fact checking

Submitted by Ellen Carey on April 14th, 2023
Share this on: 
Short Description: 

The SIFT* & PICK approach to evaluating sources adapts and builds on Mike Caulfield's SIFT method to help students select quality sources by practicing:

  • Lateral Reading (SIFT): fact-checking by examining other sources and internet fact-checking tools; and
  • Vertical Reading (PICK): examining the source itself to decide whether it is the best choice for their needs.

*The SIFT method was created by Mike Caulfield under a CC BY 4.0 International License.

Attachments: 
AttachmentSize
SIFT & PICK Fact Checking & Source Evaluation.pdfdisplayed 3099 times566.56 KB
SIFT & PICK Fact Checking & Source Evaluation without Luria Library branding.pdfdisplayed 2029 times375.72 KB
Learning Outcomes: 

After learning the SIFT & PICK Fact Checking & Source Evaluation process, students will be better able to:

  • Distinguish between lateral and vertical reading strategies for source evaluation
  • Use lateral reading strategies to fact-check information
  • Use vertical reading strategies to select the most appropriate sources for their particular needs
  • Consider how a particular source relates to a body of knowledge on a topic
Discipline: 
Multidisciplinary

Individual or Group:

Course Context (e.g. how it was implemented or integrated): 

At Santa Barbara City College, we use SIFT & PICK in many instructional materials (e.g. research guides and Canvas modules) and guide students through this fact checking and source evaluation process in instruction interactions (research workshops, at the reference desk, in our Library 101 course, etc.).

Additional Instructor Resources (e.g. in-class activities, worksheets, scaffolding applications, supplemental modules, further readings, etc.): 

The SIFT & PICK pdf and LibGuide include links to other fact fact checking and source evaluation resources.

Potential Pitfalls and Teaching Tips: 

When teaching the SIFT & PICK Fact Checking & Source Evaluation process, we emphasize the need for both fact checking (SIFT) and critical thinking in regard to selecting which source(s) to use (PICK). When we use SIFT & PICK in research workshops, we choose which concepts and/or ACRL Frames to emphasize based on the course assignment and/or goals of the workshop.

Suggested Citation: 
Carey, Ellen. "SIFT & PICK Fact Checking & Source Evaluation." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2023. https://projectcora.org/assignment/sift-pick-fact-checking-source-evaluation.
Submitted by Lydia Bello on March 31st, 2021
Share this on: 
Short Description: 

During this activity, students work with their lab partners to apply Mike Caulfield’s “Four Moves and a Habit” to a piece of science information they have found on the open web.

Attachments: 
AttachmentSize
Lesson Plan displayed 1265 times229.33 KB
Pre-lab Canvas Quiz questions developed by Andrea Verdan, Seattle University Chemistry displayed 1379 times99.7 KB
In Class Activity Templatedisplayed 1250 times55.69 KB
Learning Outcomes: 
  • Upon completing this activity, students will
    • Identify strategies to evaluate scientific information or media on the web in an efficient manner
    • Understand the characteristics that differentiate scholarly versus popular literature

Individual or Group:

Course Context (e.g. how it was implemented or integrated): 

I use this activity every year in the lab section of General chemistry. At this level of chemistry students are rarely doing research work that involves chemistry literature, and don’t necessarily have chemistry research questions or a need for understanding the library research databases for for the class. However, students at this level are engaging with science information in the classroom and outside the classroom, and this is a great opportunity to build skills needed to engage with information in online spaces. 

Since I developed this assignment, Mike Caulfield has developed a new framework based on the Four Moves, called SIFT. At this point I’ve stayed with Four Moves and a Habit because it comes with an open textbook that I can assign pre-class reading from, and because the named concept of lateral reading has been useful for students.

Many thanks to Andrea Verdan, Seattle University Chemistry, for her work on developing this lesson plan and developing the pre-lab quiz questions.

Additional Instructor Resources (e.g. in-class activities, worksheets, scaffolding applications, supplemental modules, further readings, etc.): 

I’ve included a lesson plan, word document of the in-class activity, and copy of quiz questions used in Canvas as a pre-lab quiz. The lesson plan does not include much of the language I use to describe the concepts. If you want to know how I frame my explanations, please don’t hesitate to ask! 

Assessment or Criteria for Success
Assessment Short Description: 
There is no assessment criteria for this assignment, other than completion.
Potential Pitfalls and Teaching Tips: 

THe most successful way to teach these moves is to demonstrate them live, with all the risks that may entail. It is useful to identify one or two examples that you can use to practice the different moves. During the activity it is useful to keep an eye on the collaborative document (Google Doc) students are working on, and use it to check in with individual groups. 

