Assignment Purpose: The first part of this assignment will assist you in identifying a topic which you will work with for subsequent activities in the course. The second part of the assignment helps you articulate what constitutes plagiarism. Part 1: In this course you will be using a variety of resources and research tools. This activity will guide you in formulating a topic to use for later assignments in this course. 1. What is something you are curious about? What is something you see out in the world that you want to know more about? Perhaps think of health, business, or socio-cultural issues. Write it here: _______________________________________________________________________ (Need help selecting a topic? Review the Research Topic Starting Points for EN 104, EN 106, EN 111, and EN 116 guide from the Herzing University Library. Browse some of the resources linked there for generating topic ideas. http://herzing.libguides.com/research_topic_starting_points) 2. Create a Mind Map for your topic in the Credo Reference Database available through the Herzing University Library. You can access the link to that database and view a brief tutorial in the Research Topics Starting Points guide at http://herzing.libguides.com/research_topic_starting_pointsIf you need assistance using this tool, contact the Herzing University Librarians using the contact information in that guide. You might need to play around with how you word your topic. Did the Mind Map help you narrow your topic? Describe your experience with the Mind Map feature and indicate your narrowed topic: 3. Write at least three research questions related to your topic and circle or somehow indicate the one you are most interested in answering: 4. Create a thesis statement for your research project. Be sure it meets the characteristics of a “strong” thesis statement as described in the reading for this unit. Characteristics of a Strong Thesis Statement · Answers the research question and is adequate for the assignment. · Takes a position – doesn’t just state facts. · It is specific and provable. · It passes the “so what?” test. Include your thesis statement here: Part 2: The following paragraph is from this source:Spiranec, S., &Mihaela, B. Z. (2010). Information literacy 2.0: Hype or discourse refinement? Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 140-153. doi:http://dx.doi.org.prx-herzing.lirn.net/10.1108/00220411011016407 Web 2.0 is currently changing what it means to be an information literate person or community…. The erosion did not begin with Web 2.0 but had started considerably earlier and became evident with the first web document without an identifiable author or indication of origin. Generally, this erosion comes naturally with the advancement towards electronic environments. In the era of print culture the information context was based on textual permanence, unity and identifiable authorship, and was therefore stable. The appearance of Web 1.0 has already undermined .

1. Assignment Purpose:
The first part of this assignment will assist you in identifying a
topic which you will work with for subsequent activities in the
course. The second part of the assignment helps you articulate
what constitutes plagiarism.
Part 1:
In this course you will be using a variety of resources and
research tools. This activity will guide you in formulating a
topic to use for later assignments in this course.
1. What is something you are curious about? What is something
you see out in the world that you want to know more about?
Perhaps think of health, business, or socio-cultural issues. Write
it here:
_____________________________________________________
__________________
(Need help selecting a topic? Review the Research Topic
Starting Points for EN 104, EN 106, EN 111, and EN 116 guide
from the Herzing University Library. Browse some of the
resources linked there for generating topic ideas.
http://herzing.libguides.com/research_topic_starting_points)
2. Create a Mind Map for your topic in the Credo Reference
Database available through the Herzing University Library. You
can access the link to that database and view a brief tutorial in
the Research Topics Starting Points guide at
http://herzing.libguides.com/research_topic_starting_pointsIf
you need assistance using this tool, contact the Herzing
University Librarians using the contact information in that
guide. You might need to play around with how you word your
topic.

2. Did the Mind Map help you narrow your topic? Describe your
experience with the Mind Map feature and indicate your
narrowed topic:
3. Write at least three research questions related to your topic
and circle or somehow indicate the one you are most interested
in answering:
4. Create a thesis statement for your research project. Be sure it
meets the characteristics of a “strong” thesis statement as
described in the reading for this unit.
Characteristics of a Strong Thesis Statement
· Answers the research question and is adequate for the
assignment.
· Takes a position – doesn’t just state facts.
· It is specific and provable.
· It passes the “so what?” test.
Include your thesis statement here:
Part 2:
The following paragraph is from this source:Spiranec, S.,
&Mihaela, B. Z. (2010). Information literacy 2.0: Hype or
discourse refinement? Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 140-
153. doi:http://dx.doi.org.prx-
herzing.lirn.net/10.1108/00220411011016407
Web 2.0 is currently changing what it means to be an
information literate person or community…. The erosion did not

