DIGITAL MEDIA PLATFORMS AND EDUCATION
Unit 2: Documentation of Research Process
Goal: a minimum of five relevant sources per week
Your collection of your research: use Diigo or another other organized way to keep track of the sources you find and the data you compile.
What you will turn in to me for grade: Your weekly “Source Reviews,” hard copy in class.
Due Dates: Friday October 4 (5 annotated sources) Major unit assignment due Monday, October 21
Wednesday October 9 (5 annotated sources) (Research Synthesis Matrix)
Wednesday October 16 (5 annotated sources)
Minimums: Five is minimum number of sources to review and annotate each week. Three of these we will call your minor sources and you may write a brief overview (about 3-5 sentences). You make this choice because you decide it is not one of your two best sources of the week but you definitely want to review it quickly, document it and record relevant claims and evidence you notice so you can revisit it later if you need to. At least two of your weekly sources we will call major sources. You make this choice because you decide these sources are worth a full and thorough read and annotation. You will write an extended summary and response for each of your major sources.
Minor Sources: Brief Overview and Documentation
For each of your three collected minor sources, provide:
A correct citation, using APA or MLA style. I prefer you use APA, but whatever your choice, be consistent.
A brief description: C?P?R (context, problem, response)
• What is the piece about?
• What problem or issue is addressed?
• What is the response to the problem or issue? (main claim of piece)
Identify Type of source:
• Scholarly: The source comes from an academic book or journal and presents a thorough exploration of the topic: a scientific study presenting findings or a critical analysis of the issue
• Substantive: The source comes from a credible author/organization and presents a thorough presentation following C?P?R.
• Tertiary: The source is a brief report or article that summarizes the issue/findings but does not present a thorough discussion of evidence or an explicit argument.
• What useful ideas or evidence does it provide? Here, you may choose to note specific pieces of data, quotes, or compelling ideas.
Example: This is what you would write (this is APA style)
Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H.L., Cuite, C.L. and Lang, J.T. (2003). Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: a national study of American knowledge and opinion. New Brunswick, New Jersey; Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey.
Description: The authors examine public perception of GE foods finding that attitudes are formed by personal beliefs, not scientific fact. The authors raise the issue that even confronted with data and evidence, people persist in their beliefs. The authors call this “magical thinking” which underscores the wide and persistent lack of knowledge about GE foods.
Type of Source: Scholarly Source: Scientific study.
Compelling Evidence: Provides both data and a good way of discussing public perception of GE foods.
“Magical thinking about food and health took in a central position for both OF and GM attitudes. It is in line with several researchers’ observation that some of the argumentations in favor of OF and against GM are of a rather magical nature.”
“People from the natural sciences may not only know more about, but also be more familiar and also more comfortable with practical application of science and technology.”
Major Sources: Summarizing and Responding
Goal: Summarize and Respond to two of your best sources each week.
Correct citation, using APA or MLA style.
• A 200 (approx) word summary of the source, following C?P?R
• Your reaction and response to the source. What do you find interesting about it? What does it make you think about? How might you use it to further your project?
Dona, A. & Arvanitoyannis, I. (2009). Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49, 164-175.
The authors discuss the “intrusion” of genetically modified foods into our food production and consumption system. They address the limitations of food safety procedures and suggest that current methods of securing the safety of GE foods are seriously compromised. In their discussion, the authors present the results of several studies that tested the level of toxicity in animals fed with GE foods. One particular finding is that “body weight might be significantly altered as it has been shown in the consumption of Mon863 corn and GM rice on rats” (169). Further, the authors note that “stomach erosion and necrosis were reported in rats fed with flavr-savr GM tomatoes, while GM potatoes . . . induced proliferative growth of the stomach” (169). In addition, the authors demonstrate studies that have found negative effects on the gastrointestinal track, the pancreas, and even alterations in the bloods, with a change in in white and red blood cells (170). The authors conclude that there is adequate evidence to insist on thorough testing. They note: “It should be emphasized that since these GM foods are going to be consumed by every human being, they should be tested even more thoroughly than drugs and more experiments are required . . . “ (172).
I found this article extremely alarming. It was quite thorough in its review of animal studies involving cows, rats, pigs and fish. Each animal expressed some level of toxicity after the consumption of GM foods. I was particularly intrigued by the observation that the consumption of GM foods led to weight gain. I would be interested in exploring this idea more to see if it is supported in other research. Also alarming, but not surprising I guess, was that many of the more positively correlated studies are conducted by Monsanto. The authors call this “controversial” as “companies try to hide information about the health impacts of GM” (169). This is another area of study for me. The article includes a comprehensive bibliography, so I will review this for networking purposes.