The Source Pack
One research question — does chewing gum help you concentrate? — and three sources that deserve very different levels of trust: a research digest, a gum company's blog, and locker_room_larry. Students audit credibility, practice the quote / paraphrase / plagiarize line, and draft a cited answer that uses each source for exactly what it's worth.
Common Core standards covered
- W.8.7Conduct short research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question), drawing on several sources and generating additional related, focused questions that allow for multiple avenues of exploration.
- W.8.8Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, using search terms effectively; assess the credibility and accuracy of each source; and quote or paraphrase the data and conclusions of others while avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation.
- W.8.9Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Teacher-facing overview
Big idea: Conduct a short research project drawing on several sources; assess the credibility of each source; quote and paraphrase without plagiarizing using basic citation; and draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis.
Student target: “I can audit sources for credibility using the four questions, quote and paraphrase with citation — knowing exactly where plagiarism begins — and synthesize a cited answer that uses each source for what it's worth.”
Success criteria: I can run the four-question audit and rank the pack's trustworthiness with reasons. · I can quote with quotation marks and attribution, and paraphrase in my own structure. · I can spot the three-word-swap and name it as plagiarism. · I can write a synthesis where each source does only the job it's qualified for.
Essential question
Three sources answer your question — and they disagree in exactly the ways their motives predict. How does a researcher decide what each source is WORTH, and how do borrowed ideas enter your writing without stealing?
Learning target: I can audit sources for credibility using the four questions, quote and paraphrase with citation — knowing exactly where plagiarism begins — and synthesize a cited answer that uses each source for what it's worth.
Success criteria
- I can run the four-question audit and rank the pack's trustworthiness with reasons.
- I can quote with quotation marks and attribution, and paraphrase in my own structure.
- I can spot the three-word-swap and name it as plagiarism.
- I can write a synthesis where each source does only the job it's qualified for.
Why this matters
W.8.7 and W.8.8 are the standards the internet made urgent: every student researches daily — they just call it searching — and most treat all results as one undifferentiated source called 'I looked it up.' This pack compresses the real information landscape into three specimens: expertise with references, marketing wearing science's clothes, and anecdote with upvotes. The company blog even cherry-picks the digest's own finding with the conditions stripped — the exact move students will meet in the wild for the rest of their lives. And the quote/paraphrase/plagiarize line (W.8.8's second half) gets drawn where it actually blurs: the three-word swap.
Students should already be able to
- Evidence kinds — anecdote vs. study (from The Case for Sleeping In, ideally).
- The interest audit — who benefits (from In Defense of Boredom, ideally).
- Citing by source and paragraph.
Where this shows up outside the classroom
Assessment plan
Formative — for feedback during the lesson
- Warm-up — motive language in the trust ranking.
- Audit circulation — four questions answered before verdicts.
- Borrowing-line practice — skeleton test applied live.
Summative — the graded evidence: Exit ticket (ranking + paraphrase + the stripped conditions) plus the synthesis paragraph; the fourth-source design and honest-ad rewrite rank as extension evidence.
The passage: “Source A — the research digest”
Written for this lesson in the style of a university research digest.
¶1 SOURCE A — 'Chewing Gum and Cognitive Performance: What Two Decades of Studies Actually Show.' Adapted from a university psychology department's research digest, written by a cognitive scientist, published last year, with references to fourteen peer-reviewed studies.
¶2 The short answer researchers give is: it depends on when you chew. Several controlled experiments found that chewing gum DURING a demanding task produced no benefit — and in tasks requiring silent verbal rehearsal, like memorizing word lists, chewing slightly hurt performance, likely because the jaw motion interferes with the brain's inner voice.
🔒 The full text — 4 numbered paragraphs, plus the photocopy-ready handout — ships in the kit. See plans →
The passage: “Source B — the company blog”
Written for this lesson in the style of exactly what it looks like.
🔒 This companion text — 3 numbered paragraphs — ships in the kit. See plans →
The passage: “Source C — the forum post”
Written for this lesson in the internet's native dialect.
🔒 This companion text — 2 numbered paragraphs — ships in the kit. See plans →
The task students work on
The research question: does chewing gum help you concentrate? The class audits all three sources with the four questions (who / why / when / what-stands-behind-it), builds the trust ladder, catches Source B's cherry-pick red-handed, and practices the quote-paraphrase-plagiarize line on Source A's best sentence. The deliverable: a synthesis paragraph answering the question, in which each source does only the job it is qualified for — with citations.
