Good and Bad Source for Recess

I am writing my research paper on recess, and I will be making the argument that recess should be kept in the school schedule. People on both sides of the argument bring about ideas concerning recess and how it has pros and cons that make an impact on how our children in the 21st century are being raised. I found a reliable website that I will use in my paper. Certain aspects about the page allow me to figure out whether or not a certain internet source is reliable.

The website: http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8312(199524)32%3A4%3C845%3ATEORTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&cookieSet=1 is reliable because it is published by the American Education Research Association. It is an organization based website that is also supported by J Stor, which is the 'trusted archives for scholarship' that St. Louis University also supports. This article is also a part of the American Educational Research Journal. The site clearly cites sources by informing us Vol. 32, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp 845-864. Another factor that I found interesting was that three names are written that represents the authors of the article. They also all have universities under their names, which allows readers to find out where they have worked or done research at. By merely reading the first entry to this article, the authors Pellegrini, Huberty, and Jones have done their research via three field experiments. This article is also definitely reliable because they give a brief overview of the three authors and what their main area of focus is on.

An article that I came by which does not seem very trustworthy is http://nochildleft.com/2005/sum05recess.html. This web page is clearly biased because they refer to their page as ‘a site advocating a sound approach to school improvement’. A side article on the web page is titled No More Recess: The New American Sweatshop. This page definitely shows anger towards those that believe that recess should be abolished. I don’t plan on using this webpage because it is biased, it is a ‘.com’ site, they only reference two cites, and the page contains side links with cartoons, a bookstore, and a free subscription. Unreliable sources such as this give students a hard time to piece their essays together because bad roots should be weeded out. This page, for example, makes a good point and connects it with a fairly known organization, but the webpage fails to express the views of the other side.