Grade 6 Fall — Argumentative Writing, Claim-Evidence-Warrant (Toulmin Lite), Counterclaim Acknowledgment, and Pronoun Mastery
Lesson 4 60 min eng.g6.f.lesson_04.source_evaluation_credibility_criteria

Evaluating sources — the 4 credibility criteria (Stevenson, Park, Jiang mentor analysis)

Skills targeted
Objectives
  • Students apply the 4 credibility criteria (author expertise / publication / date / bias) to evaluate at least 3 sources from their research folder.
  • Students analyze mentor argument texts (Stevenson, Park, Jiang) for source-use moves.
  • Students decide which 2 sources are strongest for their argument.
Vocabulary
credibilityexpertisepublicationbiascorroborateevaluate

Lesson plan

Warm-up

5 min

From the 3 sources you read overnight — which one felt MOST trustworthy and why?

Teacher moves
  • Probe with: 'Author? Where it appeared? When? Any bias?'
  • Affirm gut-feelings while introducing the formal criteria to come
  • Note students who chose by 'looks pretty' or 'has lots of words' — coachable moments
Media
M-6-F-RES-04-B Video Physical / non-image

2-minute excerpt from TED2012 talk. Caption track on. Pause-and-discuss at 0:45 (statistical evidence: incarceration rates), 1:15 (individual case study: Walter McMillian), 1:45 (counterclaim acknowledgment: he names 'tough on crime' view). Annotation worksheet provided.

Direct instruction

18 min

Today we make source-trustworthiness explicit. The 4 criteria (MG-5): AUTHOR EXPERTISE (who wrote it and why should we trust them on THIS topic?), PUBLICATION (where it appeared — reputable outlet?), DATE (when — does the date matter?), BIAS (what perspective shapes it?). A source can be CREDIBLE AND BIASED — note both. Bryan Stevenson's editorial on incarceration is credible (Equal Justice Initiative founder, 30+ years experience) AND has a clear perspective (anti-mass-incarceration). That's OK if you note it and pair it with a source of different perspective. Each of you will evaluate your 3 sources on the 4 criteria, then pick your 2 strongest.

Key examples
  • Author expertise = credentials AND topical relevance.
    model Founder of Equal Justice Initiative; 30+ years arguing capital cases; Harvard Law graduate. STRONG expertise on criminal-justice reform.
    prompt Evaluate Stevenson editorial: author expertise?
  • Op-ed = opinion section, designed for argument. That's expected for an editorial; not the same as a news report.
    model Originally published in NYT op-ed section, then in Just Mercy book (Spiegel & Grau, 2014). NYT is a reputable major newspaper. STRONG publication.
    prompt Evaluate same: publication?
  • Credible AND biased is fine if you note it and corroborate with a source of different perspective.
    model Date 2012-2014 — still relevant for criminal-justice arguments. Bias: clear anti-mass-incarceration perspective — note this but not disqualifying. ACCEPT WITH BIAS NOTED.
    prompt Evaluate same: date and bias?
Checks for understanding
  • Show me with fingers (1-4): which credibility criterion is most important?
  • Pair-share: which of your 3 sources has WEAKEST credibility?
Media
M-6-F-RES-04-A Chart
MG-5 enlarged to 18x24 with all 4 quadrants filled in for the Stevenson Just Mercy source: Author Expertise (Equal Justi

MG-5 enlarged to 18x24 with all 4 quadrants filled in for the Stevenson Just Mercy source: Author Expertise (Equal Justice Initiative founder, Harvard Law, 30+ years), Publication (NYT op-ed + Spiegel & Grau book), Date (2012-2014 still relevant), Bias (clear anti-mass-incarceration perspective — note but not disqualifying). Side note: 'Pass = 3 of 4 strong with bias noted.' Dyslexic-friendly font.

