The CRAAP test — Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose as 5-criterion source evaluation

Quick-write: 'You found 8 sources online for your research question. You can only use 4 in your paper. How do you decide which 4?'

• Circulate to read 3-4 quick-writes
• Listen for naive criteria ('the longest', 'the first one') vs. evaluative thinking
• Preview that today we name 5 formal criteria

Every source must EARN ITS PLACE in your paper. The CRAAP test is the gate. C is for CURRENCY — when was it published? Some topics need fresh sources (climate change, technology, current events); others tolerate older sources (Maya astronomy, classical history). The question is: does my topic require recency? R is for RELEVANCE — does this source actually address my research question? Skim the abstract, intro, or first paragraph. Many sources are about your topic but don't answer your question. A is for AUTHORITY — who is the author? What are their credentials? What institution? Have they written elsewhere on this topic? If the author is anonymous, that's a flag for caution. Another A is for ACCURACY — do other sources corroborate this one? Are statistics traceable? Are quotes documented? If a claim appears in only ONE source and nowhere else, that's a flag. P is for PURPOSE — what's the motive? Inform / educate / persuade / sell / entertain? Is there an obvious agenda? A source that's trying to sell you something will frame the world differently than a source trying to inform. PURPOSE isn't bad — but you must KNOW the purpose to weigh the source. A source that fails ONE criterion may be usable with a CAVEAT (you note the limitation in your paper). One that fails THREE should NOT be cited. The CRAAP test extends our G6-fall 4-criterion evaluation by adding PURPOSE as a separate dimension.

• Notice how a source can score high on 4 criteria but require a caveat on 1. This is the most common case.

  model Currency: 2014 — recent but not current (climate data moves fast); Currency = caveat. Relevance: directly addresses topic; Relevance = strong. Authority: NYT staff reporter (journalist, not climate scientist) but the EXPERTS quoted have authority; Authority = mixed. Accuracy: IPCC corroborated by other major sources; Accuracy = strong. Purpose: inform; Purpose = strong. DECISION: use with caveat (note publication year).

  prompt Apply CRAAP to a sample source: a 2014 New York Times article on climate change in East Africa, written by a staff reporter, citing IPCC data and quoting 3 African agricultural experts.
• Multiple failures = reject. Use the source to discuss WHY it fails, not to cite.

  model Currency: 1998, old, no updates; Currency = weak. Relevance: addresses Maya but with fringe claim; Relevance = weak (off-topic). Authority: no author, no institution; Authority = fails. Accuracy: no other sources corroborate; Accuracy = fails. Purpose: entertain or sensationalize; Purpose = problematic. DECISION: reject.

  prompt Apply CRAAP to: a 1998 .com website with no author byline, claiming Maya pyramids were built by aliens, with no citations.
• A source can have CLEAR PURPOSE and still be useful. Acknowledge the purpose in your paper.

  model Currency: 2023, fresh; Currency = strong. Relevance: directly addresses; Relevance = strong. Authority: Ph.D. author + nonprofit; Authority = strong. Accuracy: IPCC corroborated; Accuracy = strong. Purpose: ADVOCATE (climate action); Purpose = transparent advocacy. DECISION: use with awareness of purpose — the source is reliable on data but selects data to support a stance.

  prompt Apply CRAAP to: a 2023 .org website published by a climate-advocacy organization, citing IPCC data and signed by a Ph.D. climate scientist.

• Pair-share: which CRAAP criterion is hardest to evaluate? Why?
• Cold Call (Lemov): name the question each CRAAP criterion asks.
• Thumbs: I can apply all 5 CRAAP criteria to a source (up) / I need re-explanation on Purpose (down)

M-7-F-RES-03-A Chart

MG-3 CRAAP anchor displayed at front: 5-band stacked card with each criterion named, the question it asks, and a worked example. Yellow Currency / blue Relevance / red Authority / green Accuracy / purple Purpose. Print-ready 11x17.

MG-3 Chart

CRAAP 5-criterion source-evaluation anchor: 5-band stacked card. CURRENCY (yellow) — When was it published? Is recency important for my topic? Some topics need fresh sources (climate, technology); others tolerate older sources (Maya astronomy). RELEVANCE (blue) — Does it address my research question? Skim abstract/intro; does it actually speak to MY question or just my topic? AUTHORITY (red) — Who is the author? Credentials? Affiliation? Have they written elsewhere on this topic? Anonymous = caution. ACCURACY (green) — Do other sources corroborate? Are claims documented? Are statistics traceable? PURPOSE (purple) — What's the motive? Inform / educate / persuade / sell / entertain? Is there an obvious agenda? Bottom rule: 'A source that fails one criterion may be usable with caveat; one that fails three should not be cited.' Worked example for a sample source. Print-ready 11x17.

M-7-F-RES-03-B Video Physical / non-image

MG-32 video: 6:00 model of a Grade-7 researcher applying CRAAP to a digital source. Student opens a website making a Maya astronomy claim. Pauses to check each criterion. Opens lateral-reading tabs. Reaches use-with-caveat decision. Voiceover narration. Multicultural classroom. Caption track on.

MG-32 Video Physical / non-image

6:00 model of a Grade-7 researcher applying CRAAP to a digital source. Multicultural student opens a website making a claim about Maya astronomy. Pauses to: (1) check Currency — when was it published? (2) check Relevance — does it address her research question? (3) check Authority — who is the author? Opens new tabs (lateral reading) to verify. (4) check Accuracy — does another source corroborate? (5) check Purpose — what's the motive? Voiceover narration explains each step. Student makes a final decision: source passes 4 criteria, fails 1 (Authority — author has no academic credentials), so she will use the source with caveat OR find a better source. Multicultural classroom. Caption track on.

• With your partner, apply CRAAP to your pre-curated PRINT source. Highlight each criterion in its color. Reach a use/use-with-caveat/reject decision and document reasoning.

  scaffold MG-3 CRAAP anchor on desk; 5-color highlighter kit; source-evaluation worksheet
• Now apply CRAAP to your pre-curated DIGITAL source. Same procedure. Compare: which was easier to evaluate? Why?

  scaffold Source-evaluation worksheet (same format); discussion frame: 'The digital source was [easier / harder] to evaluate because ___'

• For your homework source (from yesterday): score each CRAAP criterion as STRONG / CAVEAT / WEAK and reach a use/use-with-caveat/reject decision.

• Restate: CRAAP = Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose — 5 criteria, 5 questions
• Preview tomorrow's primary vs. secondary source distinction + lateral reading

• Find 2 more candidate sources for your research question. Apply CRAAP to each. Bring decisions tomorrow. Save sources you reject — we will discuss WHY they fail.