Critical Policy Analysis

Assignment Details

You will critically evaluate a current public policy debate (in Canada or internationally) with a clear connection to family‑related issues (such as family dynamics, structures, roles, or well‑being). Your task is to analyze how the issue is framed in public discourse, assess the accuracy and credibility of claims made by key stakeholders, and develop a well‑supported policy recommendation grounded in rigorous fact‑checking and source evaluation.

Your central goal is to investigate and verify stakeholder claims, assess competing arguments, evaluate source credibility and bias, and determine how evidence and sociological assumptions shape the debate. You will synthesize diverse sources, identify misinformation or bias, and communicate your findings clearly and persuasively.

To demonstrate these skills, you will submit two components:

1. You will write a concise 1200–1500 word policy analysis that examines the issue, evaluates the accuracy of major claims, and develops a well‑supported policy recommendation grounded in credible evidence. This written component emphasizes critical thinking, media literacy, and source evaluation (i.e., this is not general essay writing).
2. You will create a short (60–90 second) TikTok‑style video in which you demonstrate your fact‑checking process for one claim related to your policy issue. This is a process‑based media literacy task, and production quality is not graded. What matters is that you clearly show your reasoning, your steps, and your ability to connect evidence to policy analysis.

Step 1: Choose a policy issue

Select a current public policy debate to examine, ensuring the issue connects to themes in family sociology, such as (but not limited to):

• Relationship formation and childbearing
• Childcare and early childhood education
• Parental leave and work-family balance
• Family housing and affordability
• Domestic violence and family safety
• Reproductive rights and family planning
• Elder care and intergenerational support
• Family impacts of immigration or incarceration policies

Heads up! Choose a topic that has active public discourse and multiple perspectives.

Step 2: Conduct background research

Identify at least 8 sources (published in the last 10 years) related to your policy issue, including:

• Academic articles (empirical research)
• Government reports
• News media and op-eds (with attention to bias)
• Think tank or NGO publications
• Social media videos (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube) that make or repeat claims about your policy issue
• Other public-facing content such as podcasts, infographics, or viral posts

Heads up! Gather both print and video sources, and include a range of credible and biased materials.

Step 3: Complete the Source Evaluation Appendix

Use the provided table to evaluate at least 8 sources. Include:

• Full citation: title, author, publication date, url link to source
• Publication type (empirical research, news articles, think tank reports, govt. documents, social media video)
• Credibility rating (1–5)
• Bias (Left, Center, Right, Other)
• Notes on framing, reliability, relevance, bias, and/or key claims and evidence

Heads up! The notes section will be heavily graded. This is where you demonstrate your ability to critically evaluate evidence.

Step 4: Identify and analyze key claims

Choose 3 major claims made by different stakeholders in the debate. For each claim:

• Paraphrase the claim (state in your own words).
• Analyze the framing, bias, or rhetorical strategy used.
• Fact-check the claim. Critically evaluate:

1. What is the context?

   • Consider how the claim reflects assumptions about families, gender roles, or the role of social policy.
   • Determine the relevant context of the claim (e.g. demographic facts or trends, an event or element of a news story, the larger agenda).
   • Evaluate the source/organization of the claimmaker (e.g., which theoretical perspective and paradigm?).
   • Research the author(s) or organization making the claim.

2. What is the evidence?

   • What is the evidence offered to support the claim. (e.g., a peer reviewed study? A national poll? A summary of a new book?)?
   • What is the evidence offered by critics of the claim?
   • If a secondary source, find and examine the original study (e.g. Is the data nationally representative? Is the study peer-reviewed?).
   • Do other credible sources (e.g, mainstream news, non-partisan think tanks, academics) come to the same conclusion?
   • Is the information in the article consistent with what you’ve learned in this course (e.g., demographic trends)? Why or why not?

Heads up! Before beginning your fact-checking investigation, read the articles and watch the videos provided below.

• READ: Evaluating Sources: General Guidelines

• READ: Why Students Can’t Google Their Way to the Truth

• WATCH: Online Verification Skills — Video 2: Investigate the Source

• WATCH: Online Verification Skills — Video 3: Find the Original Source

Step 5: Identify and Evaluate Policy Options from Your Sources

Based on your sources and claim analysis, identify 2-3 distinct policy options proposed or implied by stakeholders. Clearly link each policy option to the claims it supports or challenges.

For each policy option:

• Describe the policy clearly. Provide a concise, accurate, and understandable explanation of what the policy does, who it targets/affects, and how it would be implemented.
• Evaluate each policy using criteria such as:
  1. Goals: What is it trying to achieve? Aligned with what social values?
  2. Effectiveness: Does it address the root causes of the issue?
  3. Equity: How does it affect different types of families?
  4. Feasibility: Is it politically, economically, and socially viable?
  5. Alignment with evidence: Does the goal and solution hold up under scrutiny from your fact-checking?

