Best for
Judging news articles, social posts, websites, reports, oral evidence, and source packs before students use them in discussion or writing.
Social Sciences / Critical Thinking • Years 9–10 • Lesson 2 scaffold
Source Reliability Worksheet
Use this worksheet to test whether a source is strong enough to trust, quote, or use in an argument. The focus is tika, hē, and pono: what seems right, what may be wrong, and what evidence supports the truth.
What to print
Print one copy per student or pair. The worksheet is designed for one source, but students can repeat the reliability scale for Source A and Source B when comparing two perspectives.
- Use a real source selected by the kaiako, not a made-up extract.
- Keep the source question visible so reliability is judged for a purpose.
- Let students answer in writing, annotations, or oral explanation before final judgement.
Kaiako planning snapshot
- Use length: 25-35 minutes for one source; 45 minutes for comparing two sources.
- Grouping: Start whole-class, then pairs, then individual final judgement.
- Prep: Choose one source with a clear claim, named creator, and at least one limitation students can notice.
- Teaching move: Ask “useful for what?” before students decide whether a source is reliable.
Resources already provided
- Student source snapshot fields
- Tika / Hē / Pono reliability checks
- Six-part reliability scale
- Missing-perspective prompt
- Final judgement sentence frame
- Support and extension options
All referenced resources are provided on this page. Kaiako only need to supply the source text, video, post, or article being tested.
Ngā Whāinga Akoranga / Learning Intentions
- We are learning how to identify who created a source and why that matters.
- We are learning how to test evidence, purpose, bias, and missing perspectives.
- We are learning how to justify whether a source is reliable for a specific task.
Paearu Angitu / Success Criteria
- I can name the creator, purpose, and main claim of a source.
- I can find evidence in the source that makes it stronger or weaker.
- I can explain what perspective may be missing and make a clear reliability judgement.
Curriculum integration / Te Marautanga alignment
This worksheet supports Te Mātaiaho Social Studies Phase 3 by asking students to use evidence, compare perspectives, and explain a reasoned conclusion.
- TM-SS-3-D1: Explore perspectives, use evidence to form conclusions, and share ideas: Compare systems, map decisions, present new solutions.
Te aromatawai pūtake / Source reliability
A reliable source has a whakapapa: you can trace where it came from, who shaped it, and what evidence it carries. In Aotearoa, this includes formal sources such as news, reports, and archives, and it can also include community knowledge when that knowledge is shared with permission and care.
Do not treat mātauranga Māori or local kōrero as “extra colour”. Ask who has the authority to share it, what context is needed, and whether using it respects the people connected to that knowledge.
1. Source snapshot
Source title or link
Creator / organisation
Date or timeframe
Type of source
Main claim or message
Question I am using it for
2. Tika, Hē, Pono: three first checks
Tika / What seems sound?
What details, evidence, or named people make this source look trustworthy?
Hē / What might be wrong?
What could be exaggerated, one-sided, out of date, unclear, or unsupported?
Pono / What can I verify?
What can I check against another source, a named expert, data, or trusted local knowledge?
3. Reliability scale
Tick one level for each row. In the final column, quote or describe the evidence that made you choose that level.
| Check | 1 Weak | 2 Mixed | 3 Strong | 4 Very strong | Evidence from the source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authority | Unknown creator | Some clues | Named creator | Named, relevant expertise | |
| Evidence | Mostly opinion | Some examples | Clear evidence | Evidence can be checked | |
| Purpose | Purpose hidden | Trying to persuade | Purpose is clear | Purpose and limits clear | |
| Perspective | One view only | Some balance | Multiple voices | Missing voices named | |
| Relevance | Not useful | Partly useful | Useful for my question | Central to my question | |
| Currency | No date | Date unclear | Current enough | Timeframe explained |
4. Green flags and red flags
Green flags
- Named author or organisation
- Evidence, data, or direct quotes
- Clear date and context
- Links or references to other sources
- Limits or uncertainty are admitted
Red flags
- Anonymous or hard-to-trace source
- Loaded language or personal attacks
- Big claim with no evidence
- Old information presented as current
- Only one group is allowed to speak
Missing voices
- Who is affected but not quoted?
- Are mana whenua or local voices relevant?
- Is lived experience included with care?
- What would change if another group told the story?
- What should I check before repeating this claim?
5. Final reliability judgement
I would rate this source as: weak mixed strong very strong
The strongest evidence in this source is:
The biggest limitation or missing perspective is:
For my question, I would / would not use this source because:
Tautoko / Support
- Use only the source snapshot and three first checks before attempting the full scale.
- Read the source aloud, chunked paragraph by paragraph, for students who need executive function support.
- Allow students to record a spoken judgement before writing it down.
Whakawhānui / Extension
- Compare two sources about the same issue and rank which is more useful.
- Rewrite a weak source so it becomes more transparent and evidence-based.
- Design two extra questions that would help protect against bias or missing voices.
Self-check before I use this source
- I can trace the source back to a person, organisation, community, or publication.
- I can point to evidence in the source, not just repeat its claim.
- I can name at least one perspective that may be missing.
- I can explain whether the source is useful for my question.
- I have checked whether tikanga, whakapapa, or permission matter before using local or cultural knowledge.