Skip to content

Source Credibility Analyzer

Run the Source Credibility Analyzer MicroSim Fullscreen
Edit in the p5.js Editor

About This MicroSim

This interactive MicroSim helps students explore the concept. It supports the learning objectives in Chapter: Evidence and Justification.

How to Use

Use the interactive controls below the drawing area to explore the visualization. Hover over elements for additional information and click to see detailed descriptions.

Iframe Embed Code

You can add this MicroSim to any web page by adding this to your HTML:

1
2
3
4
<iframe src="https://dmccreary.github.io/theory-of-knowledge/sims/source-credibility-analyzer/main.html"
        height="450px"
        width="100%"
        scrolling="no"></iframe>

Lesson Plan

Grade Level

9-12 (High School / IB TOK)

Duration

15-20 minutes

Prerequisites

  • Understanding of what constitutes a "knowledge claim" in TOK
  • Awareness that sources vary in reliability and authority
  • Basic familiarity with peer review and editorial processes

Learning Objectives

  • Evaluate source credibility using systematic criteria by adjusting six independent sliders and interpreting the resulting credibility rating

Activities

  1. Exploration (5 min): Set all six criteria sliders to their midpoints and observe the default credibility score. Then rate an "Anonymous Blog Post About Vaccine Risks" by adjusting each slider: expertise of author, evidence quality, peer review status, transparency, corroboration, and reputation. Note the overall credibility rating the sim produces.
  2. Guided Practice (10 min): Now rate a "Peer-Reviewed Article in Nature" using the same six sliders. Compare the two radar charts side by side. In small groups, discuss: Which single criterion changed the most between the two sources? Were there any criteria where the blog post scored unexpectedly high or the journal article scored unexpectedly low? How do these criteria map to the TOK concept of "justification"?
  3. Assessment (5 min): Rate a third source of your choosing (e.g., a Wikipedia article, a government health advisory, or a social media post from a celebrity). Write a brief justification for each slider position. Compare your ratings with a partner and resolve any disagreements by citing specific evidence.

Assessment

  • Students justify each slider position with specific reasoning rather than intuition alone
  • Comparative analysis identifies at least two criteria that differ meaningfully between sources
  • Students connect the credibility framework to TOK concepts of justification and reliability

Quiz

Test your understanding with this review question.

1. When using a systematic credibility framework, why might a government report score lower on "transparency" than a peer-reviewed journal article?

  1. Government reports are always less credible than journal articles
  2. Government reports may not disclose methodology or data sources as fully as peer-reviewed research requires
  3. Peer-reviewed articles are written by smarter people
  4. Transparency is not a relevant criterion for evaluating sources
Show Answer

The correct answer is B. Peer review typically requires full disclosure of methodology, data, and potential conflicts of interest. Government reports, while often authoritative, may redact data for security or political reasons, or may not undergo the same transparent review process. This does not make them automatically less credible overall -- it means they score differently on one specific criterion within a multi-dimensional framework.

Concept Tested: Multi-criteria credibility evaluation and the role of transparency

References

  1. IB Theory of Knowledge Guide, International Baccalaureate Organization, 2022.
  2. Wineburg, Sam. Why Learn History (When It's Already on Your Phone). University of Chicago Press, 2018.