Heads up! Your goal is to determine how different policy responses reflect competing narratives and values about families, and to assess which are most credible and constructive.

Step 6: Select a Recommendation

• Choose the best policy option based on your evaluation.
• Justify your choice with evidence from your sources and analysis.
• Address potential criticisms or trade-offs, especially in terms of family impact.

Step 7: Write the Policy Analysis

Structure your brief as follows:

• Executive Summary (150 word summary/abstract)
• Issue Overview (with family sociology context)
• Claim Analysis & Fact-Checking
• Policy Options (sourced from your research)
• Recommendation
• Source Evaluation Appendix (see template)
• Reference Section (with working hyper-linked url to every citation)

Heads up! Papers that do not follow a structured policy analysis format will receive a zero.

The best assignments will follow the structure and organization provided in the assignment details. Make it easy to grade! Bold each heading, organize it in the same order as listed on this handout. This is NOT a creative writing assignment. Don’t make the grader hunt for the information.

Step 8: Create the Fact‑Checking Video

Create a 60–90 second TikTok‑style video demonstrating your fact‑checking process for one claim (from step 4).

Your video must show:

• The original claim
• Your screen as you investigate the claim, showing your lateral reading and search process
• The credible sources you locate
• At least one piece of empirical evidence that supports your recommended policy
• A brief explanation of how your analysis and fact‑checking process inform your final recommendation
• Clear demonstration that you can evaluate source credibility

Heads up! This video is not your entire fact‑checking process; it is a short demonstration of a piece of the process you already completed in Steps 4–6.

Step 9: Review and Submit

• Proofread for clarity, grammar, and formatting.
• Ensure all sources are cited properly.
• Submit your paper, appendix, and video by the deadline.

Source Evaluation Appendix

Use this table as a template to evaluate your 8 sources.
You might consider changing the page layout to landscape.

Source Title	Author/ Organization	Publication Date	Type of Source	Credibility (1-5)	Bias (Left/ Center/ Right/ Other)	Notes

Grading

Assignments will NOT be marked based on what policy you choose to recommend. The assignment WILL be evaluated on:

• The rigor of your fact‑checking
• The strength of your evidence
• The quality of your critical thinking
• The completeness of your appendix
• The clarity of your reasoning
• The accuracy of your citations
• The demonstration of process in your video

Citations

All sources must include a working url link in the table. Put phrases and quotes from any sources in quotes and properly cite them. (i.e. Coontz wrote in the article “In 1994, 83 percent of young men rejected the superiority of the male-breadwinner family.”). In text quotes should be minimal and only used to illustrate your argument, not to summarize the article’s point.

Rubric

1. Claim Analysis & Fact-Checking (25 points)

• Excellent (22–25): Insightful, rigorous analysis; writing clearly demonstrates the student’s investigative process (e.g., what they searched, checked, or compared); fully accurate fact‑checking; clear documentation of steps; strong identification of bias, framing, and family sociology relevance.
• Good (18–21): Above expectations; strong analysis that shows meaningful engagement with the student’s own process (e.g., describing how they verified claims or examined sources); mostly accurate fact‑checking; clear reasoning.
• Adequate (15–17): Meets all assignment instructions; complete fact‑checking steps; writing shows basic engagement with the student’s process; accurate paraphrasing; bias and context identified; all factual statements cited.
• Marginal (7–14): Limited or unclear engagement with investigative steps; some inaccuracies or missing citations; incomplete fact‑checking; weak connection to family sociology.
• Inadequate (0–6): Superficial or flawed analysis; major errors; missing citations; no meaningful demonstration of process; unclear or absent relevance to family sociology.

2. Policy Argumentation (20 pts)

• Excellent (17–20): Policy options clearly sourced and well‑explained; writing demonstrates the student’s process in evaluating each option (e.g., how they compared evidence or criteria); fully evaluated using effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and evidence; strong connection to family sociology; recommendation well‑justified and anticipates counterarguments.
• Good (14–16): Above expectations; writing shows thoughtful, concrete engagement with the student’s own evaluative process; options are clear and well‑sourced; recommendation strong and well‑reasoned.
• Adequate (13): Meets all assignment instructions; options drawn directly from sources and claims; each option evaluated using required criteria; writing shows basic engagement with the student’s process; recommendation supported with evidence; all factual statements cited.
• Marginal (6–12): Any missing requirement; unclear sourcing; incomplete evaluation; missing criteria; missing citations; weak connection to claims or family issues; limited demonstration of process.
• Inadequate (0–5): Options are unclear or missing, or disconnected from claims and family issues; recommendation is unsupported or vague; no meaningful engagement with evaluative steps.

