Week 9 Discussion — Which Source Earns Your Trust? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
Every source you meet was made by someone, for some reason, and the polished ones look trustworthy whether they are or not. This week you learned to turn a topic into a research question, to sort sources as primary or secondary and as scholarly, popular, or trade, to run the five-question credibility checklist (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose), and to read laterally, leaving a site to see what independent sources say about it.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Which tool would you trust first to judge an unfamiliar website: the five-question credibility checklist or lateral reading? Pick a site you have actually used for advice on money, health, work, a hobby, or school, argue which tool would tell you more about that site and why, and name one thing the other tool would catch that yours might miss.
Option B: Can a source with an obvious purpose, such as a company's report, an advocacy group's page, or a product site, ever earn a place in an academic essay? Pick a real source of that kind you have met, argue whether it could be used and for what job, and explain how you would check it before trusting it.
There is no single right answer. Careful researchers start with different tools, and the same advocacy page can be useless for one job and the best evidence for another. Argue the case you can actually support with a real source you have looked at.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- Name the real website or source you chose, so a reader can find it, and say what kind of source it is (primary or secondary; scholarly, popular, or trade).
- Use at least two of this week's terms (research question, primary source, secondary source, scholarly, popular, trade, currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose, lateral reading, vertical reading, bias) correctly.
- Take a position and support it with specific details of the source: what the checklist questions turn up, what a lateral search shows, and what job the source could or could not do in an essay.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: run one checklist question your classmate skipped, suggest a lateral search they could make, or argue that the source could do a different job. "Nice point!" on its own does not count, and neither does a reply that argues the public question the source discusses.
What a strong post looks like (illustrative, written for this course):
I chose Option B. A sporting-goods company's report on youth sports injuries could earn a place in an essay, but only for one job. Its purpose is to sell protective gear, so I would not use it as my main evidence that injuries are rising. It could show how the industry frames the problem. Before trusting even that, I would read laterally: search the company's name with "report" and "criticism" to see what independent sources say about it. Someone could argue that any source selling something should be dropped, but naming the purpose tells me how to read it, not whether to throw it out.
Notice how it names a real kind of source, states its purpose, gives it a specific job, plans a lateral check, and answers a fair counterpoint. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A clear position about a named, real source, supported by specific details of that source and a stated job it could or could not do | A position about a source, but the details are general or the job it could do is never named | Missing, off-topic, or a verdict on the public question the source discusses instead of on the source |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses this week's terms precisely, keeping lateral apart from vertical reading, primary apart from secondary, and bias treated as a purpose to name | Uses a term loosely or with a small error | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's judgment of a source | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com