May be reproduced for use in
school library media centers
Knowledge Quest
Critical Thinking 101: The Basics of Evaluating Information
Appendix D
Evaluative Strategies for K–12
Students
Directions
Use these strategies to help you evaluate resources. Some are questions and
others are activities to help you focus
your strategies. Become familiar with
the strategies on this list, and then
select the most appropriate ones for
the resource you are reading. You will
not be able to apply them all to every
resource.
Immediate Strategies
(can be used in phase one)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Read advance organizers (like the
table of contents or site map) to
identify the author’s topics and
specific points.
Consider size.
Balance the time required to
access this source against the
likely amount of information and
level of quality.
Identify the sponsoring
organization.
Disregard if the information is
essentially an advertisement.
Downgrade information that is not
current.
Look for quality markers (see box).
Concrete Strategies
(one-step operations performed on obvious features)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Identify purpose.
Identify audience.
Identify organization plan.
Upgrade information that uses
tables to help organize and present
the information.
Upgrade material that offer a quantity of concrete information.
Downgrade a Web site that contains inactive links or blank pages.
Downgrade a Web site that contains pages that are overly burdened with graphics.
Downgrade information that proclaims itself nonbiased.
©2000 Mary Ann Fitzgerald
Downgrade extremes in size.
Ignore information that contains
errors in grammar or spelling.
Downgrade information that
contains numerous typos.
Downgrade information that
contains inappropriate repetition.
Investigate authority by reading
information provided about
author(s); see authority markers
below.
Compare with information in prior
knowledge.
Upgrade information that contains
quality markers.
Overall
(read piece through and
think about these issues)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Downgrade information that is
not clear.
Downgrade information without
a clear purpose.
Upgrade well-organized
information.
Upgrade well-focused material.
Upgrade material that seems
carefully edited.
Downgrade material that contains
vocabulary that does not suit the
context.
Downgrade information with
inappropriate tones.
Upgrade pieces situated in
authoritative sources.
Upgrade information that seems
to belong in its context.
Seek good and bad points.
Downgrade information that does
not contain analysis.
Identify implicit themes.
Establish author’s perspective.
Downgrade materials that does
not include perspectives besides
that of the author.
Downgrade information that does
not include appropriate cultural
perspectives.
●
●
●
●
●
●
Downgrade information that does
not balance the author’s bias by
the presentation of other viewpoints.
Classify: empirical versus opinion.
Downgrade information with
vocabulary that does not suit the
context and audience.
Downgrade information whose
purpose is inappropriate for the
audience.
Downgrade material that presents
issues in a polarized way.
Downgrade information that cannot be used.
Deductive Strategies
(two steps)
●
●
●
●
Downgrade opinions.
Count the “hands” (firsthand, secondhand). The higher the number,
the less credible.
Visit the author’s Web site.
Send the author an e-mail.
Logical Strategies
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Separate information into individual ideas and evaluate.
Identify assumptions.
Downgrade material that does not
support its points.
Downgrade material that does not
support its generalizations.
Examine support for each
assertion.
Downgrade information that is not
organized logically.
Downgrade information that contains logic that does not flow well.
Identify gaps in reasoning.
Detect, disregard, and downgrade
the bandwagon argument.
Downgrade information in which
the arguments do not make sense.
Downgrade materials that falsely
link cause and effect.
Knowledge Quest
Comparative Strategies
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Compare with information from
other sources.
Compare to an appropriate model
or pattern.
Compare author’s categories with
those of other authors.
Draw connections between implicit
themes and themes elsewhere.
Seek consensus from the literature.
Examine conflicting information
form two different sources closely.
Consider number of articles written
for each point of view.
Downgrade a single rebellious
opinion.
Consider the opinions of others
about a source as a point of triangulation.
Decide how does this item fits into
the overall picture.
Metacognitive Strategies
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Identify the emotions implicit in the
information.
Identify how emotional words are
used.
Identify author’s bias.
Is the author taking a believer or
non-believer perspective?
Try to bracket out the effects of the
author’s bias.
Decide what the motives of the
sponsor are.
Downgrade if the information is
blatantly persuasive.
Downgrade if the information
attempts to manipulate emotions.
Downgrade or disregard personal
attacks.
Downgrade if it contains sarcasm.
Determine why information that is
maddening or frustrating has that
effect.
Set and apply criteria.
Determine if I am surprised, confused, and why.
Decide whether to agree or disagree with the material and why.
Allow for future re-evaluation;
remember that opinions, beliefs,
evaluations may change.
Determine whether the information
provokes mixed feelings or
thoughts and, if so, why.
Quality markers
Upgrade if any the information:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Advanced Strategies
●
●
●
Affective Strategies
●
May be reproduced for use in
school library media centers
●
●
●
●
Build an expert list for this topic
area over time; use it to aid name
recognition.
Read the primary source because
secondary sources are interpretations.
Downgrade information that
depends upon a single theory at
the expense of other relevant
theories.
Classify: informed versus less
informed opinion.
Upgrade opinions based on
analysis.
Considering the copyright date,
does the work cite major relevant
pieces published prior?
Upgrade if author admits and
explains personal bias.
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Authority markers
Upgrade if author:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
©2000 Mary Ann Fitzgerald
is clear
is focused
is interesting
is stimulating
makes reader want to read
more
contains good transitions
contains support
uses examples as support
uses evidence as support
clearly establishes purpose
has logic that flows well
is well written
is well organized
is thorough
contains personal stories
and insights
contains effective
organizational method
has a “big name” or good
reputation
has a name that pops up
often in other resources
about this topic, is often
cited by other writers
has a relevant background
works in a relevant
discipline
has a high rank in discipline
works for a respected
institution
has written other works
considered useful
has written extensively in
this topic area
demonstrates knowledge
of content area
has written respected
book on topic
is known for creating a
significant phrase, idea, or
theory