Team Direction

This is the fifth article in the Team A Prezi. The author is Elizabeth Nuttall, a teacher who writes as a pastime. The article originates from Knoji. The date of the article is not listed, but a comment was posted about the article in May 2011. Knoji is developed by zipfworks, a data platform that makes millions of products. It was founded by Michael Quoc, the former Director of Products at Yahoo!'s media Lab. He holds a Bachelor's in Business Administration. The article is about free Internet literacy resources. The article is accurate, but it does not list any examples of the sites the author is describing. It does not seem biased or persuasive. However, the article does not cite a single source. On the plus side, the article has links to different articles of the same nature. This gives the reader the opportunity to find out more information about the topic. Most of the links still work. The article does not have any navigation tools. It is short, but navigation tools would still be appreciated. Given that the article is already broken up into four parts, it would be fairly easy to add a navigation bar. The information here is so general that information from the article can be found very many places and in more detail. The article is copyrighted zipfworks 2014 This article adds little new information to Team A's presentation. Most of the information can be found at http://www.ldonline.org/article/35792#comprehension and in more detail. This is more of an article to get a general overview of a topic. The article is not thorough, does not cite any information and offers no navigation tools. The article did not harm the presentation in any way, but it did not particularly help it, either. 60/100

Yes this can be used as the least creditable. The article has only one link, that takes you to another article she wrote. Also, her BS is in Childhood and Youth Studies not in journalism so that could be a reason to knock down the credibility a bit. And I do agree with Gavin, its just a general overview of how one can use the internet for literacy skills.

Okay great. You can add this to the Prezi just like you did the other one. P.S. Kelvin is having the same problem you did this morning and I don't know what is going on.

This is the article Team B used on slide 1

sz - The internet's effect on literacy (60/100) (2 stars) A&C - 15 C&C - 10 C&B - 18 C&L - 12 N&C - 5 Did not find this article credible. Although the author was clearly defined with a detailed job description, the article did not list the date it was written or when it was copyrighted. It was hard to read because of the jumbled information - not relating to the article - intermingled throughout the copy. This article also remarked on both sides of the argument. This is a case where you want bias to be support your statement. They also cited what a source was saying in the article and did not give credit to the original source.

This article was cited by Team B on slide 1

coles - negative effect of the internet and technology (58/100) (2 stars) A&C - 12 C&C - 15 C&B - 18 C&L - 0 N&C - 13 Again, I did not find this article credible. The author was stated clearly and it had a link on it that you you to a bio page, but it was mostly blank. He is a freelance write that has only been writing a few years.There was a publish date and a revision date. The company has not been around long. The article only appears online. It is biased, but supports the statement the team is making. However the author does not give any examples, sources or citations. The article was easy to read but did not give an copyright information.

This is the least credible article for The Refutables Points be added to Prezi - The bio page for the author was blank. - There are no sources or links provided. - The site is a younger site. - Only a small portion of the entire article covered the negative effects of technology.

Screen 3 - Team B

howard - too much screen time (86/100) A&C - 15 C&C - 16 C&B - 18 C&L - 19 N&C - 18 I loved this article and found it highly credible. The author was clearly stated, but there was no bio or contact information. It is a recent article. the company who published the article has been around for many years and covers a lot of topics concerning children. The focus of the article was on screen time and it's negative effects not just the negative effects of the internet. The sources that were quoted are quite well known and therefore add to the credibility of the article. The article is very easy to navigate and read. There is a copyright displayed for the website but not exclusively for the article.

from slide 4

morgan - the effects internet reading skills (85/100) (3 stars) A&C - 18 C&C - 10 C&B - 19 C&L - 20 N&C - 18 This was a great article for team B to use in support of their statement. I found the article credible. The author is stated with a link to their Google Plus page. I could not find any history about the company. The article does not have any dates for when it was written or revised. The article can be searched for and found on the site easily. The content is concise and interesting. It is bias - but in a good way. They are trying to convince the reader that the inter is negatively impacting our young readers and they make very good points. There are several sources listed with links to related and additional articles. Pictures enhance the content and do not obstruct the flow of the copy. There is no clear copyright information for the article.

This is the most credible article for The Refutables points to be put on Prezi - The article ttys to convince readers the the internet is negatively effecting reading skills. - Several links are linseed for the reader to continue reading more about the subject. - Pictures enhance the article without taking away from its readability.

team b slide 5

UCLA - decline in critical thinking (77/100) (3stars) A&C - 10 C&C - 16 C&B - 18 C&L - 15 N&C - 18 The author is not identified but the source of the article is cited. The page origiantes from UCLA - a highly reputable university. The article was written in 2009. It is a little old. A revision date is not displayed. The site is also found reputable. The article has a clear focus, is easy to read and navigate, and filled filled great content. The article is biased, but not overly. There are several quotes from the source, a distinguished professor at UCLA. The are not any links to any other resources, but there is one back to the university itself. There is not a copyright shown for the article. Overall, I found this article credible.

