Comparative Source Analysis

This project begins with students collaboratively creating criteria for evaluating source credibility and then using that rubric in an individual comparison of sources to show how credibility can be assessed in different contexts.

See details

In this project, students work in small groups to develop a shared rubric for evaluating source credibility and then apply that rubric in an individual comparative analysis. Students are encouraged to draw on their prior experiences with academic, popular, and digital sources as they decide which criteria matter and why. While there is no single correct definition of credibility, students must be able to clearly explain and justify the choices they make in designing and using their rubric. After completing the analysis, students compose a reflection that examines their group collaboration, rubric design, source selection, and strategies for helping an audience understand the evaluation process. In the First-Year Composition curriculum of Northern Illinois University (NIU), the reflection component constitutes 50% of the final grade for each major writing project.

Comparative Source Analysis Learning Objectives

• Identify and apply criteria for evaluating source credibility
• Practice collaborative decision-making in rubric development
• Analyze credibility as part of the research process
• Compare how different sources establish trustworthiness

This project is connected to the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) through:

• Writing Goals and Processes
• Contextual Connections and Transfer
• Genre and Style Awareness

Rubric

• Comparative Source Analysis

Grading Criteria: CSA	Exceptional	Met	Not Met
Introduction	Your introduction clearly explains the importance of evaluating source credibility.	Your introduction mentions source credibility.	Your introduction does not mention credibility.
Rubric	Your paper clearly discusses each criteria and illustrates with examples.	Your paper mentions different criteria used in source evaluation.	The paper does not include the rubric, or does so with no explanation.
Sources	Sources clearly demonstrate range of topics and concerns regarding source credibility.	At least 3 sources are used to illustrate source credibility.	The paper has insufficient or inappropriate sources.
Process	Discussion clearly and effectively centers on the process by which a given evaluation was made.	Discussion of sources mentions processes as well as conclusions.	Discussion of sources does not include discussion of evaluative processes.
Responding to Feedback	You have revised your CSA substantially and/or thoughtfully based on both your peers’ and your instructor’s feedback.	You have revised your CSA based on both your peers’ and your instructor’s feedback.	No revisions to the CSA have been made or only minor changes have been made that do not adequately respond to feedback.
Meeting Requirements	You have met or exceeded all of the requirements for the narrative.	You have met all of the requirements for the narrative.	One or more of the requirements for the narrative has not been met.

A copy of the Comparative Source Analysis rubric:File:CSA Grading Criteria.pdf

• Reflection Piece

Grading Criteria: Reflection	Exceptional	Met	Not Met
Reflecting on Your Group	You have clearly explained what methods your group used to successfully work together and have included things you would do differently next time based on your experience.	You explain what methods your group used to successfully work together.	The methods used to work together are not included or are unclear.
Reflecting on Your Rubric Choices	You have clearly identified choices in your reflection that you made in your rubric that explain why you designed your criteria as you did.	You have mentioned rubric choices in your reflection related to design choices.	Rubric choices are not mentioned in the reflection.
Reflecting on Appealing to Your Audience	You have identified specific things that you have done in your CSA to help your audience understand the process better.	You have mentioned things that you have done in your CSA to help your audience.	Audience reception not mentioned in the reflection.
Reflecting on Your Examples and Arrangement	You clearly explain why you chose the examples you did, and clearly explain the specific order in which you discussed them.	You mention the examples you chose and the way you arranged them.	The arrangement of the examples is not mentioned in the reflection.
Meeting Requirements	You have met or exceeded all the requirements for the reflection.	You have met all the requirements for the reflection.	One or more of the requirements for the reflection has not been met.

A copy of the Comparative Source Analysis Reflection rubric:File:CSA Reflection Grading Criteria.pdf

Assignment Focus

This section outlines a range of tasks an instructor may assign to support students’ development of evaluative research practices throughout the Comparative Source Analysis project.

• Rubric Development

Students work in small groups to create a rubric that defines criteria and metrics for evaluating source credibility.

• Group Participation and Evaluation

Students contribute to group discussion and document design; participation is assessed through individual group evaluations.

• Source Selection

Students select multiple sources that represent a range of credibility, such as highly credible, weak, or mixed sources.

• Comparative Analysis Paper (Individual)

In the individual paper, the shared rubric is used to compare sources, with emphasis placed on evaluative process and reasoning.

• Reflection Piece

Students reflect on group collaboration, rubric choices, source selection, and strategies for communicating credibility to an audience.