs.

Find sources. Read critically. Evaluate thoroughly.  No shortcuts.

Credibility Help

Do you need to vary your sources? Find more academic ones? Figure out who the intended audience might be? Broaden your research options?

Then check out this link from North Carolina State University's Library.

Sample CRAAP Analysis & Summary

As I prepared for Friday's class, I wondered if you would find an example helpful as you prepare your own CRAAP analysis? Below you'll find the notes I wrote evaluating Kirk Semple's article "Moving to U.S. and Amassing a Fortune, No English Needed," so you could see my behind-the-scenes work that enabled me to write my actual evaluation. Following my notes is the credibility assessment that resulted from my notes, and it reflects the type of response I want to see in your future blog phases assessing the credibility of sources. And finally, you'll get a chance to read my summary of the article, which could be helpful to you as you approach phase four of the blog assignment.

Hypothetical research topic and audience: Let’s assume I’m researching bilingualism in the US, specifically asking if Pennsylvania should continue to not recognize English as the official language? My specific audience includes ESL program directors who could be affected by a potential change in the status of the language.


My Notes (remember, this is just for your benefit and not what I would actually publish to my blog if I were in your shoes)

1. Currency: November 2011
2. Relevance: The article does relate to my topic because it discusses the lack of bilingualism of three different immigrant entrepreneurs to the US. The article does not specifically answer my research question but it offers a unique perspective of individuals in the US who did not give up their native language but they also did not adopt English as their second language. Published in the New York Times, this article is aimed at mid-life people who are largely college educated and in the upper-middle socio-economic class. The article is easy to read and understand and no prior knowledge is necessarily needed.  I would be comfortable citing this source in my research paper because it comes from a reliable publisher.
3. Authority: The author is Kirk Semple, a seasoned journalist writing for a reputable magazine, who focuses primarily on immigration issues. This makes be believe that he knows what he’s talking about and is qualified to write on the topic. The contact information for either the author or publication should be relatively easy to access via their website.
4. Accuracy: The information comes from a seasoned journalist who writes frequently about immigration issues, which bilingualism clearly falls into that category. The NYT is considered to slant more towards the liberal political side, so I have to wonder how that influences their presentation of this information. The article is largely based on three individual interviews, so the “findings” are limited because we’re not talking about quantified, empirical data. In fact, I think these three examples are the exception, not the rule, and Semple acknowledges that in the article. The liberal perspective would generally support bilingualism in the public service sectors in the U.S., so this article may have a bias towards presenting these cases positively. Semple’s bottom line is that it’s possible – due to modern technology -- to live the American dream without speaking English fluently. The article seems to question the assumption that you “need” English to succeed. Mr. Semple supports his argument with three success stories, that while simply anecdotal, are real and provable examples. He does incorporate some USCB data, which adds credibility to his bottom line. The tone of the article is pretty level headed and albeit positive. It clearly questions the previous assumption: “Advocates for the movement sometimes known as Official English have long pressed for legislation mandating English as the official language of government, arguing that a common language is essential for the country’s cohesion and for immigrant assimilation and success.
5. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to convince readers that the traditional perspective of English as an official language is not necessarily the only perspective to consider. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the article make that pretty clear. The information is fact-based but, of course, interpretation is involved in what those facts mean. 

CRAAP Evaluation

Mr. Semple’s article is a credible source for my research because it’s current and reliable. Published in The New York Times in 2011, the article offers a contemporary perspective on whether or not mastering the English language is necessary for a non-native speaker to achieve financial success in the US. Semple uses three fact-based anecdotes of successful immigrants as primary evidence to argue that it may not be necessary to know English to achieve the American entrepreneurial dream. He also cites the U.S. Census Bureau and a CUNY sociology professor to further his argument, both reputable sources for evidence. Though his general interest magazine article does not carry the same weight as an empirical academic research study might, he fairly acknowledges the limitations of isolated story-based evidence and the other, sometimes negative ramifications (social embarrassment, for example) that can affect a non-English speaking immigrant in the United States. This seasoned immigration journalist, writing for a magazine tagged as having a liberal political slant, provides a logical, supported perspective to consider in the “Official English” debate.

Summary

Kirk Semple’s 2011 New York Time’s article “Moving to U.S. and Amassing a Fortune, No English Needed” tells the entrepreneurial success stories of three different US immigrants despite the fact that they have never mastered the English language. Semple’s examples, supplemented by data from the U.S. Census Bureau, seem to question the assumption that English fluency is a prerequisite for immigrants to financially succeed in the United States. The article, not ignoring the exceptionality of these stories or some challenges of not knowing the primary language, attributes these success stories to personal ambition, technological advances, and bilingual support staff or family.