Source Evaluation: The Logic of Interdisciplinary Studies

1. Provide the complete citation for the source.

Mathison, Sandra, and Melissa Freeman. The Logic of Interdisciplinary Study. Rep. Albany: National Center on English Learning and Achievement, 1997. Web.

2. In what ways are the information, ideas, and arguments in the source relevant to your research writing project?

This source [claims to] describe philosophical arguments for interdisciplinary learning in what appears to be primary education (i.e. public school, K-12), without evaluating the success of such models. It claims that no sources are able to evaluate the effects of interdisciplinary learning yet, but it was written in 1997 so it remains to be seen whether this is still true.

3. Is the line of argument in the source sound and well supported? In what ways can you use it in your project?

I think the historical/philosophical background of interdisciplinary learning models should be a very helpful framework from which to write. I should be able to use it to set the stage for a paper either on the benefits or drawbacks of interdisciplinary learning. It also cites many other sources (which may be print or web based) which could be useful to the project.

4. What have you learned about the author and publisher that would lead you to accept, question, or reject the line of argument presented in the source?

I would accept the work of two academics, especially when they are upfront about their purpose and its limitations (admitting to not be evaluating effectiveness of interdisciplinary models, only philosophical perspectives). The publisher is a university, which is what makes me think it is the work of two academics. To me, this makes it a pretty decent source, not that academics are always completely unbiased, but academia is supposed to be about the search for truth (I think?) and is at least not motivated as much by profit/readership as other mainstream sources.

5. In what ways does the publication date of the source affect your judgment of its usefulness for your project? The publication date of 1997 does not seem particularly recent in this field, there may have been more recent research done or even more discoveries concerning the historical/philosophical background of interdisciplinary learning that changes some of the claims made in the document. However, as background information I still think it could be pretty useful. In addition, it might be useful to show how people’s opinions on interdisciplinary learning have changed over time.
6. In what ways does the comprehensiveness of the source affect your judgment of its usefulness for your project?

Seems pretty comprehensive (twenty-six pages), although does note at the beginning that it does not evaluate the effectiveness of interdisciplinary models, only strives to bring together perspectives on interdisciplinary learning into a historical framework. On the other hand, not all of it may end up being useful to the ends I want to achieve with my project. Depending on what direction I end up going in, some of the information may become unnecessary.  

7. In what ways does the genre of the source affect your judgment of its usefulness for your project?

It’s an academic report, written to inform and (in this case) to investigate. I would judge those to be pretty worthy, somewhat objective causes (as mentioned above in number four). Academic reports also tend to be pretty thorough in their investigations as mentioned above in number six, so I would say that adds to the usefulness of this document.

8. In what ways could this source help you achieve your purpose and address the needs and interests of your readers?

My readers will need to have background information about interdisciplinary learning (even perhaps a working definition) to understand arguments for or against it. They may be interested in the historical context as well, if they are first hearing of it and wonder where it came from. This document in particular discusses not just the philosophy of interdisciplinary learning itself, but the conceptual understandings of whole-part relationships in various disciplines that underpinned it.