MG-5 Chart
Source-evaluation 4-criteria anchor: 4-quadrant card. QUADRANT 1 (top-left) — AUTHOR EXPERTISE: 'Who wrote this? What ar

Source-evaluation 4-criteria anchor: 4-quadrant card. QUADRANT 1 (top-left) — AUTHOR EXPERTISE: 'Who wrote this? What are their qualifications? Why should we trust them on this topic?' (Example: Bryan Stevenson — founder of Equal Justice Initiative; 30+ years arguing capital cases.) QUADRANT 2 (top-right) — PUBLICATION: 'Where did this appear? Is the outlet reputable? Peer-reviewed? Editorial-board? Self-published?' (Example: New York Times = reputable but has editorial perspective.) QUADRANT 3 (bottom-left) — DATE: 'When was this written? Is the date relevant to the argument? Has the situation changed?' (Example: 1995 statistics may not reflect 2025 reality.) QUADRANT 4 (bottom-right) — BIAS: 'What perspective or interest shapes this source? Who funded it? What does the source NOT mention?' (Example: a tobacco-industry-funded study on smoking has structural bias.) Below: 'A source can be credible AND biased. Note both.' Print-ready 11x17.

Guided practice

18 min
Tasks
  • Work with a partner to evaluate ONE source from your folder using a 4-quadrant card.
    scaffold MG-5 anchor open; teacher conferences with 3-4 pairs as they work
  • Evaluate your remaining 2 sources independently. Decide which 2 of 3 are strongest for your argument.
    scaffold Decision criterion: passes 3 of 4 with strong author + bias-noted
Media
M-6-F-RES-04-C Chart
Print-ready 8.5x11 card per source with 4 quadrants: top-left AUTHOR EXPERTISE, top-right PUBLICATION, bottom-left DATE,

Print-ready 8.5x11 card per source with 4 quadrants: top-left AUTHOR EXPERTISE, top-right PUBLICATION, bottom-left DATE, bottom-right BIAS. Each quadrant has 4 lines for student notes plus a STRONG/MEDIUM/WEAK rating circle. Bottom: 'Overall: passes ___ of 4 criteria. Strongest: ___. Weakest: ___.' Dyslexic-friendly font.

Formative assessment

5 min
Exit ticket
  • Name your 2 strongest sources and ONE reason each passes the 4 criteria.
scoring 2 sources + criterion-specific reasoning = mastery snapshot; 2 sources + vague reasoning = practicing; cannot pick or no reasoning = reteach

Closure

2 min
Moves
  • State: a source can be ___ AND ___
  • Preview tomorrow's arguable-claim refinement using your source evidence

Homework

15 min
Tasks
  • Re-read your 2 strongest sources. Highlight 1 specific QUOTE or STATISTIC from each that could anchor a CEW body paragraph.

Exercises in this lesson

eng.g6.f.ex_07
Evaluate this source on the 4 credibility criteria: 'Authors: J. Smith, B. Lee. Title: "Effects of Recess on Middle-School Attention."...
 evaluate source credibility · diff 3
eng.g6.f.ex_08
Evaluate your 3 captured sources on the 4 criteria. Pick the 2 strongest for your argument. Justify each pick.
 evaluate own sources · diff 3

Differentiation

Scaffolds
  • MG-5 4-criteria card at every desk
  • Source-evaluation card with sample completion
  • Partner work for first source
  • Decision flowchart: 3 of 4 = USE; less = re-evaluate
Extensions
  • Find a fourth source intentionally from a different perspective for counterclaim work
  • Sort 6 sample sources from a worked-example deck by credibility (strong/medium/weak)
English Learners
  • Bilingual MG-5 card with translated criterion names
  • Sample-source evaluation in L1 if available
  • Conferring partner who shares L1
Ieps 504s
  • Reduce to 2 sources to evaluate
  • Teacher provides one pre-evaluated example source
  • Extended time

Teacher notes

This lesson is where students learn that the internet is not undifferentiated — every source has provenance. The Stevenson example is deliberately chosen because it demonstrates that BIAS and CREDIBILITY can coexist; the point is to note both, not to dismiss biased sources. Watch for students who want a 'perfectly neutral' source — coach that no source is bias-free; the move is to pair sources of different perspectives. The cross-disciplinary tie to history's primary-source analysis (Wineburg sourcing) is explicit. Save evaluation cards in research folders.