Week 9 — Earn Your Sources: Question, Sort, and Read Laterally

Assignment 8 of the term — turn a topic into a research question, find and sort three real sources, run the five-question credibility checklist, read each source laterally, check a chatbot's description of one source, and explain lateral reading to someone outside the course.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a source evaluation a reader can trust. You remain the researcher. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 1 you learned that every text has a writer, an audience, and a purpose; this week you ask those questions of the sources you might use. In Week 8 you practised keeping what a text says apart from whether you agree; this week a source has to earn its place before you agree with it at all. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Writing Studio practise the same moves from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together on your own research.

The task

Choose one topic from the course's roster: a four-day class schedule, campus parking, the dining hall's hours, a community library's hours, a workplace's meeting policy, or AI in the writing classroom. Do not use the running draft's phone topic; Chapter 9 already worked that one. Every source you name must be real and findable, and you must open it yourself. Never list a source you have only seen described by a chatbot or a search result.

Part A — turn your topic into a research question. Write your topic. Then write one weak version of a question about it, either too broad to answer or a trivial yes or no, and say which it is. Then write your research question: focused, answerable with evidence, more than a trivial yes or no, and arguable enough to lead to a thesis.

Part B — find, sort, and check three sources. Find three real sources that help answer your research question: one scholarly article reached through your library's databases, one popular source, and one primary source such as an official policy page, a set of meeting minutes, or a government data page. For each source, write the author or organization, the title, and where you found it (library database, library catalog, or open web). Label each one primary or secondary, and scholarly, popular, trade, or government document, with a one-sentence reason. Then run the five-question credibility checklist on each source, in the course's order: currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose. Answer each question with a specific detail from the source, not a general impression. Work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Your source evaluation covers 3 sources, and each source gets all 5 checklist questions. How many checklist answers will your evaluation contain?

Part C — read laterally and check the machine. For each of your three sources, leave the source and open new tabs to see what independent sources say about its publisher or site. Keep a short lateral-reading log: for each source, name at least two independent sources you checked and what they said. Then state each source's purpose (to inform, to persuade, to sell, or to direct) and what that purpose means for how you will read it; a purpose is something to name, not an automatic reason to drop a source. Work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Your lateral-reading log needs 2 independent sources about each of your 3 sources, and you have found 1 so far. How many more independent sources do you need?

Finally, ask a chatbot to describe one of your three sources: who publishes it and how trustworthy it is. List every factual claim the chatbot makes about that source, and tag each one confirmed, unconfirmed, or contradicted, with the lateral check that decided it.

Explain it to a non-expert

A relative often forwards health articles to the family group chat with the message "this looks official." Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains, in everyday words, what reading laterally means and why it tells you more than the site's own About page or design. Use one of your own checks from Part C as your example. Name one honest limit — for example, that lateral reading takes a few minutes and some topics have few independent reviewers. Explain any term your relative might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker about to buy a laptop because a review site gave it five stars. Model answer: "Before you trust that review, open a new tab and search the review site's name with words like 'paid' or 'sponsored.' If other sites say it earns money from the brands it reviews, its stars mean less. You learn more from what others say about a site than from what the site says about itself. It takes a couple of minutes, and you may not find much on a very small site."

