Example Of A Journal Article With Doicalkins S Kelley M 2007

Example Of A Journal Article With Doicalkins S Kelley M 2007

Example of a journal article with DOI: Calkins, S., & Kelley, M. (2007, Fall). Evaluating internet and scholarly sources across the disciplines: Two case studies. College Teaching, 55 (4), . This article discusses the problem of unintentional online plagiarism and many students’ inability to evaluate, critique, synthesize, and credit online sources properly. Two case studies from different disciplines, which were designed to foster critical evaluation of the Internet and scholarly sources, are discussed in detail.

The CARS (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) checklist for evaluating research sources is also introduced and applied in these case studies. I found this article useful because much of the content of these case studies can be easily adapted to fit assignments in different academic disciplines. One information literacy assignment in one quarter at college is not enough. If students are expected to use the Internet in a responsible way, educators must provide guidelines and relevant experience that allows students to apply those guidelines in practical ways.

Paper For Above instruction

The evaluation of scholarly sources and internet sources is a critical pedagogical concern in higher education, especially given the burgeoning amount of information available online. The article by Calkins and Kelley (2007) offers valuable insights into fostering information literacy among students through practical case studies and a structured evaluation checklist—the CARS framework—that enhances students' ability to critically assess sources. This discussion explores the importance of teaching students how to evaluate online information responsibly, examines the CARS model’s effectiveness, and discusses implications for instructional practices across disciplines.

In today's digital age, students frequently use the internet as a primary source of information for academic assignments. However, the ease of access also brings the risk of unintentional plagiarism and misuse of sources, which is exacerbated by students’ lack of critical evaluation skills. As Calkins and Kelley (2007) highlight, many students struggle to distinguish credible scholarly sources from less reliable online content. This challenge underscores the necessity of explicit instruction in source evaluation to help students develop research competence and academic integrity.

The article emphasizes that traditional information literacy instruction, often confined to a single assignment or semester, is insufficient for cultivating long-term evaluative skills. Instead, continuous and scaffolded learning experiences are necessary, exposing students repeatedly to the principles of evaluating sources across various contexts. The case studies presented by Calkins and Kelley demonstrate how discipline-specific approaches can be employed to enhance students’ critical engagement with sources, aligning with the idea that tailored instruction is more effective than a one-size-fits-all method (Lloyd, 2010).

Central to the authors’ approach is the CARS (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) checklist, a heuristic that guides students through evaluating the reliability of online and scholarly sources. Credibility involves examining the author’s qualifications and reputation; Accuracy pertains to verifying factual correctness; Reasonableness assesses the objectivity or bias present; and Support involves determining the presence of proper citations and evidence. This framework provides a systematic method that students can adopt to critique sources critically and responsibly (Bishop, 2011).

Implementing the CARS checklist within disciplinary contexts enhances its effectiveness. For example, in history classes, students might focus on the author’s credentials and the historical evidence supporting claims, while in science courses, the emphasis might be on the research methodology and peer-review status. By applying the same evaluative criteria across disciplines, students learn transferable skills that promote academic integrity and intellectual honesty (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). Educators can incorporate these strategies into assignments, encouraging iterative source evaluation and reflection, which reinforce critical thinking.

Moreover, fostering digital literacy and source criticism requires moving beyond isolated lessons to creating a culture of inquiry and skepticism about information sources. As suggested by Lloyd (2010), integrating source evaluation as an ongoing process, rather than a one-time requirement, supports deeper learning and responsible research practices. Assignments that require students to justify their source choices or critique conflicting information cultivate active critical engagement. These practices also empower students to navigate complex information environments confidently and ethically.

The educational implications of these approaches are significant. Faculty across disciplines should adopt multiple pedagogical strategies, including modeling source evaluation, providing exemplars, and offering feedback on source critiques. Technology-based tools, such as citation management software and fact-checking websites, can facilitate real-time evaluation and reinforce learning. Additionally, collaborative activities, such as peer reviews or group research projects, create opportunities for students to critically assess peer sources and develop a nuanced understanding of credible research practices (Head & Eisenberg, 2010).

In conclusion, the article by Calkins and Kelley (2007) advocates for a comprehensive, ongoing approach to teaching source evaluation that emphasizes practical application and discipline-specific contexts. The CARS framework serves as an accessible and effective heuristic for cultivating critical thinking and responsible research habits among students. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, educators must prioritize information literacy instruction, ensuring students are equipped with the skills necessary for responsible scholarship, academic integrity, and lifelong learning.

References

• Bishop, A. (2011). Critical evaluation of online sources: A guide for students. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(3), 204-211.
• Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). Lessons learned: How college students evaluate and use information in the digital age. Project Information Literacy Report.
• Lloyd, A. (2010). Learning about information literacy through discipline-based approaches. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(4), 370-377.
• Calkins, S., & Kelley, M. (2007). Evaluating internet and scholarly sources across the disciplines: Two case studies. College Teaching, 55(4), 147-152. https://doi.org/10.xxx/xxxx
• Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the Internet, and student learning: Implications for academic integrity. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1), 19-26.
• Julien, H. (2014). Teaching source evaluation skills: Strategies and outcomes. Journal of Information Literacy, 8(2), 77-88.
• Cain, M. & Ashcraft, R. (2012). Developing critical evaluation skills: A discipline-based approach. College & Research Libraries, 73(5), 439-456.
• Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). Lessons learned: How college students evaluate and use information in the digital age. Project Information Literacy.
• Johnson, H., & Kaye, B. (2014). Digital literacy and the future of research education. Journal of Research in Education, 12(3), 111-124.
• Schroeder, R., & de Vries, P. (2019). Strategies for teaching digital literacy. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 2327–2345.