This original lesson asks a practical question about one fictional library. Learners compare printed source cards, write a bounded answer and identify the actual verification step needed before relying on it.
Three original source cards
Fictional library L01. No real library hours, live URLs or current schedule confirmations are supplied.
The question is “What time does the library close on Tuesdays this term?”
| Card | Source owner and publication | Exact supplied information | Underlying evidence date |
|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | Official L01 library notice, issued September 1, 2026 | “Tuesday closes at 4 p.m.” | September 1, 2026 notice |
| S02 | Community blog, published October 1, 2026 | “Tuesday closes at 5 p.m.”; explicitly quotes an April 1, 2024 library notice | April 1, 2024 notice |
| S03 | Undated promotional flyer | “Visit after school” | Unknown; no closing time provided |
These cards and wording are original teaching materials. They have no invented source URLs, screenshots or actual messages from a library. Keep card IDs, owners, dates and claims together in the learner comparison sheet.
ALA's information-evaluation guide encourages checking sources, supporting information, dates and purpose, including seeking an original source. This lesson applies those questions to original schedule cards. It does not use the guide's political examples or rate a website's credibility automatically.
Model the two dates in the blog card
Read S02's publication date and the date of its quoted evidence separately. The blog was published on October 1, 2026, but its schedule claim explicitly relies on April 1, 2024.
The later blog date does not update the underlying notice. It does not establish that the library still follows that schedule or that the blog author contacted the library again. Mark that currentness gap without calling the author malicious or assuming why the old notice was used.
S03 has a different problem: “Visit after school” provides no closing hour at all. Do not convert that promotional phrase into 4 p.m., 5 p.m. or another invented time.
Compare directness, support and limits
Among the supplied cards, S01 is the most direct recent statement of the requested Tuesday closing time. It names the fictional library and gives a dated hour. S02 provides an older underlying statement through another publisher; S03 does not answer the hour question.
That comparison supports this teacher reference answer:
“According to the supplied September 1, 2026 L01 notice, Tuesday closing is 4 p.m. Confirm the current official schedule and any closure or later update before an actual visit.”
Do not shorten it to “The real library currently closes at 4.” The cards do not prove that no change occurred after September 1. Nor does an official-owner label make every possible statement universally correct; inspect the specific claim, date and applicability.
The usable learner answer remains blank. Accept other wording that accurately names the source, supplied hour, currentness limit and next check. Teacher review is needed for that reasoning.
A proposed 30-minute lesson
- Question, 5 minutes: Establish the Tuesday-hours question and distinguish it from a general invitation to visit.
- Model source/date tracing, 7 minutes: Read S02 and identify its publication date versus quoted notice date.
- Pair comparison, 10 minutes: Compare all three cards for owner, date, exact support and missing information.
- Bounded answer, 5 minutes: Write the answer with its source and currentness limit; keep the reference key separate.
- Exit, 3 minutes: Identify the next current verification and what evidence would be recorded afterward.
The phases total 5 + 7 + 10 + 5 + 3 = 30 minutes. Confirm actual learner access, materials and timing with the teacher; the plan reports no observed learning outcome.
Prepare a claim-to-source log
Give learners blank fields for claim, card/source owner, publication date, underlying quoted date, supporting text, limitation and next check. Add a separate field for actual current confirmation and where/when it was obtained.
For a real visit, the next step is checking the current official schedule and closure notices or contacting the responsible library through its actual process. The lesson's printed fixture performs none of those actions. Leave that confirmation field blank rather than invent a phone reply or browse result.
If current evidence conflicts, record the exact statements and dates and ask the responsible source for clarification. A newer headline or larger logo is not an answer by itself.
Keep the teaching review separate from live research
Maintain the native lesson plan, printable cards, clean learner log and actual observations in the approved school workflow. The companion exposes the date chain and source-supported answer, but cannot verify current hours, send a message or grade credibility through a button.
The lesson's useful output is the traceable answer and remaining verification question. It leaves learners with a concrete way to inspect a practical claim rather than an unsupported “trust this source” score.
Copy a source-date library lesson brief
Create one complete, self-contained US-English HTML companion for “Source date lab • library lesson”. Return the full HTML document, with inline CSS and any JavaScript needed for the local interactions. Use the original scenario, named records, numbers and expected cases below.
Design the page for this task: use clearly labeled input or source records, a readable result or worked example, and an adjacent explanation of the evidence. Use a restrained visual hierarchy, left-aligned text, readable tables or stacked records, and a responsive layout at 720px and 360px. Provide meaningful labeled controls for S01 · library notice; S02 · community blog; S03 · promotional flyer; Learner comparison; Teacher plan & reference; Prepare learner record; Select learner record; Prepare text; Select text. Use keyboard-accessible native controls and visible focus. Keep the complete content readable without an external dependency.
The following brief supplies the substantive content and constraints. Native-format requests describe the material to represent or copy manually; this HTML must not pretend to create DOCX, XLSX, PDF, PPTX, H5P or another native file, run Python/Flask/Django/Snowflake/Power BI, connect a live service, send messages, or perform an authorized real-world action. Where the task requires a native source, actual observation or separate approval, retain that requirement and leave unsupplied evidence blank.
Draft a library information-evaluation lesson in US English.
Learner/access context, duration and required print/school format: [enter]
Practical question and original or authorized source cards/IDs: [paste]
Owner, publication date, underlying cited date and exact claim: [paste]
Teacher-confirmed reasoning criteria and actual verification process: [enter]
Trace the claim to supporting text and the underlying source/date. A new
publication does not refresh old cited evidence. Promotional text without an
hour cannot supply a closing time. Use a bounded answer naming the supplied
source and remaining currentness check; official-owner labels are not universal
proof. Keep actual current confirmation and learner reasoning blank until observed. Allow multiple accurate phrasings; teacher reviews reasoning, not an automated
credibility score. Make phases sum to the lesson duration. Do not invent URLs,
hours, messages, live searches, learner results or standards approval.
