Week 9 · Lecture outline

Week 9 — Lecture Outline · Research: Finding & Evaluating Sources

English Composition · ENGL 1A Fall 2026 · Prof. Lindgren Fictional sample

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objectives covered: Objective 5 — Find, evaluate, and integrate credible sources — developing a research question and judging credibility through lateral reading. (This week = finding & evaluating; integrating sources without plagiarizing is Week 10, MLA documentation is Week 11.)
SLOs touched: B (source-based research & academic integrity — the primary SLO this week) · A (the research question begins shaping a thesis)
Meeting pattern: 2 sessions × 75 min = 150 min. Segment minutes below total ~150; scale to your own pattern.

Week at a Glance


The week's big question	"How do I turn a topic into a researchable question — and how do I decide which sources are actually worth trusting?"
By the end of the week, students can…	(1) turn a topic into a focused, answerable research question; (2) classify sources — primary vs. secondary, scholarly/peer-reviewed vs. popular; (3) tell library databases from the open web and say why it matters; (4) evaluate credibility with a CRAAP-style test (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose) and lateral reading.
Key vocabulary	topic, research question, focused/answerable question, primary source, secondary source, scholarly / peer-reviewed source, popular source, trade source, library database, the open web, credibility, authority, bias, currency, relevance, accuracy, purpose, the CRAAP test, lateral reading, vertical reading, click restraint
Materials	slides (Deck 9), the week's readings + the Crash Course "Lateral Reading" video, one approved chatbot (Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT) for the AI-critique moment and the tutorial
Timing note	8 segments, ~150 min total. Session 1 = Segments 1–4 (~75). Session 2 = Segments 5–8 (~75).

Segment 1 — Hook & the Promise (8 min) · Session 1 opens

Hook. Put two screenshots side by side (describe them if you can't project): two clean, professional-looking websites that flatly contradict each other on the same everyday question — say, "Is intermittent fasting healthy?" One says it's a miracle; one says it's dangerous. Both have logos, confident headlines, and citations. Ask the room: "Which one do you believe — and how would you actually find out?" Let the discomfort sit.

Then: "Welcome to the part of the course where the internet stops being your friend and starts being your problem. You can find a source that says anything. The skill that separates a college writer from a search bar isn't finding information — it's deciding which information is worth trusting, and knowing how to check. That's this week."

The promise (write it on the board): "By Friday you'll turn a topic into a real research question, tell a scholarly source from a popular one, and check any website's credibility the way professional fact-checkers do — by leaving it."

Why it matters line (memory hook): "On the open internet, the question is never 'Can I find a source?' It's 'Can I trust this one?' — and the answer is almost never on the page itself."

Segment 2 — From Topic to Research Question (20 min)

Plain language first. A topic is a subject — a thing you could write about. A research question is a focused, answerable question about that subject that your essay sets out to answer. Most weak research papers fail before a single source is read, because the writer started with a topic the size of a planet.

A topic is broad and static: social media. Climate. College athletes. You can't "answer" a topic — you can only drown in it.
A research question is narrow, focused, and answerable with evidence: Does limiting teens to one hour of social media a day improve their sleep? It tells you exactly what to look for and when you're done.

What makes a research question good (put it on a slide):
- Focused — one slice of the topic, not the whole thing.
- Answerable with evidence — research could actually settle it (not pure opinion, not a matter of taste).
- Not a simple yes/no fact — "Is the sky blue?" is answerable but trivial; a research question opens onto reasons and evidence.
- Arguable enough to matter — it leads toward a thesis, not a Wikipedia summary.

One fully worked example (do it at the board, narrowing live):

Topic: student debt. (Too big — a library's worth.)
Narrower: student debt and career choices. (Better, still broad.)
A research question: "Does graduating with high student-loan debt push graduates away from lower-paying public-service jobs?"
Notice what happened: the question now tells you what evidence to look for (data on debt levels, job choices, public-service hiring) and when you're finished (when you can answer it). The topic couldn't do either.

