Reteaching Source Evaluation Before a Research Draft
Mrs. Park's ninth-grade research unit requires students to write a 600-word explanation of a local environmental issue using three sources. In the first round, 22 of 30 students cited a commercial website with no author or date as their main source; 17 could not identify a page labeled 'sponsored content'; 12 chose the first Google result without reading past the headline. The district web filter blocks some news sites and social media, but archived pages and the library databases are available. The unit has two 45-minute class periods before the draft is due, and the school librarian can co-teach one session. Mrs. Park's department requires a works-cited page but does not prescribe a source-evaluation checklist. She is considering whether to reteach by lecturing about credible sources, assigning a checklist, or having students compare sources in small groups.
1. Which reteaching approach should Mrs. Park choose, and why? Consider the constraints and the observed student behaviors.
Read the worked answer
She should choose small-group source comparison rather than a lecture or a standalone checklist. The data show not ignorance of the word 'credible' but weak evaluation behaviors: students stopped at the first result, missed sponsorship labels, and accepted an authorless commercial page. A lecture may increase familiarity with criteria without changing those behaviors. A checklist can help, but if it is assigned without practice, students may complete it mechanically. Comparing sources in small groups forces students to inspect authorship, date, sponsorship, and evidence, which directly addresses the observed errors. The librarian's co-teaching session supports this approach, and archived pages solve the filter problem. Two 45-minute periods allow one session for guided comparison and one for applying the criteria to students' own source sets before drafting.
2. Design the two-day mini-lesson, including specific materials and formative checks.
Read the worked answer
Day 1: The librarian and Mrs. Park model lateral reading with two pre-selected archived pages about a local river cleanup-one sponsored commercial page and one library database article. Students annotate who made the claim, what evidence is given, whether sponsorship is disclosed, and when the page was updated. Then small groups compare a third source and complete a four-column organizer: author, date, sponsorship, evidence. The formative check is an exit ticket in which each student writes one sentence explaining which source they trust more and why. Day 2: Students apply the organizer to their own three sources, then conference with a partner using the question 'How do you know?' Mrs. Park and the librarian circulate to check for unsupported claims. The final formative check is a revised source list with a one-sentence justification for each source. Materials include archived pages, database articles, and the organizer; the checklist, if used, should be generated from the organizer rather than imposed beforehand.
3. How should Mrs. Park assess whether students can evaluate sources, not just whether they completed the organizer?
Read the worked answer
She should assess the reasoning students give for their choices, not the number of boxes filled. A short in-class task can provide two new sources-one credible but less polished, one polished but sponsored-and ask students to choose one for a specific claim and justify the choice with evidence about authorship, sponsorship, and corroboration. A strong response names the source's limitations and explains how another source could compensate. She should also sample the works-cited pages for diversity and relevance, since three copies of the same commercial page would indicate that the reteaching did not transfer. A simple rubric with two criteria-source evaluation and justification-is sufficient. This assessment aligns with the unit's purpose: students need to make defensible judgments about information, not merely complete a checklist.