Due Date

February 17

Seesaw Assignment 3: Don't Always Believe What You See!

Students will explore the science behind our health, and how miconceptions and bias develop around health issues. Our objectives include:

  1. Research and summarize at least one scientific study related to health issues and trends.
  2. Compare and contrast scientific studies to popular discussions and presentations of health products and information

How to Complete

In this Seesaw, we'll take that study that you found (or another, if you prefer) in your Flipgrid talk and dig in a little deeper. For example, you learned about the laetrile controversy in the Flipgrid 3 assignment description. If you found an article on cancer research, you might be interested in finding out what the sample size of the study was and how it was conducted. You might also check out what the news media has to say about the results of this study. Is what your study found suddenly the "next best thing" (or the next worst thing) in cancer treatment or screening and everyone HAS to have it? How does what the press says about your study actually match up with the science? Do you think they inflated the results, or taken any of the research out of context?

It's not always the case that research and the media don't match up. Sometimes, the media does a great job reporting things to the public. Other times, as you well know, that's not the case, and we receive many mixed messages. The Internet and social media has made this problem 10 times worse. This is a great video that is long (45 minutes), but does a lot to explain how this can happen and provides both medical and media perspectives.

We're trying to get deeper into how we receive messages and what we hear and see so that we can help ourselves and our kids make better health choices, and ask the right questions.

A few recent health topics in the news that might be worth exploring if you're having trouble finding good info:

With this Seesaw, you'll want to look at the real study that any article you read was based on. For example, if you read something at WDDTY, then that's not a study, but the citation at the bottom will be something you can search for to get to the nitty gritty. For example, your study might be held at the National Institute of Health (NIH) - searching for the citation will typically take you to the abstract full text of the article

In other words, take the citation " Source: American Journal of Epidemiology, 2018; doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy231" - searching for this in Google brings up the original abstract at https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aje/kwy231/5133254?redirectedFrom=fulltext). That abstract is where the good stuff is.

You may want to use the Note tool for this one, or attach a file, so that you can type in links as well as say whatever you'd like to about your findings. You can type the whole thing, or use a combination of media to get your message across.

Use the following questions as guidelines:

How to Turn It In

Once you're posted, you're in. There's no need for you to do send anything through BlackBoard. Your grade, however, will be tracked and posted in BlackBoard. You'll see comments from me in both Seesaw and BlackBoard.

If you have questions or need more tutorials on how to post things in Seesaw, check out this help guide.

How You're Graded

 

Unacceptable – 0 pts

Beginning - 1 pts

Developing – 3pts

Proficient – 5 pts

Content (5 points)

Nothing submitted, or postings present no specific viewpoint and no supporting examples are provided.

Postings present a specific viewpoint in answer to the prompt, but may lack supporting examples or detail.

Postings present a viewpoint related to the topic that is substantiated by some supporting examples.

Content is presented in a clear and thorough manner, discussing all major points related to the assignment in sufficient detail.

Use of Seesaw and Web tools (5 points)

Nothing submitted.

Postings make limited use of the tools in Seesaw, and any project attachment may or may not be present or accessible. No annotations or further information are provided on items that warrant it.

Postings make some use of the tools in Seesaw, and any project attachment is accessible. Annotations or further information are provided on some items that warrant it, but there may be limited detail or items that need more explanation.

Postings make full use of the tools in Seesaw, and any project attachments are accessible. Thorough annotations or further information are provided on some all items that warrant it.

Creativity and Critical Thinking (5 points)

Nothing submitted, or postings are provided in a half-hearted, disjointed manner that reflects no awareness of effective communication.

Postings are brief and unimaginative, and reflect minimal effort.

Postings are generally well written and constructed, though there may be limited creativity shown in what the author has to offer about the assignment topic.

Postings are creatively and fluently written to stimulate thinking, and show high-level thinking regarding the assignment topic.

Mechanics (5 points)

Nothing submitted, or speaks incoherently. Writes with numerous major errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation and spelling. (More than 5 errors)

Speaks with major difficulties in others’ ability to understand. Writes with major errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation and spelling.

(3 - 4 errors)

Speaks well, but may not provide complete thoughts or may be difficult to fully understand. Writes with minor editing errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. (1-2 errors)

Speaks well and cogently. Writes with no errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. (0 errors)

 

Help and Resources

Remember to check the Readings and Resources in the Module and ask for help if you need it!