Memory hook:

"A topic is something to write about. A research question is something to answer. Narrow until you have a question — then go find sources."

Segment 3 — Sources: Primary/Secondary, Scholarly/Popular, Database/Open Web (25 min)

Plain language first. Not all sources are the same kind, and matching the kind to your purpose is half the battle. Three distinctions earn the most points all term:

1) Primary vs. secondary.
- Primary source = original, first-hand material: the thing itself — a study's raw data, a speech, a diary, a novel, an interview, an original survey, a historical document, a court ruling.
- Secondary source = something that analyzes, interprets, or reports on primary material — a journal article reviewing several studies, a textbook, a news article summarizing a report, a book of criticism.
- Same item, different role: a scientist's original experiment write-up is primary; a magazine article about that experiment is secondary. The category depends on how you're using it.

2) Scholarly/peer-reviewed vs. popular.
- Scholarly (peer-reviewed) = written by experts for experts, reviewed by other experts before publication, with citations and a references list (academic journals).
- Popular = written for a general audience, usually by journalists or staff writers, edited but not peer-reviewed (magazines, newspapers, most websites). Popular isn't bad — a reputable newspaper is a fine source — it just clears a different bar.
- Trade sources sit between (written for professionals in a field).

3) Library databases vs. the open web.
- Library databases (your campus library's subscriptions — JSTOR, EBSCO, ProQuest, and the like) collect sources that have already been screened by editors and indexers. A database result usually clears a credibility bar before you ever see it.
- The open web (whatever a public search engine returns) is unfiltered — anyone can publish anything, optimized to rank, not to be true. (Recall the Week-1 idea: writing is built for a reader and a purpose — and a lot of the open web is built to sell or persuade, not to inform.)

Memory hook:

"Primary = the thing itself; secondary = someone writing about it. Scholarly = checked by experts; popular = written for everyone. Database = pre-screened; open web = wide open."

Quick interaction (5 min): Name three items aloud — a senator's recorded floor speech; a peer-reviewed journal article analyzing that speech; a TikTok reacting to it — and have the room call out primary/secondary and scholarly/popular for each. (Speech = primary, popular-ish/public record; journal article = secondary, scholarly; TikTok = secondary, popular/open web.)

Segment 4 — Misconceptions + Quick Interaction (17 min) · Session 1 closes (~75)

Name the misconceptions out loud, then cure each:

❌ "More sources = a better paper."
✅ Cure: a long Works Cited doesn't make an argument strong — credible, relevant sources do. Three excellent sources beat ten weak ones; padding with junk lowers your credibility. "Depth and quality, not body count."
❌ "A .org site is automatically trustworthy."
✅ Cure: .org, .com, and .net can be bought by anyone — only .edu (schools) and .gov (government) are restricted. A .org can be a world-class nonprofit or an advocacy front. The domain tells you almost nothing; who's behind it tells you everything.
❌ "The top Google result is the most credible."
✅ Cure: search rank reflects search-engine optimization, popularity, and ads — not truth. The first result is the best-optimized page, not the best-sourced one. Rank ≠ reliability.
❌ "A slick, professional-looking site is reliable."
✅ Cure: good design is cheap and proves nothing. A polished page can be pure propaganda; a plain one can be a careful expert. Stop judging the book by its cover — leave the page and check.

Interaction — Topic → Question (rapid-fire, ~7 min): Put three fat topics on a slide (remote work; college athletes; AI in the classroom). Solo (30 sec) then with a neighbor (1 min): turn each into one focused research question. Debrief two or three. The skill you're rehearsing — narrowing — is exactly what the assignment and studio ask for.

Segment 5 — Worked Move: Lateral Reading (22 min) · Session 2 opens

Hook back in: "Last session: research questions and source types. Today, the single most useful research move in your toolkit — how the pros check whether a source is trustworthy in about two minutes. It is not what you were taught."

