The peer-reviewed ecology journal study is most credible and directly aligned to the research task because it presents methods, data, and citations. The blog is opinion-based, the news report mixes perspectives (including a source with potential sales bias), and the ad is promotional. Extension: Students find a source on invasive species and label it reliable or biased, explaining why. Scaffold (credibility checklist): Who is the author and what are their credentials? Does the source cite data or studies? Is there a purpose to sell or persuade? How current is the information? Enrichment: Compare bias in two articles about the same invasive plant removal event (e.g., environmental group vs. business group), noting loaded language and missing perspectives.

The peer-reviewed institute study is most credible and aligned because it uses systematic data and transparent methods. The social media post and newsletter are opinion-based, and the recipe blog is irrelevant. Extension: Students label a source they find on school start times as reliable or biased and justify their choice. Scaffold (credibility checklist): What evidence is provided? Are methods and sample size described? Is the author qualified? Is there a persuasive or sales goal? Enrichment: Analyze bias in two news articles about school start times (one pro, one con), identifying tone, evidence selection, and missing viewpoints.

The government agency report is most credible and aligned because it provides verified lab methods, data, and review. The company blog is promotional, the forum is unverified, and the novel is irrelevant for research. Extension: Students find a water-quality source and label it reliable or biased, citing at least two credibility reasons. Scaffold (credibility checklist): Who produced it and why? Are methods and data transparent? Is the information current? Does it cite other credible studies? Enrichment: Compare bias in two articles covering a microplastics study (e.g., environmental advocacy site vs. industry trade site) and note differences in emphasis and language.

The peer-reviewed history article is most credible and aligned because it uses vetted evidence and citations. The movie review and diary blog are not reliable for academic research, and the forecast is irrelevant. Extension: Students locate a history source and label it reliable or biased, giving one evidence-based reason. Scaffold (credibility checklist): Does the author cite primary/secondary sources? Is the publisher reputable? Is there balanced coverage? Are dates and context clear? Enrichment: Analyze bias by comparing two news features on a Dust Bowl anniversary—identify word choice, source selection, and what each leaves out.

Source 2 is most credible because it is peer-reviewed, current, written by an expert, and uses data and citations that directly address the topic. Source 1 is a personal blog without evidence, and Source 3 is sponsored content with clear product bias. Extension: Find one source about ocean pollution. Label it reliable or biased and justify your choice in one sentence. Scaffold (credibility checklist): Who is the author? What are their credentials? Is there a date? Are there citations/evidence? Is the purpose to inform or to sell? Does it match my research question? Enrichment: Compare two articles about the same beach cleanup event—identify word choices or details that show bias in each.

Source 1 is most credible: it's from a government agency, is recent, cites sources, and directly explains the causes of the Dust Bowl. Source 2 is anecdotal and unverified. Source 3 lacks a named author and strong citations, making it less reliable. Extension: Find a source about the Dust Bowl. Label it reliable or biased and give one reason. Scaffold (credibility checklist): Who wrote it and why? Is it current enough? Does it use evidence? Is the information consistent with other trusted sources? Does it answer my research question? Enrichment: Compare two articles about a Dust Bowl museum exhibit—identify any biased language or differences in which facts are highlighted.

Source 3 is most credible because it is peer-reviewed, authored by experts, transparent about methods and limits, and directly addresses teen health. Source 1 is promotional with a sales purpose, and Source 2 is a brief opinion piece without evidence. Extension: Locate one source about energy drinks. Label it reliable or biased and justify in one sentence. Scaffold (credibility checklist): Author expertise? Publication type (journal, government, company, blog)? Evidence and citations? Date? Purpose (inform, sell, entertain)? Relevance to my question? Enrichment: Read two articles about a recent sports event where energy drinks were discussed. Analyze how each article may show bias through word choice, expert selection, or which facts are emphasized.