User:Cwilliamson74/sandbox

109.6 TB
Mid Term Quiz

'''Evaluate a Wikipedia article relevant to your own Research Topic: To earn credit for this Mid Term, you must complete Part 1 and Part 2. This exam should take you less than 2 hours to complete. Be sure to give yourself enough time. It must be completed by noon on Wed. 19 Oct 2016.'''

1. Login to your own Wikipedia account, and click on Sandbox in the upper right part of the screen.

2. Then, in your Sandbox, click “Edit.” Click below the box that describes the Sandbox, then copy and paste the rest of this Mid-Term Quiz document into your sandbox.

3. Write your answers to these questions in your own Wikipedia Sandbox.

4. Click SAVE!

---

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Winter 2016

My Research Topic is: How does music and movement help with literacy and social skills in an early childhood classroom?

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Music, Movement, Earlychildhood Education, Literacy

Part 1:

Examine Wikipedia articles that are directly related to your Research Topic and select a substantive article to evaluate. This could be an article about an idea (e.g., I might choose the one about Trance) or a person (if I were researching Reggae music, I might pick Bob Marley). Answer the following questions:

I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)

+ EC Music education for young children

Use the criteria from the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure to evaluate the article. (Get your copy from the Reference Desk.)

+ 1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? Yes or No

No

If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here.

Write an brief explanation of the reason the issues mentioned in the warning banner are important. For example, if the issue is “needs additional citations for verification,” why does that matter?

+ A warning banner is used to let the reader know there are issues being discussed with the article such as it may be an autobiography or it could be a self contradicting article.

Please note: If the article you are evaluating does not have a warning banner, choose a warning banner from a different article and explain the warning that is in that banner.

+ 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article?

It is very easy to understand. It is short and concise, gives the reader a basic overview of what music in education is and what are the basic benefits.

+ 3. Is the structure of the article clear? “Are there several headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and foonotes at the end?”

The structure is clear. There are five subheadings and references at the end.

+ 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic?

It is balanced well. The subheadings are short, but concise.

+ 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay?

The article is very factual, so I would say it is neutral.

+ 6. Are the references and footnotes citing reliable sources? Do they point to scholarly and trustworthy information? Beware of references to blogs; look for references to books, scholarly journal articles, government sources, etc.

The references are reliable. They are a mixture of websites and scholarly books on music and early childhood education.

7. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating:

+ a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English?

The lead section is clear and correct English although it is quite short. I'd like it if it were a little longer.

+ b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”?

It is a very factual article.

+ c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts?

No. It is very specific to early childhood education and research on specific groups of children.

+ d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic?

No. I think it is a good overview of the topic.

+ e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic?

All the sections are relatively short. It is easy to read and gives a good basic overview of the topic.

+ f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

It has a good amount of references and links that you can click on to take you to other related articles.

+ g. Look at the “View History” for the article. As you read the conversation there, do you see hostile dialogue or other evidence of lack of respectful treatment among the editors?

The history has very respectful edits. I'm seeing a lot of thank you's along the way.

__________________________

Part 2:

Evaluate the Wikipedia article you selected using the CARDIO method. Write your answers following each word below:

+ Currency (When was the last update of this article? hint: check the View History)

The last edit was made in December of 2015. I'd say it's still relevent.

+ Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?)

Many are students studying various related topics.

+ Relevance (to your research topic)

This is very relevant to my topic. It discusses the benefits of music in education for young children. How group games and music help build up skills that will later become literacy and social skills.

+ Depth

The information is more general than scholarly.

+ Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)

This article is general audience article.

+ Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?)

The purpose is to give a basic overview of the benefits and study of music in the young children's classroom.