Week 7 Lesson Plan

Evaluating Relevance and Credibility

Class Length
5:30–8:15 pm

Weekly Focus
This week marks an important shift in the research process:

Finding sources → Judging sources

Students often assume that once they have located sources, their work is mostly done. In
reality, research becomes more demanding at this stage because researchers must decide:

● which sources deserve attention

● which sources are credible

● which sources actually contribute to the research question

Learning Goals
By the end of class students should be able to:

● distinguish relevance, credibility, and usefulness

● explain how authority functions in research

● use lateral reading to investigate a source

● identify bias, perspective, and funding influences

● justify why a source should or should not be used in research

Materials Needed
Instructor should prepare:

● two contrasting sources on the same topic

● one questionable but professional-looking website

● projector or screen for lateral reading demonstration

Students should have:

● their research question

● at least one source they located this week

5:30–5:45

Opening Activity: Research Check-In

Prompt (5 minutes writing)
Ask students to write briefly:

Think about one source you found while researching your topic this week.

Answer:

1. Why did this source initially seem trustworthy?

2. What signals made you think it might be useful?

Class Discussion
Ask students to share examples.

Write responses on board.

Typical answers include:

● it looked professional

● it had statistics

● it cited other research

● the author had credentials

● it appeared balanced

● it was published in a journal

● it ranked highly in search results

Instructor Transition
Explain:

Many of the signals we use to judge sources are quick visual cues.

These cues can sometimes be helpful, but they are also easy to imitate.

One of the goals of academic research is to move beyond quick impressions and develop
deliberate evaluation habits.

5:45–6:10

Lecture: What Does It Mean to Evaluate a

Source?
Core Idea
When researchers evaluate sources, they are asking three different questions.

Write these on the board.

Relevance
Does this source actually help answer my research question?

Credibility

Can the information in this source reasonably be trusted?

Usefulness

What role could this source play in my research project?

Important Clarification
Students frequently assume these questions mean the same thing.

They do not.

A source may be:

● credible but irrelevant

● relevant but not very credible

● credible and relevant but still limited in usefulness

Example Scenario
Research question:

How do mental health peer support programs affect burnout among peer supporters?

Possible sources:

Source A
A peer-reviewed psychology article studying burnout rates among peer support workers.

Source B
A blog written by a peer supporter describing personal experiences in support work.

Discussion:

Which is more credible?

Students will usually say Source A.

Then ask:

Which might offer insight into lived experience?

Students recognize that Source B still has value.

Key Insight
Academic research does not simply separate sources into:

good vs bad

Instead researchers ask:

What kind of knowledge does this source provide?

6:10–6:30

Lecture: How Authority Works in Research

Students often think authority means credentials alone.

In reality, authority is contextual.

Authority depends on the relationship between:

● the author

● the topic

● the type of knowledge being produced

Four Common Forms of Authority

1. Scholarly Authority
Examples:
 ● academic researchers

● peer-reviewed journal articles

● university presses

Strengths:

● systematic research

● formal peer review

● detailed methodology

Limitations:

● may be highly specialized

● may not address practical contexts

2. Professional Authority
Examples:

● medical practitioners

● engineers

● educators

● veterinarians

Strengths:

● applied knowledge

● practical experience

Limitations:

● may rely more on professional practice than formal research

3. Institutional Authority
Examples:

● government agencies

● research institutes

● nonprofit organizations

● international organizations

Strengths:

● access to large data sets

● policy expertise

Limitations:

● institutional priorities or funding influences

4. Experiential Authority
Examples:

● interviews

● personal narratives

● participant accounts

Strengths:

● lived experience

● qualitative insight

Limitations:

● subjective perspective
Important Concept
Strong research often combines multiple forms of authority.

Example research paper:

Topic: equine insulin resistance

Possible sources include:

● veterinary research studies

● agricultural extension publications

● interviews with veterinarians

● equine care guidelines

6:30–6:40

Break

6:40–7:00

Lecture + Demonstration
Lateral Reading
Explain that many people evaluate sources vertically.

Vertical reading means staying inside the source and judging it based on its appearance.

Researchers increasingly use a different method called lateral reading.

Lateral Reading Definition
Lateral reading means:

leaving the source to investigate information about it elsewhere.

Instead of asking only:

● What does this site say?

Researchers ask:

● Who runs this site?

● What do other sources say about it?

● Who funds it?

Demonstration
Project a website that appears professional.

Possible examples:

● advocacy organization

● think tank

● industry-funded research group

Ask students:

What signals suggest credibility?

Students typically notice:

● professional layout

● statistics

● references

● graphs
 ● formal language

Then demonstrate lateral reading.

Open new tabs and search:

● organization name

● funding

● criticism

● Wikipedia entry

Students often discover:

● corporate sponsorship

● ideological agenda

● controversial reputation

Key Point
Professional appearance does not guarantee credibility.

Researchers investigate context surrounding the source.

7:00–7:35

Small Group Exercise: Source

Comparison
Students now practice evaluation themselves.
Group Setup
Divide class into groups of 3–4.

Provide each group with two sources on the same topic.

Example pairings:

● academic journal article vs news article

● advocacy organization vs research institute

● blog post vs government report

Evaluation Worksheet
Groups answer:

1. What type of source is this?

2. Who is the author?

3. Who is the intended audience?

4. What kind of evidence does the source use?

5. What possible biases exist?

6. How relevant is this source to a research question?

7. What role could this source play in research?

Task
Groups must decide:

How could each source be used in a research paper?

Examples:

● background information
 ● evidence

● expert perspective

● example of public debate

7:35–8:05

Whole Class Discussion

Each group summarizes findings.

Instructor highlights patterns:

Common discoveries include:

● credibility depends on context

● sources serve different functions

● bias does not automatically invalidate a source

● relevance depends on research question

Instructor Wrap-Up
Explain that academic research involves strategic use of sources.

Researchers rarely rely on a single type of source.

Instead they build an argument using multiple forms of evidence.

8:05–8:15
Closing Reflection
Students write briefly:

What question should you always ask when encountering a new source?

Examples:

● Who produced this information?

● What evidence supports it?

● Who is the intended audience?

● What perspective might shape this source?

Final Reminder
Research is not defined by how many sources you find.

It is defined by how thoughtfully you evaluate and use them.