ENGL-105

Pluto as a Planet: Source Credibility Exercise

• Question raised in the transcript: Is Pluto a planet? How and when was this determined? The presenter notes this is old news, but uses it to illustrate how to evaluate sources.
• Task framing: Compare sources found via Google Scholar and assess reliability for answering whether Pluto is still a planet.
• Four sources discussed (with details):
  • Source 1: Astronomical Society of the Pacific leaflets, volume 1, 1930. Described as a news-style piece from an early period in the field; context is historical rather than a current determination. Cited by other works: $22$ times.
  • Source 2: A secondary source from a National magazine/news outlet (described as a “new section” piece). Cited $13$ times.
  • Source 3: A more recent article (2013) with the title, roughly, “Pluto has been a planet my whole life, emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change in elementary” (emphasizes conceptual change in education). It includes a DOI linking to the journal and an abstract. This source has the highest citation count among the three: $87$ citations.
• Practical exercise (group discussion): For each source, students rank them as best, middle, and worst in terms of usefulness for evaluating Pluto’s current planetary status. Outcomes shared:
  • The middle source is considered least reliable due to fewer citations, and the last source is considered strongest because it is a peer‑reviewed academic article from $2013$ with an abstract.
  • The first source (1930) is deemed the worst for the present question because it is antiquated and fallible relative to current consensus; useful for historical context but not for current status.
  • The National Geographic-like item (Source 2) is useful for background context but not an academic, peer‑reviewed source; still relevant but not sufficient on its own for scholarly conclusions.
• Credible-sources checklist introduced: CRAAP
  • CRAAP acronym stands for: Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose.
  • The mnemonic CRAAP is introduced as a way to remember the evaluation criteria (teacher suggests a quick mnemonic to remember the letters).

CRAAP: Currency

• Defines currency as timeliness and how up-to-date information is for the topic.
• Questions to ask:
  • When was the information posted or published?
  • Has it been revised or updated?
  • Is the information current relative to the topic?
  • Are the links functional?
• Rationale: Knowledge evolves quickly (example given about online discussion boards and medical fields changing rapidly). Current information matters for fast-moving topics.
• Example from the Pluto discussion: newer sources (like the 2013 peer‑reviewed article) are more current for the specific question of Pluto’s planetary status than a 1930 source.

CRAAP: Relevance

• Relevance asks how important the information is to your needs.
• Questions to ask:
  • Does the information relate to your topic?
  • Who is the intended audience, and is it appropriate for your work?
  • Is it suitable for the assignment or project you’re doing (e.g., background vs. primary research)?
• The discussion notes that for a history of Pluto’s classification, older sources can be informative; for the current status, peer‑reviewed, recent sources are more appropriate.

CRAAP: Authority

• Authority concerns who the author, publisher, or sponsor is.
• Questions to ask:
  • Are the authors’ credentials provided?
  • What organization are they affiliated with?
  • Is there contact information?
  • Does the URL reveal anything about the source (e.g., .org, .edu versus .com)?
• The teacher points out that URLs and affiliations can signal credibility but are not proof by themselves.
• Emphasis on peer-reviewed journals as stronger authority, compared to non-academic outlets.

CRAAP: Accuracy

• Accuracy concerns the reliability and truthfulness of the information.
• Questions to ask:
  • Is the information reliable and supported by evidence?
  • Has the information been reviewed or validated by others?
  • Can the information be verified in another source?
  • Is the tone free of bias and emotion?
  • Are there spelling/grammar issues that might signal a lack of editorial control?
• Point made: Academic journals undergo multiple review steps; thus spelling and grammar issues are less common in peer‑reviewed work.

CRAAP: Purpose

• Purpose asks what the information exists to do; whether it presents facts, opinions, or arguments.
• Questions to ask:
  • Why was this information produced?
  • Is it factual or opinion-based?
  • Is the point of view objective and impartial, or biased?
  • Is there any potential bias or positionality disclosed by the author (e.g., the author’s background that might influence interpretation)?
• Example shared: The instructor’s positionality about online discussion forums is disclosed to explain potential biases in their analysis.

Primary vs Secondary sources; blogs and credibility

• Distinction:
  • Primary sources: original pieces of writing or data (e.g., books, poems, original research, blogs used as primary sources depending on context).
  • Secondary sources: interpret or analyze primary sources (e.g., review articles, literature reviews).
• Blogs can be useful in some contexts but are typically weaker as secondary sources in academic work unless used thoughtfully as primary sources or with clear context.
• The importance of evaluating credibility even when a source appears credible in one dimension (e.g., having a lot of citations or a strong DOI) but may lack other credible indicators.

What counts as a credible source (summary from CRAAP in practice)

• Currency: ensure information is timely for the topic.
• Relevance: ensure it addresses your research question and audience.
• Authority: verify author qualifications and publisher credibility; check URLs and affiliations.
• Accuracy: look for evidence, data, and peer-review; verify with other sources.
• Purpose: determine whether the source is intended to inform, persuade, or sell; assess bias and objectivity.

Rhetorical appeals: Pathos, Logos, Ethos, Kairos

• Rhetoric definition: the choices writers make to communicate and persuade; influenced by audience, topic, purpose, context, and culture.
• The big three (Pathos, Logos, Ethos) plus Kairos:

Pathos (emotional appeal)

• Target: emotions to persuade, engage memory, or motivate action.
• Examples: animal adoption commercials use sad music and imagery to evoke sympathy and action.
• In the transcript: pathos is discussed as a common, powerful tool, e.g., music and imagery tied to family, culture, suffering, memory, etc.
• Cautions: emotional appeals can be persuasive but must be evaluated for accuracy and source credibility.