The credibility audit — four questions, three sources.
| Source | WHO wrote it? | WHY does it exist? | WHAT stands behind its claims? | Verdict: what is it worth? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A — the research digest | ||||
| B — the company blog | ||||
| C — the forum post |
Anticipated student strategies
Header-first auditing builds the ranking. Claim tracing turns the ranking into proof. Job assigning converts judgment into synthesis — the paragraph every research project actually needs.
- Header-first auditing. The student reads each source's identifying information (author, institution, date, purpose-signals) before its claims.
The professional habit — the header answers most of the audit before the claims can charm. Share first.
🔒 2 more anticipated strategies with select-and-sequence guidance are in the full lesson. See plans →
Lesson script
Draw it out: you're ranking motive and accountability, not grammar. The ad profits from your belief; the reviewer stakes a reputation; the friend knows YOU. Then the pivot: today's pack is these three tellers in research costume — and one of them has quietly stolen from another. We're going to catch it.
Listen for: Yes — trust tracks motive and verification, not just truth. A true claim from a motivated source still needs outside confirmation.
The pack is in the workbook and the handout. Teams audit; the board collects the trust ladder. A's header answers everything (named expert, institution, date, fourteen references); B's header is a flag parade (no author, no date, trademark, coupon); C's is an anonymous six-year-old post. Then the harder work: WHAT stands behind claims — A reports an inconvenient finding (¶2, chewing during doesn't help), which is itself a credibility signal; B's 'studies show' names none; larry's evidence is himself and a cousin. Set up the trap for the next block: someone will notice B's 'one famous experiment' sounds familiar.
- Headers first — most of the audit lives there.
- A source that reports inconvenient findings is showing you its spine.
Listen for: Credibility isn't just truth-count — it's whether the source's purpose bends its telling. 'Real but small' serves readers; 'powers up' serves the coupon.
🔒 The remaining 4 steps — fully scripted with teacher-says lines, discourse questions, look-fors, and interventions — are in the full lesson. See plans →
Misconceptions and how to respond
- “If it's on the internet and it agrees with other sources, it's credible.” B 'agrees' with A because it copied A and stripped the conditions — agreement can be theft. Trace suspicious claims to their origin; convergence only counts between INDEPENDENT sources.
- “Paraphrasing means changing enough words.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “Weak sources should just be thrown out.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “A citation is for avoiding punishment.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
🔒 Every misconception ships with a tested classroom response. See plans →
Scaffolded practice
The workbook follows gradual release rather than a page of blank prompts: 2 fully worked, 2 partially completed, then 4 independent.
- I doLiteral first — the audit. Complete all four questions for Source B, then the verdict.
🔒 7 more prompts across all three release tiers are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked solutions and scaffolds for every prompt are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Exit ticket
- Rank the three sources and give one audit-based reason each.
🔒 2 more exit-ticket questions are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked answers, the completed answer tables, and the scoring rubric are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Printable handouts in the kit
All handouts are in Printable_Handouts.pdf inside the kit download.
Materials and classroom resources
Student experience
Students enter through a low-floor prompt, build or sketch a model, test a strategy, revise their thinking, collaborate, and present a final solution. The task remains accessible while allowing for sophisticated reasoning.
Detailed facilitation notes
- Step 1: Read all three sources on the same question. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 2: Audit each: who wrote it, why, when, and what's behind the claims? Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 3: Practice the line: quote it, paraphrase it, or plagiarize it — know the difference. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 4: Draft the cited answer: every source used for what it's actually worth. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
Differentiation and inclusion
Support: The audit's four questions work on any source ever; extend with the find-the-true-sentence-in-Source-B challenge and the search-term design task.
Language support: “I started by…”, “My model shows…”, and “I know my answer is reasonable because…”.
Extension: Require a second solution, alter a condition, or have students write a challenge for another group.
Accessibility: Manipulatives, enlarged visuals, oral response choices, partner reading, and reduced-copy student pages.
Assessment plan
Formative checks: Strategy choice, accuracy, representation, collaboration, and explanation.
End evidence: One credibility audit row per source, one clean paraphrase with citation, and the drafted answer paragraph.
Mastery: The student completes the task accurately and explains the strategy with limited prompting.