Week 4 — Quiz (auto-graded) · Research & Supporting Materials

Course: Public Speaking — Fundamentals of Oral Communication (COMM 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Marchetti
Objective tested: Objective 3 — types of supporting material; source credibility and the CRAAP criteria; oral citation; avoiding plagiarism and fabrication.
Points: 10 (1 each) · Assignment group: Quizzes (10% of grade) · Due: end of Module 4.

This is the human-readable quiz with its vetted answer key and feedback. The import-ready Classic QTI is in F-quiz-week-04-qti.xml (generated by the shared validated script — parses with 10 items, every single-answer item exactly one correct). The reusable item-bank entries and the Canvas placement block are at the bottom of this file.

Blueprint

No trick questions; distractors target the Week 4 misconceptions named in the lecture outline.

Questions, key, and feedback

Q1 (MC). A speaker devotes two full minutes to describing one specific family's experience navigating a campus food assistance program — using their story to make an abstract policy issue feel real and human. This is best classified as —
- A. a brief example
- B. an extended example ✅
- C. a hypothetical example
- D. expert testimony
Feedback: An extended example is a developed case study that takes real time to tell; the depth and detail are what make it extended. A brief example is a quick, single-instance mention. A hypothetical is explicitly labeled as imaginary.

Q2 (Matching). Match each type of supporting material to the description that best fits it.

Feedback: The key distinction is expert vs. peer/lay testimony: expert = recognized credentials in the relevant field; peer/lay = an ordinary person or eyewitness. A hypothetical must be clearly labeled — presenting it as a real event is fabrication.

Q3 (MC). A speaker quotes a neighborhood resident describing their experience after a local park was renovated, and uses the quote as evidence that the renovation improved community quality of life. This is an example of —
- A. expert testimony — the resident has lived experience, which qualifies them
- B. peer/lay testimony — the resident has no credentials in urban planning or public health ✅
- C. a statistic — the quote summarizes a broad community experience
- D. a fabricated citation — the speaker should have used a study instead
Feedback: Lived experience is powerful and humanizing, but it does not make someone an expert in the technical sense. This is peer/lay testimony — valid evidence, but it should be labeled as such and not presented as expert opinion.

Q4 (MC). A speaker wants to use a blog post as evidence. The blog has no listed author name or credentials, no organizational affiliation, and no contact information. Which CRAAP criterion is most directly failing here?
- A. Currency — the post might be outdated
- B. Relevance — blog posts rarely apply to academic topics
- C. Authority — there is no identifiable, credible author or sponsoring organization ✅
- D. Purpose — the blog might be selling something
Feedback: Authority is the CRAAP criterion asking who wrote or published the source and whether they have relevant credentials. An anonymous, unaffiliated source fails Authority regardless of its other qualities.

Q5 (MC). A speaker citing the results of a government survey on employment rates uses data collected in 2017. The speech is being delivered in 2026. Which CRAAP criterion should concern the speaker most?
- A. Relevance — employment is not directly relevant to most speeches
- B. Accuracy — government data is unreliable
- C. Currency — a nine-year-old employment statistic may not reflect current conditions ✅
- D. Purpose — government reports have political motives
Feedback: Currency asks whether the information is recent enough for the topic. Employment data can shift substantially over nine years. The speaker should look for more recent figures or note the date prominently and explain why the 2017 data is still meaningful.

Q6 (MC). Which of the following is a COMPLETE oral citation?
- A. "According to a 2024 study on sleep deprivation …" — (source and date, but no credential)
- B. "According to the Pew Research Center …" — (source, but no credential and no date)
- C. "According to the Pew Research Center — an independent, non-partisan polling and research organization — in their 2024 Internet & Technology survey …" ✅
- D. "An expert in sleep science says that most adults need seven to nine hours …" — (credential, but no source identity and no date)
Feedback: A complete oral citation requires all three parts: source identity (who/what the source is), the qualification (why it is credible), and the date. Option C has all three. Options A, B, and D each omit at least one part.

Q7 (MC). Why is an oral citation in a speech different from a written bibliography at the end of a paper?
- A. An oral citation is optional; only written sources need a bibliography
- B. An oral citation is said aloud during the speech so the audience can evaluate your evidence as they listen — they cannot read a bibliography during a live speech ✅
- C. An oral citation uses a formal citation style like APA or MLA; a bibliography is informal
- D. Written bibliographies cite primary sources; oral citations cite secondary sources
Feedback: The purpose of an oral citation is to give the live audience the information they need to evaluate your evidence in real time. Without it, they hear only an assertion with no way to assess or verify it.

Q8 (True / False). If you put a source's ideas into your own words (paraphrase), you no longer need to credit the source out loud.
- True
- False ✅
Feedback: False. Paraphrasing means you changed the wording — you did not generate the idea. The idea still belongs to the original source, and using it without attribution is incremental plagiarism. Paraphrase and credit the source every time.

Q9 (MC). A student asks an AI chatbot for three statistics about campus mental health. The AI responds with three bullet points, each ending with a specific author name, journal title, volume, and year. The student should —
- A. Use all three immediately — AI responses are drawn from authoritative sources
- B. Go to each named source directly and verify that the article, author, and statistic actually exist before using any of them ✅
- C. Use only the most recent statistic from the list
- D. Ask the AI to give different statistics, since the first set was probably inaccurate
Feedback: AI language models generate plausible-sounding text, not verified facts. They can produce citations that look real — specific author names, journal titles, page numbers — that simply do not exist. The only reliable check is to locate the original source yourself. If you cannot find it, do not use it.

Q10 (Multiple answer — select all that apply). Which of the following are markers of a CREDIBLE source worth citing in a speech? Select all that apply.
- A. The author has recognized professional credentials or institutional affiliation relevant to the topic ✅
- B. The source confirms what the speaker already believes
- C. The information is supported by evidence and can be verified at the original source ✅
- D. The publication date is recent enough to be relevant to the specific topic ✅
- E. The source was retrieved through an AI chatbot that cited it confidently
Feedback: Credible sources have authority (A), verifiable accuracy (C), and appropriate currency (D). Confirming existing beliefs (B) is confirmation bias, not credibility. A confident-sounding AI citation (E) is unreliable until independently verified at the source.

Answer key (quick reference)

Quality gate (self-checked): each single-answer item (Q1, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9) has exactly one correct option; the multiple-answer item (Q10) marks A, C, D correct and requires B and E to be left unselected; the matching item (Q2) pairs five types to five distinct descriptions one-to-one with no overlapping answers. No statistic or quotation is asserted as a real figure — all examples describe types or formats illustratively. The one named real organization in Q6 (Pew Research Center) is named as an example format only; no specific study or statistic is cited and no number is invented. CITATION-INTEGRITY GATE PASS: zero fabricated facts, statistics, or citations in this quiz.

Item-bank entries (for variants + the midterm/final)

All ten items are tagged course=COMM1 · week=4 · objective=3 · topic=research-supporting-material-citation and deposited in Item Bank: Week 4 — Research & Supporting Materials. (Tags: q1 extended-example, q2 support-type-match, q3 expert-vs-lay, q4 CRAAP-authority, q5 CRAAP-currency, q6 oral-citation-complete, q7 oral-vs-written-citation, q8 paraphrase-citation, q9 AI-fabrication, q10 source-credibility-markers.)

Canvas placement block

canvas_object   = Quizzes::Quiz
title           = "Week 4 Quiz — Research & Supporting Materials"
assignment_group = "Quizzes"
points_possible = 10
grading_type    = points
due_offset_days = 6        # 6 days after module start
published       = true
shuffle_answers = true
provenance      = "~ Prof. Marchetti's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"