Grade 7 · secular
This course teaches your kid that search results, library catalogs, and social feeds don't hand them "the truth" — they hand them the output of a system with rules, and sometimes money, behind it. Over a semester they learn how those systems rank things, how to tell what kind of source they're looking at (someone who was there vs. someone summarizing vs. an encyclopedia pointing elsewhere), and a concrete four-step method (SIFT) for checking whether something is actually trustworthy without falling for slick design or a scary headline. It ends with them picking a real question they care about, researching it for real, and writing up not just what they found but how much they trust each source and why. The payoff isn't trivia about the internet — it's a habit of leaving the page to check, instead of reading harder.
The whole year, in plain English. Tap any unit to see every skill inside, nothing is hidden.
This unit pulls back the curtain on something your kid uses every day without thinking about: every ranked list — a library catalog, a search results page, a social media feed — is built by rules someone designed, not a neutral window onto truth. They start with something concrete they can hold, like a library call number, then work up to something abstract, like a search engine's index, then to something personal, like their own feed.
Given a library catalog record, identify the call number, subject headings, and controlled vocabulary terms and state what each is used for.
Explain how a reference librarian narrows a vague question into a searchable one by asking clarifying questions, using a sample reference interview transcript.
Compare how a library catalog and a web search engine each build their searchable database, distinguishing controlled-vocabulary indexing from automated crawling.
Given an unfamiliar real search engine results page, identify at least three distinct ranking signals (relevance, links, freshness, popularity, payment) that plausibly explain why specific results appear where they do.
On a real, current search engine results page, distinguish sponsored results from organic results and state the visual or textual marker used to tell them apart.
Explain how a recommendation feed uses a user's engagement history (clicks, watch time, likes) as an input signal to decide what to show next.
Given a description of a novel ranking system never discussed in class (e.g., a hypothetical music-recommendation app or a job-board search tool), infer which named ranking signals it likely uses and justify the inference from the system's stated goals.
Describe, without using alarmist language, how a filter bubble forms from repeated engagement-based ranking and what evidence would show a student is inside one.
Run the identical query on two real search engines (or one search engine and one library catalog), and write a labeled comparison identifying ranking signals present, sponsorship status, and a hypothesis for why the two lists differ that cites a specific observed feature from the student's own two pages.
Your child learns to sort sources into primary, secondary, and tertiary — but the twist is that this isn't a fixed label stuck to a document, it depends on the question being asked. Then the unit turns to Wikipedia specifically: how talk pages and edit history show fights over content getting settled, and the rule that you cite what Wikipedia points to, not Wikipedia itself.
Given a research question and a document, state whether the document is primary, secondary, or tertiary for that question, using the taught definitions.
Explain why the same document can be primary for one research question and secondary or tertiary for another, using a worked pair of contrasting questions.
Given an unfamiliar document and an unfamiliar research question not used in instruction, justify a source-category assignment in one sentence tied to that question.
Describe what a Wikipedia talk page and edit history reveal about how an article's content was contested and settled.
Trace a claim in a Wikipedia article to its cited footnote and rate whether the cited source actually supports the claim as stated.
Explain the rule 'don't cite the tertiary source, cite what it points to,' using a specific tertiary source and its underlying citation as evidence.
Compare a primary account and a secondary analysis of the same event to judge which better answers a stated research question.
Given a completely new topic and article not covered in class, design a short procedure a classmate could follow to check whether a tertiary source's claim is well-supported.
This is where your child gets an actual method for checking whether something's trustworthy: SIFT — Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace claims. The one move that repeats in every lesson is leaving the page to check elsewhere, instead of reading it harder. They practice on real, live news articles, sponsored posts, viral claims, and AI-written text.
Explain why leaving a page to check other sources verifies a claim faster than rereading the page itself.
Name the four SIFT steps in order and state, in one sentence each, what each step asks you to do.
Apply the four SIFT steps in order to a single unfamiliar web page.
Classify a webpage's 'About' page claims as self-description versus independently verifiable fact.
Compare coverage of the same claim across at least three independent sources to judge whether it is well-supported.
Trace a quote or statistic in a news article back to its original source and judge whether the article represented it accurately.
Identify native advertising and sponsored content in real media even when labeling is inconsistent or subtle.
Evaluate whether a piece of text was likely AI-generated, using current tells, and explain the limits of that judgment.
Generalize the SIFT method to an entirely new media format not used during instruction, such as a podcast transcript or an infographic.
Explain why an emotionally-charged headline is a deliberate design choice rather than an accidental byproduct of reporting.
Produce a trust rating with a justification paragraph for a real, currently-live web item using source-type, lateral-reading trail, and traced claims as evidence.
From the parent guide
This course teaches your kid that search results, library catalogs, and social feeds don't hand them "the truth" — they hand them the output of a system with rules, and sometimes money, behind it. Over a semester they learn how those systems rank things, how to tell what kind of source they're looking at (someone who was there vs. someone summarizing vs. an encyclopedia pointing elsewhere), and a concrete four-step method (SIFT) for checking whether something is actually trustworthy without falling for slick design or a scary headline. It ends with them picking a real question they care about, researching it for real, and writing up not just what they found but how much they trust each source and why. The payoff isn't trivia about the internet — it's a habit of leaving the page to check, instead of reading harder.
Unit 1 · what to expect
This unit pulls back the curtain on something your kid uses every day without thinking about: every ranked list — a library catalog, a search results page, a social media feed — is built by rules someone designed, not a neutral window onto truth. They start with something concrete they can hold, like a library call number, then work up to something abstract, like a search engine's index, then to something personal, like their own feed.
The full guide covers all 4 units: where kids get stuck, what to say, and how to tell it's working. Included with the course.
Ready when you are
Free for 30 days · then $29/mo or $290/yr for the whole family · Cancel anytime, no questions asked.
Start your family's account