⚠ Switch to EXCALIDRAW VIEW in the MORE OPTIONS menu of this document. ⚠
Text Elements
Adapted from Vongkulluksn et al., (2023). Blue text is meta-text to indicate how the resource could be adapted to varied context. Edits made for clarity and simplification.
Step 1: Compare claims and evidence
Claim and Evidence
Prompt:
Sourcing
Credibility
+/- How do you know?
Is xyz, abc? (A socioscientific issue prompt)
Source:
What claim did the source make?
What evidence(s) does the source give?
Checklist/score ratings for credibility here
Checklist of credibility features here
Step 2: Inspect Credibility
In the ‘source’ boxes, enter the sources in order how credible they are (most to least), with a short name and summary for each.
Step 3: Process claims with credibility
In the ‘perspective’ boxes (in orange), use the symbols below to indicate how the source perspective relates to each conclusion or stance on the issue.
Source 1:
Best source here, with 1 sentence summary…
Source 2:
2nd best source here, with 1 sentence summary…
Source 3:
3rd source here, with 1 sentence summary…
Source 4:
Relative worst source here, with 1 sentence summary…
Stance 1
Stance 2
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Perspective-Stance support key:
Strong support for stance
Support for stance
Contradicts the stance
Unrelated to the stance
More credible sources
Less credible sources