Think Aloud Part II

I think that the Think Aloud project goes along best with ISTE NETS Standard 1C: Promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students’ conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes. The whole purpose of Think Aloud is for the students to write exactly what they are thinking as they are reading, as it correlates with the online research that they are doing, so that they better understand the information given. Planning and creative processes also go along with the power point side of the project, with the students deciding a layout for the slides, and the order in which the slides must go in order to make sense.

Think Aloud Post

Haggerty, hitt power point from bhaggerty

Website Worksheet

Is there an author? Is the page signed?	Yes
Is the author qualified and/or reputable? An expert?	Yes
Who is the sponsor?	CNN
Is the sponsor of the page reputable? How reputable?	Yes
Are there links that take you outside of the site?	Yes

Is the information reliable and error-free?	Yes
Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?	Yes
Where doubt exists, can the information be cross-checked with a reliable source?	Yes

Does the information show a minimum of bias?	Yes
Is the page designed to sway opinion?	Yes
Is there any advertising on the page?	No

Is the page dated?	Yes
If so, when was the last update?	12-19-12
How current are the links? Have some expired or moved?	No

Is there an indication that the page has been completed, and is not still under construction?	No
What topics are covered? How in-depth is the material?	The article covers that the author believes that teachers should not be able to carry guns and school, and offers links to two states that are in the process of granting teachers the right to guns on school grounds, and not giving them it.

Type of file (could say ftp:// or telnet://)	Domain name (computer file is on and its location on the Internet)	Path or directory on the computer to this file	Name of file, usually ending in .html or .htm
http://	www.cnn.com	/2012/12/19/opinion/granderson-guns-in-schools

Editors Reliability

With the exception of Mr. Stephen Schulz, who seemed to have the credibility to be updating the wikipedia pages, I could not find any evidence that J. Johnson or Susan Lesch had any credibility what-so-ever.

Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet Student: Brandon Haggerty Article title: Music Education Answer the following questions to see how reliable a Wikipedia article is. Start with the main page. Does it have any cleanup banners that have been placed there to indicate problems with the article? (A complete list is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/ Cleanup.) Any one of the following cleanup banners means the article is an unreliable source: This article or section has multiple issues. No    This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No The neutrality of this article is disputed.  No The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. No This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. No This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia. No This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject. No This article requires authentication or verification by an expert. No This article or section needs to be updated. No This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region. No This is missing citations or needs footnotes. No This article does not cite any references or sources. No Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements: Is it written in a clear and organized way? Yes     Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)?  Yes Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)?  Yes  Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?  Yes Scroll down to the article's References and open them in new windows or tabs. Do they seem like reliable sources? Reliable references: *International Society for Philosophy of Music Education Possibly unreliable references: Definitely unreliable references:   Click on the Discussion tab. How is the article rated on the Rating Scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_History/Assessment#Quality_scale  (Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, FA)? What issues around the article are being discussed? Do any of them make you doubt the article's reliability? The article has received excellent ratings. Based on the above questions, give the article an overall ranking of Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable. You may use a Reliable article as a source (but remember that even if a Wikipedia article is reliable, it should never be your only source on a topic!) You may use a Partially Reliable article as a starting point for your research, and may use some of its references as sources, but do not us it as a source. You should not use an Unreliable article as a source or a starting point. Research the same topic in a different encyclopedia. How did you rank this article (Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable)? Give at least three reasons to support your answer. 1.      I find this article reliable because it discusses the most popular and effective music teaching methods. 2.      I find this article reliable because it gives a history of music education. 3.      I find this article reliable because it gives a complete list of the current standards and objectives.