The short answer
Evaluate a source in relation to the specific claim and context. Attractive design, a famous name or many shares is not enough. Find out who made the claim, which observations support it and how its limits are described.
Rather than saying “This website is always right,” aim to explain: “This record supports this claim; this part has not yet been verified.”
What will this help you do?
The same question arises when choosing a part for a robot, checking a competition date or sharing a news story: Under what conditions is this information true? Returning to the source helps you avoid spending time or materials on an unsupported assumption.
What you will practise
- State a claim in a form that can be checked.
- Distinguish copied reports from independent evidence.
- Record both a source’s strength and its limitation.
- Name the supporting record and the question still open.
Examine the source and claim separately
An author’s expertise is an initial clue; the particular claim still needs evidence. A company may describe a technical feature accurately while giving an incomplete comparison with competitors. A new article may report old research. Publication date, data-collection date and your present question are different things.
A primary source is closer to the original record, such as a research report or an announcement by a competition organiser. That does not make it error-free. A secondary explanation can be useful, but important details still need checking against the original.
Check in five steps
- Isolate the claim: What exactly is being said, about whom, when and under which conditions?
- Find the original: Does the link actually lead to a record that supports the claim?
- Leave the page: Do not judge the source only by its own “about” page; check independent accounts.
- Inspect the limits: How might the sample, method, date or interests affect the conclusion?
- Write your conclusion: Separate what is supported, what is uncertain and what further evidence is needed.
Compare three sources
The situation, names and numbers below are fictional and were created for this lesson; they are not research findings. Claim: “Everyone performs better on tests when working in a quiet room.”
| Source | Information shown | Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: Class project note | 24 volunteers averaged 8/10 and 9/10 on attempts made on two different days. | Gives participant count and results. | Does not explain task difficulty, day order or other conditions. |
| B: Education blog | Summarises A and says it is “proven for everyone.” | Links to the original record. | No new measurements; overgeneralises the result. |
| C: Independent commentary | Discusses gaps in A’s method. | Points out alternative explanations. | Without a new experiment, it does not prove there is no effect either. |
A worked conclusion
“The two daily averages differ for the group in source A. However, task difficulty and day order are not explained, so I cannot attribute the difference only to the quiet setting. B is not an independent experiment. C identifies a methodological problem but does not prove there is no effect.”
This preserves the observed difference while removing unsupported claims about “everyone” or certainty. Stating uncertainty is not failure; it sets an accurate boundary.
Make your own comparison
Start with the fictional table. Write a sentence for A, B and C: “This source is useful for …; on its own, it does not support ….” Then narrow the claim to what the available information supports.
With internet access, choose a low-risk topic such as a competition deadline or the purpose of a software command. Open the original announcement or official documentation. Compare it with a separate explanation and note differences in date and scope. You do not need to create an account, send private messages or share personal information.
Try the method in a new setting
A shop says, “This battery runs every robot all day.” What is missing before you can judge that claim? Consider capacity, the robot’s consumption, duration of use and measurement conditions. Do not open the battery or attempt an unsafe test; use suitable technical documentation and adult help.
Three common mistakes
- Three stories = three pieces of evidence: Copies of the same announcement are not independent tests.
- Criticism = the claim is definitely false: A methodological gap may instead require a narrower conclusion.
- Official or recent = right in every context: Consider the organisation, date, topic and scope of the claim together.
Short glossary
Claim: A statement being evaluated. Evidence: An observation or record used to assess it. Independent source: A separate source, not merely another copy. Uncertainty: A point the available information cannot settle.
The idea to remember
Instead of putting a blanket trust label on a source, follow the claim. Explain which record supports which statement and where the evidence stops.
Check your understanding
- Does B provide a measurement independent of A?
- Does C’s criticism show that a quiet setting has no effect?
- Which conditions need explaining for a stronger evaluation of A?
- How would you state the uncertainty in one sentence?
Compare your answers
Open the example answers
- No; it summarises the same project note.
- No; it identifies a limit in the current method.
- Task difficulty, day order, prior knowledge and other environmental conditions.
- “A difference was observed in this group; quietness has not been shown to be its sole cause.”
Read more about the method
For checking a page against other sources, see Digital Inquiry Group: Teaching Lateral Reading. For evaluating sources, purposes and context, see UNESCO’s media and information literacy framework. For the wider media and information literacy framing see UNESCO’s media and information literacy pages, for verifying AI output UNESCO on AI and literacy, and for the reuse terms of material you quote the Creative Commons licence types. Some additional materials may require an account. The activity above does not.
Your next practice
Explore primary and secondary sources. Then make decisions in new scenarios in the six-question practice.