Use that pattern for your relative, with your own example.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which change after feedback made one of your sources more trustworthy to use, or showed you it should be dropped, and what check revealed it?
• (b) Which of the chatbot's claims about your source surprised you most when you checked it, and what will you do differently the next time a tool describes a source for you?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, Part C, and your message to your relative before opening a chatbot for coaching. (The chatbot description in Part C is part of your first attempt; save it before the coaching starts.)
2. Open any course-approved chatbot in a new conversation. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one part of your evaluation, even if your first attempt was strong, and then answer reflection option (a) or (b).
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a researcher. It must draw out your reasoning rather than find, describe, or evaluate sources for you. If it names a source or tells you who runs a site, treat that as a claim to check laterally, not as evidence.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful research coach for a first-year college writing course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about finding and evaluating sources. Do not write my research question, my sorts, my checklist answers, my lateral-reading log, or my message for me. Do not suggest, name, or describe any real source, website, organization, or study, and do not invent work I did not show.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. My topic comes from my course's roster: a four-day class schedule, campus parking, the dining hall's hours, a community library's hours, a workplace's meeting policy, or AI in the writing classroom.
PROBLEM P1: Your source evaluation covers 3 sources, and each source gets all 5 checklist questions. How many checklist answers will your evaluation contain?
PROBLEM P2: Your lateral-reading log needs 2 independent sources about each of your 3 sources, and you have found 1 so far. How many more independent sources do you need?
For P1 I must also write my topic, one weak question with its label, and my research question; then name three real sources I opened myself (one scholarly through a library database, one popular, one primary), label each primary or secondary and scholarly, popular, trade, or government document with a reason, and answer all five checklist questions for each with specific details. For P2 I must also keep a lateral-reading log naming at least two independent sources about each of my sources, state each source's purpose, list a chatbot's claims about one source with each tagged confirmed, unconfirmed, or contradicted and the check that settled it, and write a 3-5 sentence message to a relative in everyday words that names one limit. After revising, I answer reflection option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.
The course meanings I must use: a research question is focused, answerable with evidence, more than a trivial yes or no, and arguable enough to lead to a thesis; a primary source is the thing itself and a secondary source is writing about it; a scholarly source is written by specialists and peer-reviewed, a popular source is edited for general readers, and a trade source is written for people who work in one field; the credibility checklist asks currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose, in that order; vertical reading judges a site by its own pages, and lateral reading leaves the site to see what independent sources say about it; bias is a source's point of view and the purpose behind it, a purpose to name and read around; a .org ending proves nothing about reliability.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Research question (P1): 15 if my topic and research question are both written, the question is focused, answerable with evidence, more than a yes or no, and arguable, and one weak version is named and explained; 9 if the question misses one part of that test or the weak version is not named or explained; 4 if the question is still close to the topic; 0 if missing. Source sort and credibility checklist (P1): 30 if three real sources are named with author or organization, title, and where found, each is labelled with a reason, all five checklist questions are answered for each in order with specific details, and the checklist-answer count is stated without error; 18 if the count is right and all three are sorted but one label lacks its reason or one source's answers are general; 8 if at least one source is named, sorted, and checked with specific details but others are missing or the count is off; 0 if no source is sorted. Lateral reading, purpose, and chatbot check (P2): 25 if my log names independent sources about each source found by leaving the site, states each purpose and what it means for reading the source, marks each chatbot claim with the check that settled it, and states the number of independent sources still needed without error; 15 if most sources are read laterally and the count is right but one purpose is missing or the chatbot claims lack their checks; 5 if the checking relies on the sites' own pages or design or accepts the chatbot's claims unchecked; 0 if missing. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message uses everyday words, explains lateral reading and why it beats a site's own pages, and names a limit; 8 if it can be followed but omits the limit or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change prompted by feedback plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. When I label a source, ask me what about the source supports the label. When I answer a checklist question, ask me which detail of the source shows it. When I say I read laterally, ask me which site I left and what independent source I found. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work, and take no side on any public question.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both problems with my research question, three sorted and checked sources, lateral-reading log, chatbot check, and message AND revised at least one part AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my research question, source sort, checklist, lateral-reading log, chatbot check, and message]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work: Part A, the Part B source list with labels and checklist answers, the Part C lateral-reading log, purposes, and chatbot check, your message to your relative, and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 9 skills — turning a topic into a research question, sorting real sources by type and audience, running the five-question credibility checklist, reading laterally and naming each source's purpose, and explaining lateral reading to someone outside the course — for comparable time and effort, about 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Parts A, B, and C and the message to your relative. In place of the chatbot check, take one source's own About page or description, list every factual claim it makes about itself, and tag each one confirmed, unconfirmed, or contradicted with the lateral check that decided it. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: put a check beside every checklist answer that cites a specific detail, circle every label that lacks a reason, and mark any "lateral" check that never left the site. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the check that prompted it, and one question you still have, and answer reflection option (a) or (b). Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The research question, the sorts, the checklist answers, the lateral-reading log, the message, the revision, and the reflection must be your own words and your own checking. Do not ask the chatbot to find sources for you or to evaluate them; a chatbot can describe a source that does not exist or credit a real one with things it never said. Open every source you list. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com