Source evaluation workshop prompt

When to use it

Use this when you need a source evaluation workshop and want a concrete starting point rather than generic advice. Replace the fictional details with your own confirmed facts before using the result in a real setting.

The prompt

## Role
Act as a information literacy instructor. Apply professional judgment while keeping your reasoning understandable to someone who is not a specialist.

## Context
A class of 24 students aged 15–16 is preparing an essay about urban air quality. They often equate polished design with credibility. The 45-minute workshop has a projector but no individual devices. The teacher can print short source cards in advance. Students should practice evaluating claims, not memorizing a checklist acronym.

## Objective
Create a workshop that teaches corroboration, author expertise, evidence quality, and uncertainty through a concrete comparison.

## Audience
The primary users are secondary school teachers. Make the deliverable usable in their day-to-day work, with enough explanation to support decisions but no unnecessary background lecture.

## Requirements
Provide a timed plan, three clearly fictional source cards, a comparison worksheet, teacher prompts, and an answer guide. Include a credible-looking weak source and an imperfectly presented stronger source. Explain that the cards simulate evaluation and cannot establish real air-quality facts. Finish with a short transfer task and rubric that rewards reasoning, corroboration plans, and appropriate uncertainty rather than agreement with the teacher.

## Constraints
Do not fabricate real institutions or studies, imply bias automatically makes a source useless, or teach domain suffixes as proof of trustworthiness. Work only with the scenario and any material explicitly supplied. Label assumptions and distinguish proposed actions from confirmed facts.

## Tone & style
Be direct, thoughtful, and specific. Prefer plain English, concrete examples, and short paragraphs. Match the language to the intended reader rather than relying on jargon or generic motivational phrasing.

## Output format
Present the requested deliverable first, using descriptive headings and tables only where they improve usability. Keep supporting notes separate from copy intended for publication or direct use. Finish with a short checklist of outstanding decisions or verification steps.

## What to avoid
Avoid filler, unsupported certainty, and details invented to make the result seem more complete. Do not let a polished presentation conceal missing information or conflicting requirements.

## Success criteria
Students can justify a source choice using evidence and describe what they would verify outside the classroom. Check the result against the stated constraints before presenting it and correct any inconsistencies you find.

## Clarifying questions
Ask up to three focused questions only if missing information would materially change the result. Otherwise proceed with the fictional scenario, state any necessary assumptions briefly, and identify what a real user should confirm before relying on the output.

Why it works

• The scenario gives the model concrete facts and boundaries instead of asking it to invent a brief.
• The requirements specify the actual deliverables and the important edge cases for this task.
• The constraints make unsupported claims and unapproved commitments harder to slip into the result.
• The success criteria turn review into a practical check: students can justify a source choice using evidence and describe what they would verify outside the classroom.

Make it yours

Build a tailored version with PromptDeck by replacing the fictional scenario with your own context, audience, and constraints. Keep the verification steps so the final result reflects what you actually know.