Kairos (timing and appropriateness)

• Focus: timing, context, and opportunity to seize the moment in writing or messaging.
• Example: a writer may choose to publish a piece when the audience is emotionally ready or when the topic is particularly salient; in ads, seasonal timing (e.g., pumpkin spice campaigns) leverages kairos.
• In the transcript: kairos is described as “timing, appropriateness, opportunity,” and it can affect how compelling a message is.

Logos (logical appeal)

• Focus: data, statistics, logic, and evidence to support claims.
• Examples given: health ads, car warranties with data, statistical comparisons or measurements.
• Reminder: just because a piece uses data doesn’t guarantee truth; sources and context must be verified (hence the CRAAP checks).

Ethos (ethical/credible appeal)

• Focus: credibility of the author or source; trustworthiness; expertise.
• Examples in the transcript:
  • An infographic from the CDC with a link to the CDC and logos; uses ethos via institutional authority.
  • An ad featuring a celebrity or a recognizable figure (e.g., a mom-focused message) to imply trust; critical questions include: which moms? why trust this source? what exactly is trusted about the brand?
• Key point: If credibility is assumed but not substantiated, the ethos is weak.

How rhetoric and credibility interact in practice

• A piece can be persuasive through appeals (pathos, ethos, logos, kairos) without being credible if the data are misused or sources are unclear.
• The speaker emphasizes critical thinking: always ask where the numbers come from, who wrote it, and whether the claim can be verified elsewhere.

Ads and rhetorical analysis examples from the transcript

• JFK-era space budget excerpt (illustrates ethos and logos):
  • This historical excerpt presents large numbers and a high-level argument about prioritizing space funding despite uncertainty about benefits.
  • Key claims rely on numerical data and retrospective justification; the passage is used to illustrate how rhetoric blends data with vision and faith.
• Consumer product ads (e.g., chips, pizzas, car ads, Clorox wipes, etc.):
  • Pathos: emotional triggers (comfort, family, safety) used to motivate purchase or trust.
  • Logos: numerical claims such as fat/carb content, claims about potency or effectiveness (e.g., “three grams of fat” or “1¢ per day”).
  • Kairos: seasonality (e.g., pumpkin spice campaigns) or timing of deals.
  • Ethos: endorsements or perceived authority (e.g., “trusted by moms” phrasing; questions about who that trust is attributed to).
• Ethics and credibility in ads: questions about the source, the audience targeting (e.g., which moms?), the evidence behind claims, and potential biases.
• The importance of considering the rhetorical situation: audience, purpose, and context influence how a message is constructed and should be evaluated.

Practical notes on writing and research assignments discussed

Four weekly reflections

• Purpose: practice evaluating credibility and trustworthiness of sources, including how to find peer‑reviewed sources and assess ethos.
• Each reflection requires: start with a citation of the source annotated last week (the sentence must explicitly state the determination: “The source I annotated last week is/ is not a credible source”).
• Content: 1–2 pages, double-spaced, MLA format; include your name and the source citation at the top.
• Length guidance: a page can still earn an A if the work meets instructions; there is a page range but quality matters more than length.
• Due date: Monday at midnight.

Writing sample (two-source prompt)

• Purpose: mini essay to practice citing sources, MLA formatting, and writing a short report.
• Due date: October 23.
• Structure: a two-page, double-spaced report using two provided sources (both peer‑reviewed and accessible via LSUS links).
• Topic provided by the instructor: college students’ academic success and their study habits.
• Sources: two links are provided to ensure access (no need for library loan); one source is an academic journal with data/stats.
• Flexibility: you may use the provided topic and sources or, if you prefer, you can bring in your own peer‑reviewed sources, but the prompt offers ready-made sources to reduce the burden of finding material.
• Formatting: MLA, works cited, and the report should demonstrate how to synthesize the two sources into a concise analysis.
• Resources: the two sources will be accessible on LSUS; a writing sample directions and rubric is attached to the submission as well.
• Practical reminder: you will be doing a lot of writing; the instructor emphasizes practical practice with MLA formatting, in-text citations, and a works cited page.

Accessibility and logistics notes

• Links and access: the instructor wants to ensure that sources are accessible without library loans, encouraging use of freely accessible peer‑reviewed articles.
• Answers to questions: the instructor moves around the room to answer questions as students work on these prompts.
• Overall goal: build disciplined habits for evaluating credibility, citing sources, and structuring academic arguments.

Key takeaways for exam preparation

• The CRAAP framework is central for evaluating any source: Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose.
• Always check the source’s date, audience, and whether it is peer‑reviewed when evaluating credibility for academic work.
• Blogs can be useful as primary sources in some contexts but are generally weaker as secondary sources for scholarly work.
• Rhetorical appeals (Pathos, Ethos, Logos, Kairos) are powerful but must be analyzed critically: check who is making the claims, what evidence supports them, and whether the timing or audience affects their persuasive power.
• When conducting source-based writing assignments, use MLA formatting and provide a Works Cited page; start with a clear thesis and use evidence from sources to support the argument.
• Deadlines and expectations are explicit: early practice with credible sources and short writing tasks build toward larger papers.

Additional context and connections

• The discussion ties historical debates about Pluto’s classification to modern scholarly practice: historical sources provide context but current status relies on contemporary, peer‑reviewed research.
• The conversations around “positionality” highlight the importance of disclosing potential biases in scholarly writing.
• The emphasis on citations, abstracts, DOIs, and cross-source verification reflects foundational principles of research methodology used across disciplines.