Health Information Literacy

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I say whether I trust the source, but my reasoning is about whether I agree with the claim rather than about the source itself.

I reason about the source but only on one feature (who it is, not where it came from), or my reasoning would apply equally to a different source.

I can explain my reasoning for why I do or do not trust a particular health information source.

My reasoning notices one feature of the source that is easy to miss because the rest of the source looks fine.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I guess whether a health claim is trusted based on how much I like the source (a friend, a cartoon character) rather than whether the source knows about health.

I say a health claim is trusted or not trusted but my reason is inconsistent — the same kind of source is trusted in one task and not the next.

I can identify whether a simple health claim comes from a trusted source.

I sort several simple health claims into trusted and not-trusted piles and name the kind of source each one came from (doctor, friend, advert).

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I say I would ask 'someone' but I cannot name a specific person or role.

I name a person but I pick them because I like them, not because they know about health (for example 'my best friend').

I can name a specific person I would ask if I was unsure about a health claim.

I name one person at home and one person at school I could ask, and I say why each one is a good person to ask about health.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

I describe each of the two health sources but do not compare them, or I state which I trust more without engaging with what the other source offers.

I compare the two sources and state which I trust more, but the reasoning treats a single feature as decisive without weighing the sources overall.

I can complete a rubric-assessed written task comparing two health information sources on the same topic and stating which I trust more.

My comparison acknowledges something useful in the less-trusted source and says why it still does not change my trust decision.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

I give one reason from the three reliability criteria but not two, or I give two reasons that are really the same criterion restated.

I give two reasons from the criteria, but one of the reasons is stated without evidence from the source (e.g. 'it looks properly funded').

I can name two specific reasons for my trust decision from the three reliability criteria: who authored it, what evidence it cites, and how it is funded or published.

My two reasons come from different criteria and I note which of the three was hardest to evaluate in this case.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I judge the health claim as true or false but do not name the type of evidence, or I name a type (e.g. 'a study') without distinguishing anecdote, correlation, or controlled study.

I name the type of evidence but apply the wrong category (e.g. calling a correlation a controlled study), or I name it without engaging with what that type of evidence can and cannot show.

I can examine a health claim and name the type of evidence it rests on: anecdote, correlation, or controlled study.

I name the evidence type and say what kind of conclusion this evidence type does not license, even if the evidence seems strong.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I say a source 'looks biased' but I cannot name a specific indicator, such as who funded it, what it is selling, or who wrote it.

I name one bias indicator (for example, 'it is an advert') but miss other visible ones such as funding source or missing author.

I can name any bias indicators present in a health information source.

I name every visible bias indicator in the source and distinguish strong indicators (direct sponsorship) from weaker ones (a confident tone).

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I state a conclusion ('I believe it' or 'I don't') but my reason is not connected to the bias indicators I named.

I connect my conclusion to one bias indicator but I treat every indicator as equally serious, which over-weights minor signals.

I can state and justify my conclusion about how much weight to give a health claim based on the bias indicators I found.

I state a conclusion that calibrates how much weight to give the claim along a scale — strong belief, partial belief, skepticism — and I justify that weighting by pointing to the most serious bias indicator.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I apply the evidence hierarchy to one side of the claim but not both, or I treat all studies within a category as equally strong.

I apply the hierarchy to both sides but treat the position of each piece of evidence on the hierarchy as the whole answer, without attending to study quality within a level.

I can apply the evidence hierarchy to compare the quality of evidence supporting different sides of a contested health claim.

I apply the hierarchy and note where higher-level evidence exists for one side but does not directly answer the specific question.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I identify arguments on one side but not the other, or I name the general position on each side without picking out specific arguments.

I identify strongest and weakest on both sides, but my 'weakest' arguments are actually just the parts I disagree with rather than genuinely weak reasoning.

I can identify the specific strongest and weakest arguments on each side of a contested health claim.

I identify the strongest argument on the side I agree with less, and handle it without distorting it.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I justify my conclusion by restating my position rather than applying the criteria of critical appraisal, or I apply criteria selectively.

I apply the criteria to reach my conclusion but one criterion carries all the weight, while the others are mentioned but not used.

I can justify my conclusion about a contested health claim with reference to the criteria of critical appraisal.

My conclusion holds and says clearly what single finding on a specific criterion would cause me to revise it.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I judge a single study rather than the body of evidence, or I confuse confidence in the claim with the claim being true.

I consider multiple studies but weight all of them equally regardless of design or replication.

I can judge whether the body of evidence supporting a specific health claim warrants the confidence placed in the claim.

I judge whether confidence is warranted by assessing replication, effect size, and coherence across studies, and I calibrate my confidence rather than treating the claim as on or off.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I assume the research record is interest-free, or I suspect 'bias' without naming a specific interest.

I identify one interest (for example, industry funding) but miss other interests such as institutional reputation or publication bias.

I can identify the commercial or institutional interests that may have shaped what research was done and published on a health claim.

I identify interests that shaped which questions got asked, which results got published, and how findings were framed, and I point to specific evidence of that shaping.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

My justification uses one criterion (for example, 'it was peer-reviewed') as if it were sufficient.

I use two criteria but apply them loosely, without showing how the criterion actually cuts in this particular case.

I can justify my conclusion about a health claim using peer-review, RCT-design, statistical, and funding-bias criteria.

I justify my conclusion using multiple criteria and explain which criterion does the most work in reaching the conclusion, and why.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I summarise the review at the level of its abstract, missing PICO, risk-of-bias, pooled effect, and GRADE.

I identify some of the four elements (PICO, risk-of-bias, pooled effect, GRADE) but miss or misread at least one.

I can read and interpret a provided systematic review or meta-analysis at an introductory level, identifying PICO, risk-of-bias findings, pooled effect, and GRADE rating.

I identify all four elements accurately and explain how the risk-of-bias findings and the GRADE rating together qualify the pooled-effect estimate.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I describe the guideline but do not link it to the evidence base it claims to rest on.

I link the guideline to the evidence in general terms but miss steps in the derivation (expert judgment, value weighting, feasibility considerations).

I can trace how a named policy recommendation or guideline was derived from its evidence base.

I trace the derivation step by step and identify where the evidence alone could not determine the recommendation and expert judgment or values filled the gap.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I judge the guideline as right or wrong without engaging with the strength of its support.

I place the guideline in a support category but my articulation of certainty and uncertainty is brief or generic.

I can evaluate whether a named policy recommendation or guideline is well-supported, weakly-supported, or contested, articulating what is certain, what remains uncertain, and why.

I place the guideline in a support category with explicit reference to evidence strength, remaining uncertainty, and the grounds on which informed observers contest it.