3. Use of Sources & Evidence (15 pts)

• Excellent (13–15): Excellent use of diverse sources; writing clearly demonstrates how the student located, assessed, and integrated evidence; strong source literacy and relevance to family sociology.
• Good (11–12): Above expectations; writing shows meaningful engagement with how sources were found and used; evidence is well‑integrated and thoughtfully applied.
• Adequate (10): Meets all assignment instructions; required mix of print and video sources; writing shows basic engagement with the student’s process; evidence appropriately integrated; all factual statements cited.
• Marginal (6–9): Any missing requirement; limited variety; weak integration; unclear or superficial engagement with sources; inconsistent evidence use.
• Inadequate (0–5): Poor or minimal sourcing; reliance on weak or biased sources; no demonstration of process.

4. Source Evaluation Appendix (20 pts)

• Excellent (17–20): Comprehensive, accurate evaluation of all 8 sources; notes are deeply analytical, show sophisticated critical thinking, and clearly explain credibility, bias, relevance, and key evidence; demonstrates exceptional rigor and insight.
• Good (14–16): Evaluations show strong critical engagement and thoughtful assessment; notes are clear, well‑reasoned, and extend beyond required criteria with meaningful insight; demonstrates a higher level of effort and understanding than required.
• Adequate (13): Meets all assignment instructions; required mix of print and video sources; evaluates all 8 sources; URLs included; notes explain credibility, bias, relevance, and evidence;
• Marginal (6–12): Basic or incomplete evaluations; missing required elements; notes lack depth, clarity, or proper citation.
• Inadequate (0–5): Missing, inaccurate, or poorly done evaluations; absent notes; major citation or process failures.

5. Clarity, Structure & Writing (5 pts)

• Excellent (5): Clear, concise, and well‑organized; writing demonstrates strong, explicit engagement with the assignment, including clear descriptions of the student’s own process (e.g., what they searched, checked, or compared); professional tone and formatting; free of errors.
• Good (4): Above expectations; writing is well‑structured and shows meaningful, concrete engagement with the student’s own investigative steps; explanations reflect thoughtful completion of the assignment beyond basic requirements; minor issues with flow or tone.
• Adequate (3): Meets all assignment instructions; structure is correct; writing is sufficiently clear to follow the student’s process; demonstrates basic engagement with the assignment; all required elements are present.
• Marginal (2): Any missing requirement (e.g., unclear sections, missing headings); writing shows limited engagement with the investigative process; organization or clarity issues interfere with understanding.
• Inadequate (0–1): Disorganized or unclear; frequent errors; writing does not demonstrate meaningful engagement with the assignment or is missing required components.

6. Video Component (15 pts)

• Excellent (13–15): Video demonstrates a clear, complete, and well‑explained investigative process (showing searches, checks, and reasoning). Communication is polished and engaging, and creative choices significantly enhance clarity for an interested but uninformed audience. Presentation shows strong source literacy and confident lateral reading.
• Good (11–12): Above expectations; video shows meaningful, concrete engagement with the student’s process and explains steps clearly. Communication is engaging and creativity strengthens the explanation.
• Adequate (10): Meets all assignment instructions; video shows the claim, investigation steps, sources, evidence, and explanation. Communication is clear enough for an uninformed audience and demonstrates basic engagement with the process.
• Marginal (6–12): Any missing requirement (e.g., missing evidence, unclear process, incomplete demonstration); Unclear reasoning or weak evidence; communication weak or unengaging.
• Inadequate (0–5): Missing video or video does not demonstrate fact‑checking.

Artificial Intelligence tools. Students may choose to use generative artificial intelligence tools as they work through the assignment. Some of these tools are more useful than others. Tools like Research Rabbit can assist with a literature review, Grammarly might help copy edit, and ChatGPT may outline a paper or summarize a particular field of study. Because of the way they work, they are often wrong and using them to draft text is certain to result in vague, overly generic language, text that is derivative of the prompt, and lacking in creativity and nuance.

My expectations for you are considerably higher than that. These tools may help you in the process of completing this assignment, but you will need to be more persuasive and creative at building arguments, thinking critically, and making connections between ideas than any of these tools can provide. Students are ultimately accountable for the work they submit.

Students suspected of over reliance on AI may be required to meet with the instructor for an oral assessment to verify their understanding of the submitted work. Failure to demonstrate sufficient mastery of the material may result in no credit being awarded for the assignment.