Grade 10 · Critical Reading of Public Texts · Bias and Framing
Evaluating Digital and AI-Generated Sources
Apply a five-question credibility check.
Learning objectives
- Apply a five-question credibility check
- Verify a claim across two sources
- Explain risks of AI-generated text
AERO English Language Arts alignment
AERO.ELA.10.RI.7
Integrate and evaluate information presented in different media and formats, including charts, maps, infographics and video, as well as in words. Grade 10 / MYP 5 emphasis: produce independent, evaluative analysis with nuanced interpretation, ready for MYP eAssessment demands.
AERO.ELA.10.RI.9
Analyse two or more texts on the same topic, comparing how each shapes its presentation of key information and interpretation of facts. Grade 10 / MYP 5 emphasis: produce independent, evaluative analysis with nuanced interpretation, ready for MYP eAssessment demands.
AERO.ELA.10.RI.10
Read and comprehend a wide range of informational and digital texts, including texts about the Gulf region, independently and proficiently. Grade 10 / MYP 5 emphasis: produce independent, evaluative analysis with nuanced interpretation, ready for MYP eAssessment demands.
AERO.ELA.10.RI.3
Analyse how a text introduces, illustrates and elaborates key individuals, ideas or events, including through examples and anecdotes. Grade 10 / MYP 5 emphasis: produce independent, evaluative analysis with nuanced interpretation, ready for MYP eAssessment demands.
AERO.ELA.10.RI.5
Analyse the structure an author uses to organise a text, including how major sections and paragraphs contribute to the whole and to the development of ideas. Grade 10 / MYP 5 emphasis: produce independent, evaluative analysis with nuanced interpretation, ready for MYP eAssessment demands.
MYP criteria
- Criterion A — Analysing
- Criterion B — Organizing
ENGAGE
Would You Trust This Post?
Imagine that a popular account posts: “Doha’s coastal clean-up removed twice as much waste this year.” The post includes a polished chart but gives no link, author or date. It may look convincing, yet visual quality is not proof of accuracy. Digital texts can omit context, frame evidence selectively or contain AI-generated errors. In this lesson, you will investigate authorship, evidence, date, purpose and verification before deciding whether a public claim deserves your trust.
Think about it
- What makes an online claim look trustworthy?
- Which missing detail would make you most suspicious?
EXPLORE
Read Two Reports of the Same Event
Original source set: Doha Bay clean-up
Source A — Post on Gulf Tomorrow Blog, 18 February: “Doha Bay is now almost completely free of plastic waste. An amazing 2,400 kilograms was collected during Saturday’s community clean-up, proving that the city’s coastal litter problem is nearly solved.” A bright infographic shows a rising arrow from 1,200 to 2,400 kilograms. The post names no writer, links to no evidence and states that parts were produced using a generative writing tool.
Source B — Education City Environmental Research Group, 19 February: “Volunteers collected approximately 2,400 kilograms of mixed waste from three selected shoreline areas on Saturday. Last year, 1,200 kilograms was recorded during a shorter event at two locations. The figures should not be used to measure an overall annual change because the duration, locations and number of volunteers differed. Repeated surveys are needed to identify a reliable trend.” The report names its research team and explains its method.
Media note — Both sources use the same totals. However, Source A’s arrow suggests a simple doubling over comparable periods. Source B presents the numbers in a table with columns for event length, locations and volunteer numbers. Its caption warns that the events are not directly comparable.
Think about it
- Which details make Source B more credible than Source A?
- How does Source A’s rising-arrow graphic frame the figures?
- What claim can both sources support, and which claim remains unverified?
EXPLAIN
Credibility, Verification and AI-Generated Text
The five-question credibility check
- Author: Who created the source, and what relevant expertise or responsibility do they have?
- Evidence: What data, quotations, methods or links support the claim?
- Date: When was it published, and is the information current enough for this topic?
- Purpose and framing: Is the source informing, persuading, promoting or simplifying? What has it emphasised or omitted?
- Verification: Can the central claim be confirmed through another independent, reliable source?
Credibility is not the same as agreement
A source is not reliable simply because it supports your opinion. Apply the same checks to claims you accept and claims you doubt.