3. begin with Web 2.0 but had started considerably earlier and
became evident with the first web document without an
identifiable author or indication of origin. Generally, this
erosion comes naturally with the advancement towards
electronic environments. In the era of print culture the
information context was based on textual permanence, unity and
identifiable authorship, and was therefore stable. The
appearance of Web 1.0 has already undermined that stability by
the very nature of digital information which may be easily
modified, copied and duplicated. Web 2.0 with its collaborative
model of knowledge production and mash-up philosophy finally
brought an end to the stability of information context by
creating flat and fluid information spaces. (Spiranec&Mihaela,
2010, p. 147)
Below are four examples that display usage of this content. For
each one, please determine whether or not plagiarism is present.
If you feel a passage is plagiarized, explain why. If you feel it
was not plagiarized, explain what necessary details are present
that show correct usage.
a. Before computers, books and articles had textual permanence
and identifiable authorship. This meant that readers could verify
the truthfulness of sources more easily than they can now.
b. Spiranec and Mihaela (2010) argue that the Internet has
“brought an end to the stability of information context” (p.
147).
c. The idea of information literacy began to radically change as
soon as text began to be published on the Internet
(Spiranec&Mihaela, 2010).
d. Web 2.0 is currently changing what it means to be an
information literate person or community.

4. This activity is adapted from page 85 of Hosier, A., Bullis, D.,
Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Holden, I., Hecker, J., . . . Jacobson,
T. (2014). The information literacy user’s guide: An open,
online textbook. Retrieved
from http://textbooks.opensuny.org/the-information-literacy-
users-guide-an-open-online-textbook/ , Licensed under Creative
Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0
Guidelines for Group Assignment: Review of Chapter Case
Studies (6 Assignments)
1. Each group shall create a one page APA style narrative
response for each of the
assigned group chapter case studies assignments based on the
questions below.
a. What are the ethics issues in this case?
b. What management mistakes were made in this case?
c. Who are the key stakeholders in this case?
d. What steps can be taken within this organization to remedy
these mistakes?
2. If more than one review is assigned during the week each
group shall submit a one page
APA style narrative response as mentioned above for each case

5. study/assignment.
3. Each question must be repeated followed by your narrative
answer including properly cited
sources and the references used in the answer.
4. Two (2) “External Authoritative Sources” in addition to the
textbook are required for
maximum points on EACH assignment.
5. “External Authoritative Sources” for purposes of this course
shall mean: books, peer reviewed
journal articles, education and government sites as well as non-
partisan national or
international organizations (such as WHO, UNICEF, UNAIDS
etc) provided, the foregoing
source/material selected has in text citations and references to
support statements made therein.
Newspapers including the Wall Street Journal, blogs regardless
of source, editorial, panel
discussions and dot com sites are not considered authoritative
for this course.
6. Required Sources: A source cannot be referenced unless it
was cited in the narrative
answer
7. Formatting: The textbook from which the case study was
published and the course text book must
be cited just like any other source. It is not permissible to write
"In the text book... or In the case

6. study…"
8. Formatting: Any direct quote in the narrative must include
the page or paragraph number
in the citation
9. Formatting: It is improper to place a citation/source at the
end of a paragraph if material from the
source appears before the last sentence in the paragraph.
10. Formatting: It is improper to place a citation in the middle
of a sentence. One can lead with the
source in the sentence but cannot use a citation within
parenthesis except at the end of the sentence.
11. References can be on a separate page and do not count
toward the one-page maximum.
12. These assignments must be submitted by the group
spokesperson in the appropriate
assignment folder by assigned due date.
13. Additional Guidance: I urge student to review the adobe
connect session with FIU
Libraries and Writing Center on APA Style formatting and
contact them personally if
more assistance is needed.
Grading Rubric:

7. Excellent-1 Average-0.5 Poor-0.0
Content Central issues are all
identified and used as basis
for ethical evaluation. All
relevant facts identified
appropriately. Who, what,
where, when, how and why
were all addressed, as
appropriate.
Central issues are identified
but not clearly explained.
Peripheral issued not
identified. Facts identified,
but some may not be relevant
to case or may be slightly
misinterpreted.
Central ethical issues not
defined appropriately or

8. completely.
Misunderstanding of the
issues related to the case.
Writing Paper is coherently organized
and the logic is easy to
follow. There are no spelling
or grammatical errors and
terminology is clearly
defined. Writing is clear and
concise and persuasive
Paper is generally well
organized and most of the
argument is easy to follow.
There are only a few minor
spelling or grammatical
errors, or terms are not clearly
defined. Writing is mostly
clear but may lack

9. conciseness.
Paper is poorly organized and
difficult to read – does not
flow logically from one part
to another. There are several
spelling and/or grammatical
errors; technical terms may
not be defined or are poorly
defined. Writing lacks clarity
and conciseness.