⚠ 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