Verify the exact claim
Break a broad statement into checkable parts. In the source set, “2,400 kilograms was collected” is supported by both texts. However, “the coastal litter problem is nearly solved” is an interpretation, not a verified fact. Look for genuine agreement between independent sources. If one page merely repeats another page’s wording or data, it is not independent confirmation.
| Feature | Source A | Source B | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authorship | No writer named | Research group named | Source B is more accountable. |
| Evidence | Totals without method | Totals with method and limits | Source B provides stronger support. |
| Framing | Rising arrow and confident language | Comparative table and cautious language | Source A encourages an oversimplified conclusion. |
| Shared fact | 2,400 kilograms collected | Approximately 2,400 kilograms collected | The event total is corroborated. |
Why AI-generated text requires checking
A generative tool predicts plausible language; it does not automatically verify truth. It may invent statistics, sources, quotations or credentials, combine unrelated facts, reproduce bias from its training material, or use confident wording that hides uncertainty. AI-generated content can help communicate information, but it should not serve as the final authority. Trace claims to identifiable evidence, open cited links, check that references exist and compare the information with independent sources.
Integrate words and visuals
Evaluate what each format adds. Ask whether a chart has labelled axes, units, dates, comparable categories and a source. Then explain how its design shapes interpretation. A polished infographic can communicate accurate data clearly, but it can also magnify a difference, hide missing context or imply a trend that the evidence cannot establish.
MYP_PRACTICE
Conduct a Two-Source Credibility Audit
Use the five-question check to evaluate Sources A and B. Then write one organised evaluative paragraph that identifies a verified claim, explains one unverified interpretation and analyses how a visual or language choice frames the information. Support every judgement with a precise detail from the source set.
- Create two columns labelled Source A and Source B. Record findings for author, evidence, date, purpose and verification.
- Underline the exact claim that both sources support. Box the stronger claim that the evidence does not fully support.
- Compare the rising-arrow infographic with Source B’s contextual table. Note what each format emphasises or omits.
- Plan your paragraph: judgement, evidence from both sources, comparison, explanation and final credibility conclusion.
- Write 120–150 words, using cautious terms such as “corroborates”, “suggests”, “cannot establish” and “more credible”.
EXIT_TICKET
Before you close this lesson
Think about it
- Which of the five credibility questions most changed your judgement, and why?
- What should you do before repeating a factual claim found in AI-generated text?
Watch
Check Yourself with Lateral Reading: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #3
CrashCourse · 14 min
Learn to investigate online claims by leaving a page and checking what reliable external sources say about it.
Before you watch: Why might studying only one webpage give you an incomplete picture?
- What is lateral reading, and how is it different from reading vertically?
- Which outside sources would you consult to verify an unfamiliar website?
Watch
How to choose your news - Damon Brown
TED-Ed · 5 min
Learn how news is selected and how source choices can shape the information you receive.
Before you watch: How do you currently decide whether a news report is trustworthy?
- What kinds of bias can influence news selection?
- What steps could you take before sharing a news story?
Interactive practice · two source credibility audit
Build Your Credibility Verdict
Complete the audit using the source set, then produce a concise comparative paragraph. Your verdict must evaluate evidence and framing rather than merely choosing a preferred source.
Check your answer
Task
Judge each source systematically before writing your final comparison.
Sentence frames
Pick a topic
Prompts
Your answer
This draft stays in this tab only. Copy anything you want to keep into your learning log below.
Key vocabulary
- credibility
- The degree to which a source deserves belief or trust.
- corroborate
- To confirm a claim using separate supporting evidence.
- framing
- The choices that shape how an audience understands information.
- hallucination
- Plausible but false information produced by a generative tool.
Practice questions
0/3 correct
Level 1 · Criterion A
Which feature provides the strongest evidence that Source B is more credible?
Level 2 · Criterion A
What is the most accurate evaluation of Source A’s rising-arrow infographic?
Level 3 · Criterion B
Which paragraph structure would produce the clearest comparative evaluation?
MYP criterion tasks
Level 2 · Criterion A
State one claim corroborated by both sources and one conclusion that remains unverified. Explain the distinction.
Level 3 · Criterion A
Explain two risks of relying on AI-generated text as a factual source and describe how you would reduce each risk.
Reflect & track
Your learning log
Saved privately in this browser — no account needed.
How confident do you feel?