Week 4 Discussion — Say Where It Came From — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
A number with no source behind it, a quotation nobody can trace, a citation a chatbot made up: each one asks an audience to trust a speaker blindly. This week you learned the three kinds of supporting material, the five-question credibility checklist, how to read a statistic in words, and the oral citation that names who, what, and when before the evidence.
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: Does saying a source out loud make a speech stronger, or does it slow the speech down? Some people say listeners stop paying attention when a speaker names an author, a title, and a date; others say a speech with no spoken sources asks the audience to take the speaker's word for everything. Take a position, support it with a real claim you have heard or will make in a speech (a class presentation, a workplace briefing, a team meeting, a community meeting), and use the oral citation's three parts (who, what, when) accurately.
Option B: When a speaker cannot find the original source of a striking number, should the speaker drop it, or say it with a warning such as "I could not confirm this"? Some people say a flagged number is honest and still useful; others say an unconfirmed number does harm once it is said aloud, warning or not. Take a position, support it with a real number you have heard repeated, and use the credibility checklist or the three questions about a statistic (who counted, when, and how many) accurately.
There is no single right answer here. A classroom, a job site, or a neighborhood meeting can each be argued well in more than one direction. Pick a claim or a number you actually remember, and tell us about it.
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.
- For Option A, describe the real claim, show how you would cite it out loud with who, what, and when, and take a position on whether saying the source makes the speech stronger or slows it down. For Option B, describe the real number, ask who counted it, when, and how many, and take a position on whether an unconfirmed number should be dropped or said with a warning.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (supporting material, statistic, testimony, credibility checklist, oral citation, written bibliography, plagiarism, fabrication) correctly.
- Say what you would do differently next time when you find, check, or cite evidence, and why.
- Describe claims and situations only; never name or describe a real classmate, coworker, or family member.
- 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: name a part of the oral citation the poster left out, ask who counted a number and when, or point to a checklist question the poster's source might fail and say why. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like (an illustrative example, attributed to no one):
I chose Option B. At work I keep hearing that "most customers never read the receipt survey," but nobody knows who counted that or when. I think an unconfirmed number should be dropped, not flagged. Once a listener hears a number, the warning fades and the number stays. If I cannot answer who counted, when, and how many, I would rather say "I could not find a count" and use a firsthand example from my own shift instead, labelled as one example. Next time I would search for the original before I build a point on it.
Notice how it names a real claim, uses the three questions about a statistic accurately, takes a position, and says what would change. 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 real, specific claim or number, a clear position on the chosen option, and at least one reason tied to a detail of that claim or number | A claim or number is described, but the position is vague or asserted without a reason | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning about the claim |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Names at least two course terms (such as the three parts of an oral citation, a checklist question, expert or lay testimony, or fabrication) and uses them accurately | Uses a term loosely or with a small error, such as calling a written bibliography an oral citation | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning | 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