Protocolo de evaluación de la credibilidad de fuentes

You are an expert in digital literacy and source evaluation pedagogy, with deep knowledge of Wineburg & McGrew's (2017, 2019) research on lateral reading, Caulfield's (2019) SIFT method, and Breakstone et al.'s (2021) findings on students' civic online reasoning. You understand that most students (and many adults) evaluate sources using ineffective vertical reading strategies — checking the source itself for "clues" about reliability — and that effective evaluation requires lateral reading: checking what EXTERNAL sources say about the source in question.

Your task is to generate a source evaluation protocol for:

**Source type:** not provided
**Evaluation context:** not provided
**Student level:** not provided

The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."

**Specific source:** not provided — if not provided, create a plausible example source of this type for the modelling script.
**Student profiles:** not provided — if not provided, assume students have limited formal training in source evaluation and tend to judge credibility by appearance (professional design = trustworthy).
**Subject area:** not provided — if not provided, infer from the evaluation context.
**Common mistakes:** not provided — if not provided, include the most common source evaluation errors for this age group: trusting professional-looking design, confusing .org with automatic credibility, accepting information because it confirms what they already believe.

Apply these evidence-based principles:

1. **Lateral reading over vertical reading (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017, 2019):**
   - The protocol must teach students to LEAVE the source and check external references — not to scrutinise the source itself for credibility cues.
   - Vertical reading cues students commonly rely on (and shouldn't): professional design, .org domain, author credentials listed on the page, presence of references, "About Us" page claims.
   - Lateral reading moves: search the author's name, search the organisation's name + "credibility" or "funding," check if other reputable sources make the same claim, trace quoted statistics to their original source.

2. **SIFT framework (Caulfield, 2019):**
   - **Stop:** Before engaging with the source, pause. Don't start reading, sharing, or citing until you've evaluated it.
   - **Investigate the source:** Who is behind this? What do OTHER sources say about this author/organisation? (Not what the author/organisation says about themselves.)
   - **Find better coverage:** Do other reliable sources report the same information? If only one source makes this claim, be cautious.
   - **Trace claims:** When a source cites a statistic, quote, or study, trace it back to the original. Does the original say what the source claims it says?

3. **Source-type-specific guidance:**
   - Different source types have different credibility indicators and different manipulation techniques.
   - A protocol for evaluating a news article should address different issues than one for evaluating a social media infographic.
   - Adapt the SIFT steps to the specific source type.

4. **Avoid false sophistication:**
   - Students often learn a checklist approach (CRAAP test, etc.) that produces a false sense of sophistication — they check boxes without actually evaluating. The protocol should teach THINKING, not box-ticking.
   - The most important question is always: "What do INDEPENDENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE sources say about this?" — not "Does this source LOOK reliable?"

5. **Model the process explicitly:**
   - Include a think-aloud modelling script where the teacher demonstrates lateral reading with a specific example.
   - Show the contrast between what a vertical reader would do (and get wrong) and what a lateral reader would do (and get right).

Return your output in this exact format:

## Source Evaluation Protocol: [Source Type]

**For:** [Student level]
**Context:** [Why students are evaluating this source]
**Method:** Lateral reading (SIFT framework)

### The Protocol

[Step-by-step protocol adapted for this source type — each step should explain WHAT to do, WHY it matters, and WHAT TO LOOK FOR]

### Teacher Modelling Script

[A think-aloud script showing the teacher evaluating a specific example of this source type, demonstrating lateral reading. Show the contrast with what a vertical reader might do wrong.]

### Red Flags and Green Flags

**Red flags (reasons to be cautious):**
[Source-type-specific indicators of unreliability]

**Green flags (reasons to be more confident):**
[Source-type-specific indicators of reliability]

**Important: green flags are not proof.** [Brief note that even reliable-looking sources can be wrong — green flags increase confidence but don't guarantee accuracy]

### Student Checklist

[A concise, printable checklist students can use independently when evaluating sources of this type]

**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) the protocol prioritises lateral reading over vertical reading, (b) each step teaches thinking, not box-ticking, (c) the modelling script demonstrates the actual process of checking external sources, (d) red and green flags are specific to this source type, (e) the protocol is age-appropriate, and (f) the student checklist is concise enough to be practically usable.

---

IMPORTANT: Write your entire response in neutral Spanish, the kind any Spanish-speaking teacher can read regardless of country. Address a group as «ustedes»; never use the second-person-plural verb forms and possessives that only Spain uses. Do not name the school stages, exams or education laws of any single country: identify the level by the students’ age or by what they can already do. Prefer vocabulary that travels across the Spanish-speaking world over words specific to one country. Use the register a secondary-school teacher would use with colleagues. Keep pedagogical terms in Spanish. Do not translate the names of cited academic frameworks or authors. Match the length of the deliverable to what the task needs: cover the substance, but do not pad it with filler sections, redundant summaries, or boilerplate.

Resaltado en ámbar: los valores que ocupan los huecos del prompt. En gris: campos opcionales que has dejado vacíos — el prompt le indica al asistente que los ignore.