Suggested Citation: 
Bello, Lydia. "“Four Moves and a Habit” in General Chemistry Lab ." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2021. https://projectcora.org/assignment/%E2%80%9Cfour-moves-and-habit%E2%80%9D-general-chemistry-lab-0.
Submitted by Lydia Bello on March 31st, 2021
Share this on: 
Short Description: 

During this activity, students work with their lab partners to apply Mike Caulfield’s “Four Moves and a Habit” to a piece of science information they have found on the open web.

Attachments: 
AttachmentSize
Lesson Plan displayed 1265 times229.33 KB
Pre-lab Canvas Quiz questions developed by Andrea Verdan, Seattle University Chemistry displayed 1379 times99.7 KB
In Class Activity Templatedisplayed 1250 times55.69 KB
Learning Outcomes: 
  • Upon completing this activity, students will
    • Identify strategies to evaluate scientific information or media on the web in an efficient manner
    • Understand the characteristics that differentiate scholarly versus popular literature

Individual or Group:

Course Context (e.g. how it was implemented or integrated): 

I use this activity every year in the lab section of General chemistry. At this level of chemistry students are rarely doing research work that involves chemistry literature, and don’t necessarily have chemistry research questions or a need for understanding the library research databases for for the class. However, students at this level are engaging with science information in the classroom and outside the classroom, and this is a great opportunity to build skills needed to engage with information in online spaces. 

Since I developed this assignment, Mike Caulfield has developed a new framework based on the Four Moves, called SIFT. At this point I’ve stayed with Four Moves and a Habit because it comes with an open textbook that I can assign pre-class reading from, and because the named concept of lateral reading has been useful for students.

Many thanks to Andrea Verdan, Seattle University Chemistry, for her work on developing this lesson plan and developing the pre-lab quiz questions.

Additional Instructor Resources (e.g. in-class activities, worksheets, scaffolding applications, supplemental modules, further readings, etc.): 

I’ve included a lesson plan, word document of the in-class activity, and copy of quiz questions used in Canvas as a pre-lab quiz. The lesson plan does not include much of the language I use to describe the concepts. If you want to know how I frame my explanations, please don’t hesitate to ask! 

Assessment or Criteria for Success
Assessment Short Description: 
There is no assessment criteria for this assignment, other than completion.
Potential Pitfalls and Teaching Tips: 

THe most successful way to teach these moves is to demonstrate them live, with all the risks that may entail. It is useful to identify one or two examples that you can use to practice the different moves. During the activity it is useful to keep an eye on the collaborative document (Google Doc) students are working on, and use it to check in with individual groups. 

Suggested Citation: 
Bello, Lydia. "“Four Moves and a Habit” in General Chemistry Lab ." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2021. https://projectcora.org/assignment/%E2%80%9Cfour-moves-and-habit%E2%80%9D-general-chemistry-lab.
Submitted by Yvonne Mery on October 6th, 2020
Share this on: 
Short Description: 

Developed in order to move students away from an outdated checklist approach to evaluating online content, we developed this tutorial to teach students how to read laterally and think critically. This tutorial consists of several small chunks of microlearning activities including an assignment. Students can complete as much or as little as they feel they need.

Learning Outcomes: 
  • Students will explain why online information needs to be evaluated for trustworthiness
  • Students will describe the strategy of lateral reading that fact checkers employ to verify trustworthiness
  • Students will describe the criteria of process, expertise, and aim
  • Students will apply the skill of lateral reading related to societal and political issues 
  • Students will evaluate different online articles for trustworthiness using the three criteria of process, expertise, and aim

 

 

 

 

 

Information Literacy concepts:

Individual or Group:

Course Context (e.g. how it was implemented or integrated): 

This tutorial and optional assignment can serve as a stand alone tutorial or can be used in the flipped classroom. 

Suggested Citation: 
Mery, Yvonne . "How Do I Evaluate Online Information by Reading Laterally?." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2020. https://projectcora.org/assignment/how-do-i-evaluate-online-information-reading-laterally.
Submitted by Emilia Marcyk on October 25th, 2019
Share this on: 
Short Description: 

This class outline is based on the Four Moves and a Habit from Mike Caufield's Web Literacy for Student Fact Checkers.
It was designed for a first year writing class for students in an interdisciplinary STEM major. For their main class assignment, they were investigating a "fact" within their chosen scientific field, and tracing it to its origin. In addition to our in-class work they were also assigned to read:

Rekdal, O. B. (2014). Academic urban legends. Social Studies of Science, 44(4), 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714535679

The class was designed to take 70 minutes, with approximately 72 students attending. The attached PDF gives an outline for the lesson, with notes for further context.

