Subjects:

Social Studies – Government/Civics, Geography, U.S. or World History

Grade Level:

6-12

Lesson Duration:

• One to two class periods

Essential Questions:

• How do we distinguish between claims of fact and opinion?
• What methods do fact-checkers use to verify claims?
• What is the difference between “bad facts” and “bad narratives” when it comes to analyzing claims?

Lesson Objectives:

Students will:

• Define a claim of fact and distinguish it from an opinion.
• Describe the process of identifying claims and fact-checking.
• Describe the types of sources that fact-checkers use in verifying claims.Practice the skills of identifying claims and evaluating sources of information necessary to fact-check.

Materials:

• Internet access for the Retro Report resources below:
  • Retro Report video “How to Fact-Check History”
  • Retro Report video “The Moral Panic Over “Superpredators” (supplemental)
  • Retro Report video “Journalism & Media Literacy: McDonald’s Hot Coffee” (supplemental)
  • Don’t leave fact-checking to the fact-checkers article (supplemental)

Procedure:

1. Begin by having students view the “How to Fact-Check History” video. This can be done by students on their own or as a full class.
   1. Have students answer the comprehension questions that accompany the video, including analysis of two case studies.
   2. Both the “Superpredator” and “McDonald’s Hot Coffee” segments referenced in the video are available as full-length (10-11 minute) videos, and can be viewed in full to provide additional context.
   3. Analyzing additional examples of “bad facts” and “bad narratives” may be helpful in helping students master these concepts. Ask students to provide examples that they are familiar with.
2. The next portion of the activity asks students to practice identifying claims.
   1. Students are provided with the first example from the film, and the graphic organizer demonstrates how to highlight individual claims.
   2. Students will then analyze two example sentences, both taken from sources connected to the case studies in the film. Links to the sources are provided.
   3. The first claim sample contains at least six claims:
      1. The event took place in 1992
      2. Stella Liebeck was involved
      3. She was 79 years old at the time
      4. She ordered coffee
      5. She did so at a McDonald’s drive-through
      6. This McDonald’s was located in Albuquerque, New Mexico
   4. The second claim sample includes a number of claims, and arguably, at least one opinion:
      1. Whether or not the “superpredator” idea energized a movement might be a statement of opinion. This is a good example to demonstrate the debate about where the line between claims of fact and opinion lie. What evidence might exist to prove or disprove this statement?
      2. Multiple states enacted laws related to children
      3. Those laws applied to children ages 13 or 14
      4. Those laws allowed children of that age to be charged as adults
3. Next, students will find their own sources, choosing one or more articles and isolating a sentence with multiple claims.
   1. Students will repeat the process of highlighting individual claims and identifying any statements of opinion.
   2. Student collaboration might be beneficial during this portion. Students could work together on individual claims, or consult with a partner or small group once they have completed their own.
4. The last portion of the activity asks students to begin the process of fact-checking an individual claim.
   1. After isolating an individual claim, students are asked to evaluate the source using the questions identified in the video.
   2. Students will then describe and justify the sources they will seek out to verify or refute the claim. Mr. Hogan provides an explanation in the video, and a list is provided in the table for students.
   3. Students will search for two independent sources that can verify or refute the claim. They will provide an explanation and a link to the source.
5. Because this process is likely new to students, it is a good idea to debrief this process with them. Consider the following discussion questions:
   1. What were the hardest parts of analyzing claims? What kinds of words or phrases made the process confusing?
   2. When you tried to verify or refute a claim, how could you tell if you could trust the source?
   3. Why is it important to consider who is making the claim? How do the source of the story, and the motives of that source, potentially affect the reliability of the information in the story?
   4. When you see information on the Internet that you don’t fully believe, do you ever “fact-check” the story yourself? How might you be able to help your friends and family with this process?
   5. Why might you need to do this with your own research or project? How could it be helpful to you?

About the Author:

David Olson is the Director of Education for Retro Report. Prior to joining Retro Report, David was an award-winning teacher of U.S. History, A.P. U.S. Government and Politics, and Criminal Justice at a public high school in Madison, Wisc.

Standards

Common Core Standards:

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.1: Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.2: Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.8: Assess the extent to which the reasoning and evidence in a text support the author’s claims.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.9: Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources.

College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies

• D1.2.9-12. Explain points of agreement and disagreement experts have about interpretations and applications of disciplinary concepts and ideas associated with a compelling question.
• D1.4.9-12. Explain how supporting questions contribute to an inquiry and how, through engaging source work, new compelling and supporting questions emerge.
• D1.5.9-12. Determine the kinds of sources that will be helpful in answering compelling and supporting questions, taking into consideration multiple points of view represented in the sources, the types of sources available, and the potential uses of the sources.
• D2.His.10.9-12. Detect possible limitations in various kinds of historical evidence and differing secondary interpretations.
• D2.His.12.9-12. Use questions generated about multiple historical sources to pursue further inquiry and investigate additional sources.
• D3.1.9-12. Gather relevant information from multiple sources representing a wide range of views while using the origin, authority, structure, context, and corroborative value of the sources to guide the selection.
• D4.4.9-12. Critique the use of claims and evidence in arguments for credibility.
• D3.3.9-12. Identify evidence that draws information directly and substantively from multiple sources to detect inconsistencies in evidence in order to revise or strengthen claims.