Whole Earth Curriculum WEC

Lesson 08 — Can I Trust This Source?

Learners evaluate the credibility of a source by running a three-part check — author, purpose, evidence — and reach a verdict of trust, question, or reject. They practice on four short sources that make the same claim but differ in who wrote them, why, and what proof they give.

D04 P3: Intellectual & Cognitive Awareness D04.S2 50 minutes Draft

Objectives

Essential question

How do I judge whether a source is credible by checking its author, purpose, and evidence?

credibilitysourceauthorpurposeevidencebias

Materials

Standard materials

Low-tech / no-cost

Enriched / lab & device

Works in different contexts

Three checkboxes labeled 'author,' 'purpose,' and 'evidence,' each with a question below: 'who wrote it?', 'why?', and 'what proof?'. A caption reads 'Three checks before you trust.'
Three checkboxes labeled 'author,' 'purpose,' and 'evidence,' each with a question below: 'who wrote it?', 'why?', and 'what proof?'. A caption reads 'Three checks before you trust.'

Lesson 8 — Can I Trust This Source?

Summary

Learners judge whether a source is credible by running a three-part check — author, purpose, evidence — and reaching a verdict: trust, question, or reject. They practice on four short sources that make the same claim but differ in who wrote them, why they wrote, and what proof they offer.

Objectives

  • Evaluate the credibility of a source by checking its author, purpose, and evidence. (D04.S2.07.02)

Connection

Not everything you read or hear is equally trustworthy. A claim that a certain tea cures colds, that a certain phone is the best, that a certain event happened — the same claim can come from a doctor or a stranger, from a newsroom or a seller, with proof or with none. Before you believe, you check three things: who wrote it, why they wrote it, and what evidence they give. This habit protects you and the people you care about, whether the claim arrives by paper in Bamako, by radio in Manila, or by phone anywhere.

Materials

  • Three-part trust checker
  • Source cards
  • Highlighter or pencil

Preparation

  • Copy the trust checker and the source cards for each learner.
  • Prepare four short sources making one shared claim. Adaptable example claim: “This herb tea cures colds.” Sources: (1) a doctor’s note with a study, (2) a seller’s ad with no evidence, (3) an anonymous post with a strong feeling, (4) a health-organization page with named evidence.

Facilitator note

This lesson is written to the learner (“you”). The idea to land is that credibility is checked, not felt — through author, purpose, and evidence — and the result is a verdict, not a ranking of people. Model one worked example: run all three checks on one source aloud, reaching “trust” and saying why (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). Distinguish a source’s purpose (to inform, to persuade, to sell) from its bias. The four lenses: ethics (honest sources show their evidence); egalitarianism (a false health claim hurts those with least access to doctors most); global (credibility checks work in every language and media system); technology (the internet spreads both good and bad sources at the same speed — the check matters more, not less). See docs/facilitation.md.

Procedure

  1. Gather (5 min). Think of a time you believed something and later found it was not true. What would you check now, before believing again?
  2. Meet the three-part check (10 min). Read the trust checker. Author: who wrote this, and do they know the subject? Purpose: why — to inform, to persuade, or to sell? Evidence: what proof is given, and can it be checked? Worked example: run the three checks on source 1 aloud and reach a verdict.
  3. Check four sources (15 min). With a partner, read the source cards. For each, fill the three boxes and write a verdict: trust, question, or reject — with one reason.
  4. Compare verdicts (10 min). Two pairs share. Did you agree? Where you differed, what check changed the verdict? Notice: the same claim can be trustworthy or not depending on the source.
  5. Close (5 min). You now own a shield and a tool: before you believe, check who, why, and what proof. Tomorrow you begin to write — with the same standards you now expect of others.

Differentiation

  • Support: Provide the verdicts pre-suggested and a sentence starter (“I question this because the author…”); learners check one source at a time.
  • Extension: Look up the author of one source online and add what you found to the author box, revising your verdict if needed.

Assessment

  • Formative (observation): Can the learner name the author, purpose, and evidence of a source and give a verdict with a reason?
  • Peer-check: Partners exchange trust checkers and confirm each verdict is backed by at least one named check.

Home connection

Pick one claim you hear this week — an ad, a message, a rumor — and run the three checks aloud with someone at home: who, why, and what proof?

Resources