Information Verification & Media Literacy

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

I say whether content is real or made up based on whether I like it, not on whether it could have happened.

I classify content but my choice switches when the same kind of content appears in a slightly different form.

I can say whether an age-appropriate piece of digital content is real or made up.

I classify content consistently across a short set of examples and can say what kind of cue (cartoon style, talking animal, something impossible) helped me decide.

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

I give no reason, or I repeat the content back to the teacher as if that were a reason.

I give a reason but it is about my feeling toward the content rather than about the content itself.

I can explain my reasoning in a sentence for why I think a piece of digital content is real or made up.

I give a sentence-long reason that points to a specific feature of the content (something that could not happen, a drawing style, a character type).

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

I say I would 'ask someone' without naming a specific person or role.

I name a person but pick them because they are near me, not because they are trusted for this kind of question.

I can name a trusted adult I would ask if I was not sure about a piece of digital content.

I name a trusted adult at home and at school I could ask, and I can say why each one is a good person to help me check.

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

I describe the content but I cannot name who made it, even when the maker is visible.

I name the maker of one piece but miss or misread the maker of the other.

I can identify the maker of each of two pieces of digital content on the same topic.

I name the maker of each piece and distinguish the maker (a named person or organisation) from the platform (where it appeared).

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

I say 'yes' or 'no' without a reason, or my reason is 'I have heard of them'.

I give a reason but only for one maker, leaving the second judgment unreasoned.

I can state whether each maker is from a trusted place and give a reason for my judgment.

I give a reason for each maker and my reasons reference specific features of the source (who pays them, what they are there to do, whether they have to get it right).

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

I say I 'believe' or 'don't believe' without a reason.

I give a reason but my reason focuses on whether the content matches what I already thought.

I can explain why I do or do not believe each piece of content.

I explain my belief judgment for each piece with a reason that connects the content's claims to the kind of maker that would be in a position to know.

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

I stay on the source's own page to decide who is behind it, rather than opening other tabs to check.

I open other sources but I only check the one that is easy to find and do not cross-check with a second.

I can apply lateral reading to find out who is behind each of two sources making the same claim.

I apply lateral reading to both sources, cross-check with at least two independent references for each, and update my view when the references disagree with the source's self-description.

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

I say a source 'seems biased' without naming a specific manipulation sign.

I name one manipulation sign (for example, emotive language) but miss others (selective framing, missing context, unsourced claims).

I can name specific manipulation signs present or absent in each of two sources making the same claim.

I name manipulation signs present in each source and distinguish signs that raise minor concern from signs that seriously undermine trust.

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

I pick a source but give no named criteria, or my reason is 'it feels right'.

I use one named criterion and treat it as decisive without weighing any other.

I can justify which source I trust more with at least two named criteria.

I use multiple named criteria and explain which criterion carried most weight in my decision and why.

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

I do some checking but I do not apply a named verification process, or I name one (like SIFT) without working through its steps.

I apply some steps of a named process but skip steps (for example, doing 'Stop' and 'Investigate the source' but not 'Find better coverage').

I can apply a named verification process (e.g. SIFT) to a digital claim.

I work through all the steps of a named verification process and document what each step revealed for this specific claim.

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

I identify one of the three (origin, evidence, or motivation) but miss the other two.

I identify all three but my identification of 'motivation' stays generic ('they want clicks') without grounding in what this specific source stands to gain.

I can identify the origin of a digital claim, the evidence behind it, and the motivation of the source.

I identify origin, evidence, and motivation and explain how the motivation shaped which evidence got included and which got omitted.

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

I collapse believe, share, and act into one judgment ('I believe it, so I'd share and act').

I separate two of the three but the third judgment follows automatically from one of the others.

I can justify my separate conclusions about what I would believe, what I would share, and what I would act on.

I justify each of the three conclusions on distinct grounds, including cases where I would believe something privately but not share it, or believe it but not act on it yet.

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

I cite multiple sources but do not weigh them against criteria, treating each as equally authoritative.

I apply one criterion (for example, source credibility) but miss others such as primary vs secondary sourcing or quality of underlying evidence.

I can weigh evidence across multiple sources about a contested claim using named criteria.

I apply multiple criteria, weigh sources differently across them, and state which criterion most shifted my overall view.

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

I describe how I came across the claim ('I saw it on X') without identifying any algorithmic or platform factor.

I identify one factor (for example, an algorithm prioritises engagement) but do not link it to why this specific claim reached me.

I can identify at least two algorithmic, platform, or production-incentive factors that shaped how a contested claim reached me.

I identify multiple factors and trace how each specifically shaped whether I saw this claim, which framing I saw, and what adjacent content surrounded it.

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

I list biases in the abstract without identifying which one is most likely to affect me on this specific claim.

I name a bias but pick a less-uncomfortable one rather than the bias most clearly at work in my reaction.

I can name the self-bias most likely to affect my interpretation of a contested claim (confirmation, motivated reasoning, in-group alignment).

I name the most-likely self-bias and point to specific moves in my own reasoning where the bias was visible.

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

I state a conclusion without referring back to the bias I named.

I refer to the bias in the conclusion but as an afterthought rather than as a constraint on how I reasoned.

I can justify my conclusion about a contested claim with explicit awareness of the self-bias I named.

I justify my conclusion and show how I adjusted my reasoning to account for the named bias, including where I held a view more tentatively than my gut wanted.

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

I apply methods built for ordinary misinformation that do not engage the synthetic or AI-generated character of the claim.

I apply detection methods appropriate to synthetic content but use only one method and miss cross-verification.

I can apply detection and verification methods appropriate to a real-world contested claim involving synthetic, AI-generated, or sophisticated disinformation.

I apply multiple methods appropriate to the kind of disinformation in play and document what each method revealed or failed to reveal.

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

I describe my process without comparing it to a recognised framework.

I reference a framework but my comparison stays at the level of overall approval rather than examining specific steps.

I can compare my verification process against a recognised critical-appraisal framework (e.g. SIFT, Wineburg's professional fact-checker heuristics).

I compare my process against the named framework step by step, identify where I followed it, where I departed, and what I would do differently next time.

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

I state a single overall conclusion without separating believe, share, act, or acknowledging what I cannot know.

I separate some of the four elements (believe, share, act, what-I-cannot-know) but the 'what I cannot know' line is generic.

I can construct a reasoned conclusion that states what I believe, what I would share, what I would act on, and specifically what I cannot know and why.

I separate all four elements and explain specifically why the unknowable parts are unknowable (technical limits, source inaccessibility, genuine contestation).