Authority and Credibility - 10 Currency and Continuity - 10 Content and Bias - 20 Citations and Links - 20 Navigation and Copyright - 15 Total - 75 I find this article to be credible, however there are some issues. The writer of this article is listed as The Alberta Teachers' Association. While this may be a known organization, it would have been better if the names of the contributors were listed. The date is listed as 2010, even though it was only four years ago, the opinion of social networking has changed a lot since then. The focus of the article is to challenge whether or not social networking harms literacy development. The article is developed thoroughly from multiple studies using students, but it remains from being biased, and does not try to convince readers one way or another. There are several citations listed which appear to be the studies or research that was done. None of the links are active which prevents readers from determining if they support or enhance the article.

This source is not accurate information to go by, it was last updated on Thursday, Aug. 23 2012

howard - too much screen time (84/100) A&C - 15 C&C - 14 C&B - 18 C&L - 19 N&C - 18 I loved this article and found it highly credible. The author was clearly stated, but there was no bio or contact information. It is a recent article. the company who published the article has been around for many years and covers a lot of topics concerning children. The focus of the article was on screen time and it's negative effects not just the negative effects of the internet. The sources that were quoted are quite well known and therefore add to the credibility of the article. The article is very easy to navigate and read. There is a copyright displayed for the website but not exclusively for the article.

Nope, no bookmark.

This is the about page for the fifth article in the Team A Prezi.

This is the first article in Group A's Prezi. It has not been revised. It is about, appropriately, how technology impacts literacy. There is no apparent bias, although it does appear to attempt to convince the reader that technology is beneficial to literacy. It does briefly cite opposing arguments that are not refuted or discredited, giving the article some sense of impartiality. The authors cite multiple sources, and most of them are credible. The credibility of some is hard to determine because the links to some of the articles are broken. The links that do work lead to credible sources. Multiple print articles were also used. These all seem to be credible as well. The article also has multiple links to various webpages on the website. These appear to work as well. The article has a navigation bar at the top that makes it easy for users to navigate throughout the article. The information in the article is obviously found on other sites since the article cites these other sites. Main issues here are the date of publication and the broken links. The date is a huge problem, as Jennifer says. 65/100

Gavin, with all that you said I would score this one a little lower. maybe a fourteen. I have a huge issue with the age of this article. Think about how much has changed since. Maybe 13/20....

Gavin, the only thing I can agree with you on this article is the navigation bar for the various topics covered. The website is just overloaded with multiple sources and links that are very old. The site hasn't been updated since 2001, so most of the information in this article could be invalid to present day use. This could be used as one of their least creditable sources, in my opinion.

About page for first resource of Team A.

This is the third article in the Team A Prezi. The author is unknown, but this is from Dictionary.com. It was written in 2014, and it has not been revised. The website has won many awards for its apps. The focus of the article is the definition of technology. The article is accurate and thorough, and there are few ways one can make a dictionary definition biased or persuasive. The publisher sites many print dictionaries, which gives the website more authority. On top of the various related words, phrases and questions links, there are links for every word used in the dictionary definition. This is an extremely useful feature and adds accessibility to the article. Most, if not all, of the links are still active. Seeing how this article is just a dictionary definition, the only navigation features needed is that to other pages. The article is copyrighted 2014 Dictionary.com Again, the only issue is the lack of authors, but it is hard to see how that would be applicable to a dictionary definition. After all, how many print dictionaries have authors listed? 90/100

I think this could be used as their least creditable article.

After talking to some of the team mates, I decided that this is how we are going to handle this "article". We don't treat it as an article. We can deduct some points in the overall presentation score for using it. They could have used it just for a jumping off point, but shouldn't have quoted whole definition. Do you agree?

This is the fourth article in the Team A Prezi. The author is unknown, but this is from Dictionary.com. It was written in 2014, and it has not been revised. The website has won many awards for its apps. The focus of the article is the definition of literacy. The article is accurate and thorough, and there are few ways one can make a dictionary definition biased or persuasive. The publisher sites many print dictionaries, which gives the website more authority. On top of the various related words, phrases and questions links, there are links for every word used in the dictionary definition. This is an extremely useful feature and adds accessibility to the article. Most, if not all, of the links are still active. Seeing how this article is just a dictionary definition, the only navigation features needed is that to other pages. The article is copyrighted 2014 Dictionary.com Again, the only issue is the lack of authors, but it is hard to see how that would be applicable to a dictionary definition. After all, how many print dictionaries have authors listed? 90/100