Vertical vs. lateral reading (plain language):
- Vertical reading = staying on a site and judging it by what it says about itself — its design, its 'About' page, its confident tone. This is what most people do, and it's exactly how good-looking bad sources fool you.
- Lateral reading = leaving the site almost immediately and opening new tabs to see what independent, trustworthy sources say about it. You judge the source from the outside. This is the move professional fact-checkers use — researchers at the Stanford History Education Group found fact-checkers read laterally while students and even historians read vertically and got fooled.

One fully worked example (do it live, thinking aloud):

The situation: your search for a research question turns up an official-looking site, "The Center for Wellness Research," with a slick logo and a confident article.
The vertical (wrong) move: read its 'About' page — which of course says it's a trusted authority. (Every site says that.)
The lateral (right) move: open a new tab. Search "Center for Wellness Research" funding and "Center for Wellness Research" criticism and the name alone in a news search. In two minutes you learn who runs it, who pays for it, and whether independent sources treat it as credible — none of which the site would ever tell you itself.
The takeaway: you let other sources tell you who you're reading. Trust is something you confirm by leaving, not something you grant by staying.

Memory hook:

"Don't read down the page — read across the web. Open a new tab and ask what everyone else says about this source."

Misconception + cure:
- ❌ "If the site looks official and cites sources, it must be legit."
✅ Cure: anyone can post a logo and a reference list. The check is external — what do independent sources say? — not internal. Leave and verify.

Segment 6 — The CRAAP-Style Checklist (18 min)

Set it up: "Lateral reading tells you who's behind a source. A quick checklist makes sure you've asked the other questions a careful researcher asks. Most writing labs teach a version of this — one common one is the CRAAP test."

The CRAAP test (put each on a slide with the question it asks):
- C — Currency: When was it published or last updated? Is it recent enough for your question? (A 2009 statistic about social media is ancient.)
- R — Relevance: Does it actually answer your research question, at the right depth, for your audience? On-topic isn't the same as useful.
- A — Authority: Who is the author/publisher, and what makes them qualified? Credentials, affiliation, expertise. (This is where lateral reading does its work.)
- A — Accuracy: Is the information supported by evidence, and can you verify it elsewhere? Are claims cited? Do other sources agree?
- P — Purpose: Why does this source exist — to inform, persuade, sell, or entertain? Is there a bias or an agenda shaping what it includes and omits?

Bias is not a gotcha (say it): every source has a point of view — the goal isn't to find a magically "unbiased" source but to see the purpose and the bias clearly and weigh the source accordingly. A drug company's study can be real and worth reading with extra care.

Quick interaction: Read one short source description aloud (e.g., "a 2024 article on a state health department's .gov site, written by named physicians, citing peer-reviewed studies") and have the room run the five CRAAP questions on it out loud. Then do a sketchy one ("an undated post on a supplement company's blog, no author listed, no citations, urging you to buy") and watch the test catch it.

Segment 7 — Database vs. Open Web + Technology Workflow (22 min)

Plain language first. A library database isn't a fancier Google — it's a pre-filtered Google. The point isn't that the open web is worthless (a .gov report or a major newspaper is excellent); it's that the open web makes you do all the filtering, while a database has done much of it already.

Start at the library, not the search bar, when you can. Campus databases get you screened, often scholarly, sources fast — and your librarian is the most underused expert on campus.
When you must use the open web, read laterally and run CRAAP. Lean toward .gov, .edu, established news organizations, and primary documents; treat random .com/.org results as unverified until you've checked who's behind them.

Technology workflow — the search engine + a chatbot, used the right way:
1. Draft your research question first, then search — a sharp question makes search terms obvious.
2. Use a chatbot to brainstorm search terms or suggest the kinds of sources to look for — not to hand you finished facts or citations.
3. Verify everything a chatbot tells you about a source against the real source. This is the non-negotiable, and it's the AI-critique moment below.

