Finding Trustworthy Sources

Warm-Up (5 min)

Show students a headline that sounds dramatic (e.g., "Scientists Discover Chocolate Prevents Cancer!"). Ask: "Would you share this? Why or why not?"

Let a few students respond, then reveal: "This headline is based on a real study — but the study was done on cells in a petri dish, not on humans, and the effect was tiny. The headline is not lying, but it is not telling the truth either."

Direct Instruction (15 min)

Introduce the source hierarchy:

Primary sources — the actual study, published in a peer-reviewed journal. Has a DOI. Written by researchers. Hard to read but most reliable.

Science journalism — a reporter's interpretation of the study. Usually links to the primary source. Quality varies.

Social media posts — someone's summary of the journalism (or the study, or just vibes). Fastest to spread, most likely to distort.

Teach the quick evaluation checklist:

Who wrote it? (credentials, affiliation)

Where was it published? (journal, news outlet, personal blog)

When was it published? (science evolves — old findings may be outdated)

What is the evidence? (sample size, peer review, replication)

Why was it shared? (to inform, to sell, to get clicks, to scare)

Activity: Source Detective (20 min)

Give students 3-4 prepared examples (a mix of reliable and unreliable). For each, they use the checklist to evaluate:

What type of source is this? (primary, journalism, social media)

Rate its trustworthiness (1-5) and explain why

Would you share this? What would you check first?

Students work in pairs, then share their ratings with the class. Discuss disagreements.

Wrap-Up (10 min)

Ask: "If you were going to post about a scientific finding on your own social media, what would you do before hitting publish?"

Build a class list of steps. Close with: "A science communicator's first job is not to be interesting — it is to be trustworthy. Everything else comes after that."

Assessment