Classroom activity Grade 10 English Language Arts
Harlow Springs Newsroom Source Desk: A Credibility Activity
A grade 10 ELA station activity where students act as newsroom fact-checkers, rating five sources on a fictional discolored-water event for credibility and relevance.
Objectives
- Students will evaluate sources for credibility and relevance to a specific question.
- Students will synthesize trustworthy sources into a single verifiable claim.
Vocabulary
Key words: credibility, relevance, corroboration, primary source, verify
Teacher overview
This is a small-group station rotation for a single class period, run with groups of three to four students. Five stations each hold one source about a fictional water event in the fictional town of Harlow Springs, where residents reported discolored tap water after a water main break. The stations differ on purpose: an official press release, a public meeting record, a resident's social media post, an anonymous blog, and a state agency notice do not carry equal weight. Students act as newsroom fact-checkers, rating each source for credibility and relevance, then combining only the trustworthy ones into a single claim they could responsibly report. The activity maps directly onto source evaluation: moving through five unequal sources forces students to judge rather than accept.
Activity Directions
- Before class, print the five source cards from the Student Handout and post them at five stations labeled A through E around the room. Give each student a recording grid with a row for each station.
- Open by explaining the scenario: Harlow Springs had a water main break, some residents report brown tap water, and the class works at a local newsroom that must decide what it can accurately report. Remind students that a newsroom checks a claim before printing it.
- Define credibility (can this source be trusted, and how do we know) and relevance (does this source actually address our question about the water's safety). Tell students they will rate each station on both.
- Assign each group a starting station. Groups have four minutes per station to read the source and complete that row of the recording grid: a credibility rating, a relevance rating, and one note on what they would need to check to verify it.
- Call time and rotate groups clockwise to the next station. Continue until every group has visited all five stations.
- After the rotation, give groups six minutes to answer the two synthesis questions on the handout: which sources they trust most, and one claim about the Harlow Springs water they could report using only sources they rated credible and relevant.
- End the activity when every group has written its one verified claim. Reconvene as a class.
- Debrief with the handout's debrief questions. Focus on why the anonymous blog and the raw social media post, however dramatic, could not by themselves support a printed claim, and how corroboration across sources raised confidence.
Student Handout
The scenario: You work at a newsroom in the fictional town of Harlow Springs. After a water main break, some residents report brown water from their taps. Your job is to decide what your newsroom can accurately report.
Source A (station A), a press release from the fictional Harlow Springs Water Department: "A water main broke on Cedar Street early this morning. Repairs are underway. Some nearby homes may see temporary discoloration from stirred-up sediment. The water remains safe to drink, and discoloration should clear within a day. Customers with questions may call the department." Signed by the department's public information officer.
Source B (station B), the minutes of last night's fictional Harlow Springs City Council meeting: The record notes that the council heard an update from the water superintendent, who reported the Cedar Street main break and stated that crews restored normal pressure by midday. The minutes are a public document approved by the council clerk.
Source C (station C), a resident's social media post: "My water is BROWN and gross. City says it's fine but I don't believe them. Sharing so everyone knows!! Photo attached." The post has been shared many times but names no source beyond the writer's own tap.
Source D (station D), an anonymous blog post: "Sources say Harlow Springs has been hiding water problems for YEARS. They don't want you to know the truth. Do your own research." The blog names no author and links to no records.
Source E (station E), a notice from the fictional state environmental agency: The agency confirms it received the Harlow Springs main-break report and is reviewing the utility's water-quality samples. The notice explains that treated water must normally stay at or below 0.3 NTU of turbidity, a measure of cloudiness, and that results will be posted once verified.
Recording grid: For each station, record a credibility rating (high, medium, or low), a relevance rating (high, medium, or low), and one thing you would need to verify.
Synthesis questions:
- Which sources did you rate most credible and relevant, and why?
- Write one claim about the Harlow Springs water that you could responsibly report, using only sources you rated credible and relevant.
Debrief questions:
- Why could the social media post (Source C) and the anonymous blog (Source D) not, on their own, support a printed claim?
- How did checking more than one source change your confidence in what you could report?
From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.
Answer Key
- Answer: Answers will vary, but a strong response names Sources A, B, and E as the most credible and relevant, because they are identified, official, and directly about the event, and pairs that judgment with a reason such as accountability or corroboration.
- Answer: Answers will vary. A responsible claim stays within what the credible sources support, such as: "A water main broke on Cedar Street, causing temporary discoloration, and the state agency is reviewing water-quality samples before confirming the water is safe." Accept any claim that does not overstate what Sources A, B, and E establish.
- Answer: Source C is one person's unverified experience, and Source D is anonymous and cites no records, so neither can be confirmed. A newsroom could treat Source C as a lead worth checking, but printing either as fact would risk spreading an unverified or false claim.
- Answer: Answers will vary but should note that when sources agree, such as the utility, the council minutes, and the state notice, confidence rises, while a single unsupported source leaves a claim unverified. This corroboration is the point of checking more than one source. Strong answers also notice that the minutes and the state notice both relay the utility's own report, so together they confirm the main break but do not yet confirm the water's safety.
Differentiation
Support
Provide a partially completed recording grid with the credibility rating for one station already filled in and explained, as a model. Offer a word bank of reasons (anonymous, official, firsthand, unverified, corroborated) for students to use in their notes.
Extension
Ask students to draft a two-sentence correction the newsroom would print if it had reported the anonymous blog's claim and later found it false, explaining what went wrong in the original reporting.
ELL supports
Pre-teach credibility, relevance, verify, and corroboration with plain-language definitions and a simple example for each. Allow students to complete the recording grid with the words "high," "medium," and "low" plus a short phrase rather than full sentences.
Extensions
Have students compare the five source types to the sources they encounter about real local news, and list which kinds of sources they would check first the next time a dramatic claim spreads online. This connects the activity's fact-checking mechanic to the media choices students make outside class.