AI-critique moment (students verify, not consume):

Ask an approved chatbot: "Is [name a specific real site, e.g., a well-known science magazine] a reliable source? Who runs it, and has it won any awards?"
Then fact-check the answer laterally. Two failures to hunt for:
1. Confident-but-unverified claims — it will state who's behind a site, its reputation, even awards, in a sure voice. Some will be right; some will be made up. A chatbot doesn't know a source is reliable — it predicts plausible-sounding text. Confirm each claim with an independent source.
2. Fabricated facts about the source — ask it for the source's specific articles, authors, or citations and it may invent an author who doesn't exist, an award never given, or a study that was never published — all looking perfectly real.
That's the lesson, and it's the dangerous one for the rest of this course: the tool that helps you find sources will also confidently lie about them, and asked for citations it will fabricate ones that look flawless. The tool drafts; you verify — against the real source, every time. This reflex is what Weeks 10–12 are built on.

Segment 8 — Callback, Tease & Hand-off (15 min) · Session 2 closes (~75)

Callback + tease:
- Callback: "Week 1 said every piece of writing is built for a reader and a purpose. This week you turned that lens on your sources: a page built to sell you something is not a page built to inform you — and you can't tell which from the design. You have to leave and check."
- Tease next week: "Now that you can find and trust sources, next week we learn to put them into your own writing — quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, and the bright line between honest paraphrase and plagiarism. You found the gold; next week we learn to handle it without stealing it."

Hand-off (the week's graded work):
- Lecture Tutorial 9 (AI tutor, share-link submission) — research questions, source types, the CRAAP test, and lateral reading.
- Quiz 9 (end of week) and Discussion 9 ("Is Wikipedia a Legitimate Source?").
- Assignment 9 ("Source Detective") — write a research question, classify two sources, run a CRAAP/lateral-reading evaluation, and decide which source to trust.
- Writing Studio 9 ("Check the Source") — evaluate a real website by reading laterally, then coach and critique the work with a chatbot.

Instructor FAQ — Common Stumbles

Student says / does	Quick cure
Brings a topic ("social media") and calls it a question.	A topic is something to write about; a research question is something to answer. Narrow it until it asks something evidence could settle.
"It's a `.org`, so it's trustworthy."	`.org`/`.com`/`.net` can be bought by anyone; only `.edu` and `.gov` are restricted. The domain proves nothing — check who's behind it.
Confuses primary and secondary.	Primary = the thing itself (the study, the speech, the data); secondary = someone analyzing or reporting on it. The same item can be either, depending on use.
Confuses scholarly and popular.	Scholarly = written by experts, peer-reviewed, with citations; popular = written for a general audience, edited but not peer-reviewed. Popular isn't bad — it clears a different bar.
Judges a source by reading down the page (its 'About,' its design).	That's vertical reading — exactly how good-looking bad sources fool you. Read laterally: leave the site and see what independent sources say.
"The first Google result is the most reliable."	Rank = SEO + popularity + ads, not truth. The top hit is the best-optimized page, not the best-sourced one.
Pads the paper with more sources to look thorough.	More ≠ better. Credible, relevant sources make an argument; weak ones lower your credibility. Depth over body count.
Asks a chatbot "is this site reliable?" and believes the answer.	A chatbot predicts plausible text; it can invent authors, awards, and citations. Verify every claim it makes about a source against the real source.

Scope flag

This outline stays within Objective 5 as it applies to finding and evaluating sources — the research question, source types (primary/secondary, scholarly/popular), database vs. open web, and credibility evaluation (CRAAP + lateral reading). Integrating sources (quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesis, and the paraphrase-vs-plagiarism line) is Week 10; MLA documentation (in-text citations and the works-cited entry) is Week 11; the full Research-Based Argument essay is Week 12. This week names MLA and plagiarism only in passing. No real source is characterized with any fabricated claim, quotation, award, or citation; where a real outlet or site is named in class, describe it factually only, and have students verify any specific claim laterally. The "Center for Wellness Research" used in the lateral-reading walkthrough is a made-up illustrative example, clearly flagged as hypothetical — not a real organization. All other example sentences are the instructor's own illustrations, attributed to no one.

~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com