Attachments: 
AttachmentSize
factchecking-presentation-and-outline.pdfdisplayed 1070 times1.34 MB
Learning Outcomes: 

Students will use the Four Moves and a Habit to trace the source of a claim, in order to:

  • understand where a claim originated
    make an informed choice about whether to believe a claim
  • incorporate similar strategies into future academic work
Discipline: 
Multidisciplinary

Individual or Group:

Course Context (e.g. how it was implemented or integrated): 
Additional Instructor Resources (e.g. in-class activities, worksheets, scaffolding applications, supplemental modules, further readings, etc.): 
Potential Pitfalls and Teaching Tips: 
Suggested Citation: 
Marcyk, Emilia. "Introduction to Fact Checking ." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2019. https://projectcora.org/assignment/introduction-fact-checking.
Submitted by Jen Hasse on July 9th, 2018
Share this on: 
Short Description: 

A one-shot or seminar class on fake news tied to source evaluation. Examination of the factors at play in the creation of misinformation; insight into how to select sources; tools and strategies for evalutating content of stories, authors, and news outlets.

Attachments: 
AttachmentSize
evaluating information - fake news & craap + stereotypes + epic.pptxdisplayed 1760 times2.87 MB
Learning Outcomes: 

● Students will discuss and reflect on their own encounters/experiences with “fake news” and erroneous information ● Students will investigate and consider different theories or explanations for why people fall prey to “fake news” ● Students will identify motivations for the creation of misleading or inaccurate information ● Students will be introduced to tools for identifying and counteracting fake news and develop their own strategies for weeding out problematic sources and selecting credible sources

Discipline: 
Multidisciplinary

Individual or Group:

Course Context (e.g. how it was implemented or integrated): 

This course is typically taught as part of a one-credit information literacy first year seminar. Class is 50 minutes once per week.

Suggested Citation: 
Hasse, Jen . "Fake News: Fight Back ." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2018. https://projectcora.org/assignment/fake-news-fight-back.
Submitted by Ellen Carey on September 15th, 2017
Share this on: 
Short Description: 

UPDATE: PLEASE USE SIFT & PICK INSTEAD!

I created the SIFT & PICK Fact Checking & Source Evaluation process to improve upon P.R.O.V.E.N. SIFT & PICK better distinguishes between lateral reading to fact check information and vertical reading to select the best sources for specific information needs. It is briefer and better lends itself to teaching concepts such as information creation,  authority/expertise, bias, and scholarly conversation, in the context of source evaluation.

Ellen Carey 4/14/23

P.R.O.V.E.N. was designed to provide students with a source evaluation process that was grounded in both the ACRL Framework and Michael Caulfield's "Four Moves and a Habit" from his ebook, "Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers" (2017). The process included both strategies for fact-checking by examining other sources such as internet fact-checking tools, and strategies for analyzing the source itself by examining its purpose, relevance, objectivity, verifiability, expertise, and newness. The "P.R.O.V.E.N." acronym emphasized the process students could go through to demonstrate credibility based on their particular needs, rather than the state of a particular source (i.e. credible or not). The questions were designed to guide this evaluation process, not to serve as a checklist.

Attachments: 
AttachmentSize
PROVEN Source Evaluation Process - Feb 2021 Update.pdfdisplayed 4942 times233.85 KB
Learning Outcomes: 

After using the P.R.O.V.E.N. Source Evaluation Process students will be better able to: -Identify strategies for evaluating sources -Consider the purpose of a source -Identify the value of a particular source for their needs, based on its type, content, and age -Examine the objectivity and accuracy of a source and the authority of its authors

Discipline: 
Multidisciplinary

Individual or Group:

Course Context (e.g. how it was implemented or integrated): 

At Santa Barbara City College, we are in the process of switching from P.R.O.V.E.N. to the new SIFT & PICK Fact Checking & Source Evaluation process.

In the past, we used P.R.O.V.E.N. as a supplement to instruction on evaluating sources, at the reference desk, in our Library 101 course, or in other courses with research assignments. We used a abbreviated version of P.R.O.V.E.N. on most research guides but are in the process of switching to SIFT & PICK on all guides.

Potential Pitfalls and Teaching Tips: 

P.R.O.V.E.N. was designed to get students thinking beyond a black and white approach to source evaluation (i.e. thinking of a source as either credible or not credible). We found that P.R.O.V.E.N. worked best when we had the opportunity to teach source evaluation as a process of determining the appropriateness and usefulness of a particular source for a particular purpose. SIFT & PICK is designed to support that process more effectively.

Suggested Citation: 
Carey, Ellen. "P.R.O.V.E.N. Source Evaluation Process." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2017. https://projectcora.org/assignment/proven-source-evaluation-process.