Return the proposed sequence, printable cards/log, separate reference key and
blank observation fields. If requested, specify an HTML teacher-review copy
showing the date/evidence chain. No live verification, message sending or collection.
COMPLETE AUTHORED SCENARIO AND EXPECTED CASES
The following is the supplied reading/teaching/calculation record to represent in the companion. Preserve its particular content, examples, source references and unknowns. Wording about a future native implementation refers to that native task, not permission to omit this HTML companion.
# Library Lesson Plan Template: Trace the Date Behind a Current Claim
A blog post published this month repeats library hours from two years ago. Its new publication date does not make the quoted schedule current. Teach learners to trace the claim to its underlying source and preserve what still needs checking.
This original lesson asks a practical question about one fictional library. Learners compare printed source cards, write a bounded answer and identify the actual verification step needed before relying on it.
## Three original source cards
**Fictional library L01. No real library hours, live URLs or current schedule confirmations are supplied.**
The question is **“What time does the library close on Tuesdays this term?”**
| Card | Source owner and publication | Exact supplied information | Underlying evidence date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| S01 | Official L01 library notice, issued September 1, 2026 | “Tuesday closes at 4 p.m.” | September 1, 2026 notice |
| S02 | Community blog, published October 1, 2026 | “Tuesday closes at 5 p.m.”; explicitly quotes an April 1, 2024 library notice | April 1, 2024 notice |
| S03 | Undated promotional flyer | “Visit after school” | Unknown; no closing time provided |
These cards and wording are original teaching materials. They have no invented source URLs, screenshots or actual messages from a library. Keep card IDs, owners, dates and claims together in the learner comparison sheet.
[ALA's information-evaluation guide](https://libguides.ala.org/InformationEvaluation) encourages checking sources, supporting information, dates and purpose, including seeking an original source. This lesson applies those questions to original schedule cards. It does not use the guide's political examples or rate a website's credibility automatically.
## Model the two dates in the blog card
Read S02's publication date and the date of its quoted evidence separately. The blog was published on **October 1, 2026**, but its schedule claim explicitly relies on **April 1, 2024**.
The later blog date does not update the underlying notice. It does not establish that the library still follows that schedule or that the blog author contacted the library again. Mark that currentness gap without calling the author malicious or assuming why the old notice was used.
S03 has a different problem: “Visit after school” provides no closing hour at all. Do not convert that promotional phrase into 4 p.m., 5 p.m. or another invented time.
## Compare directness, support and limits
Among the supplied cards, S01 is the most direct recent statement of the requested Tuesday closing time. It names the fictional library and gives a dated hour. S02 provides an older underlying statement through another publisher; S03 does not answer the hour question.
That comparison supports this **teacher reference answer**:
**“According to the supplied September 1, 2026 L01 notice, Tuesday closing is 4 p.m. Confirm the current official schedule and any closure or later update before an actual visit.”**
Do not shorten it to “The real library currently closes at 4.” The cards do not prove that no change occurred after September 1. Nor does an official-owner label make every possible statement universally correct; inspect the specific claim, date and applicability.
The usable learner answer remains blank. Accept other wording that accurately names the source, supplied hour, currentness limit and next check. Teacher review is needed for that reasoning.
## A proposed 30-minute lesson
1. **Question, 5 minutes:** Establish the Tuesday-hours question and distinguish it from a general invitation to visit.
2. **Model source/date tracing, 7 minutes:** Read S02 and identify its publication date versus quoted notice date.
3. **Pair comparison, 10 minutes:** Compare all three cards for owner, date, exact support and missing information.
4. **Bounded answer, 5 minutes:** Write the answer with its source and currentness limit; keep the reference key separate.
5. **Exit, 3 minutes:** Identify the next current verification and what evidence would be recorded afterward.
The phases total **5 + 7 + 10 + 5 + 3 = 30 minutes**. Confirm actual learner access, materials and timing with the teacher; the plan reports no observed learning outcome.
## Prepare a claim-to-source log
Give learners blank fields for **claim, card/source owner, publication date, underlying quoted date, supporting text, limitation and next check**. Add a separate field for actual current confirmation and where/when it was obtained.
For a real visit, the next step is checking the current official schedule and closure notices or contacting the responsible library through its actual process. The lesson's printed fixture performs none of those actions. Leave that confirmation field blank rather than invent a phone reply or browse result.
If current evidence conflicts, record the exact statements and dates and ask the responsible source for clarification. A newer headline or larger logo is not an answer by itself.
## Keep the teaching review separate from live research
Maintain the native lesson plan, printable cards, clean learner log and actual observations in the approved school workflow. The companion exposes the date chain and source-supported answer, but cannot verify current hours, send a message or grade credibility through a button.
The lesson's useful output is the traceable answer and remaining verification question. It leaves learners with a concrete way to inspect a practical claim rather than an unsupported “trust this source” score.
## Copy a source-date library lesson brief
Implement the local companion rather than returning a text-only plan. Preserve every numerical fixture and the distinction between illustrative expectations and actual evidence. Any native-runtime or classroom tests mentioned above remain tests to perform in the proper environment; do not mark them passed. Keep edits and practice responses in this open page only, without claiming persistent storage. Provide invalid/missing-input feedback and reset behavior that agree with this specific brief. Do not claim accessibility certification, learning gains, real approvals or test results that were not observed.
Follow S02's 2026 publication back to its 2024 notice with a teaching colleague before using the source cards. Keep actual confirmations in the approved workflow, and retain the answer's dated source and unresolved currentness check when discussing what the cards establish.