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:
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.
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 information (Links 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 surgery (Links 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 America (Links 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 motherhood (Links 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 donation (Links 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 know (Links 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 stress (Links 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
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:
Discussion Grading Rubric – 25 pts
You’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.
Discussion Grading Rubric – 25 pts
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Initial Post Content
|
7.0 pts
Addresses all aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding regarding all weekly concepts.
|
5.0 pts
Addresses most aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding of most of the weekly concepts.
|
3.0 pts
Addresses some aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding of some of the weekly concepts.
|
0.0 pts
Minimally addresses the initial discussion question(s) or does not address the initial question(s).
|
|
7.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Initial Post Evidence & Sources
|
4.0 pts
Integrates evidence to support discussion from assigned readings OR online lessons, AND at least one outside scholarly source. Sources are credited.
|
3.0 pts
Integrates evidence to support discussion from assigned readings OR online lessons. Sources are credited.
|
2.0 pts
Integrates evidence to support discussion only from an outside source with no mention of assigned reading or lesson. Sources are credited.
|
0.0 pts
Does not integrate any evidence.
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Follow-Up Post 1
|
4.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion.
|
3.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion.
|
2.0 pts
Response does not further the dialogue significantly; adds little depth to the discussion.
|
0.0 pts
Does not respond to another student or instructor.
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Follow-Up Post 2
|
4.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion.
|
3.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion.
|
2.0 pts
Response does not further the dialogue significantly; adds little depth to the discussion.
|
0.0 pts
Does not respond to another student or instructor.
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Professional Communication
|
4.0 pts
Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (minimal errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
|
3.0 pts
Presents information in an organized manner (few errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
|
2.0 pts
Presents information using understandable language but is somewhat disorganized (some errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
|
0.0 pts
Presents information that is not clear, logical, professional or organized to the point that the reader has difficulty understanding the message (numerous errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and/or punctuation).
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Timeliness of Responses
|
1.0 pts
Student posts an answer to the initial discussion question(s) by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. M.T.
|
0.0 pts
Student does not post an answer to the initial discussion question(s) by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. M.T.
|
|
1.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Frequency of Responses
|
1.0 pts
Posts in the discussion on two different days.
|
0.0 pts
Posts fewer than two different days OR does not participate at all.
|
|
1.0 pts
|
Total Points: 25.0
|