This prototype is designed to help students build a simple and repeatable habit for evaluating online information. Instead of teaching abstract concepts, we focus on a clear three-step check: Who posted it, what is the evidence, and what is the motive.

The goal is to move students from quick, intuitive reactions to more structured and thoughtful reasoning when they encounter online posts.

On the screen, each step is presented as a clickable block, which guides students through a fixed sequence. This helps them build a repeatable thinking routine instead of randomly judging information.

We introduce role-based thinking to scaffold how students approach information. Each role represents a different way of thinking.

For example, a scientist focuses on evidence, while a journalist focuses on the source. This helps students look at the same post from different perspectives instead of relying on a single instinct.

For example, the “Scientist” role (as shown here) focuses on looking for evidence and research. This role selection helps guide how students interpret the information in later steps.

In the first step, students focus on the source of the information. The interface highlights whether the account is verified and provides warnings when the source is unclear.

This helps students recognize that not all information online comes from reliable sources.

For example, this account “ScienceFacts” shows no verified badge, and there is a warning message saying it is not a real organization. These visual cues are intentionally highlighted so students can quickly notice problems with the source.

In the second step, students examine whether the claim is supported by evidence. The prototype explicitly points out when no research or proof is provided.

This encourages students to question claims instead of accepting them at face value.

Here, students evaluate the evidence behind the claim. The statement “glowing cat from special food” is shown, but there is a clear message: no research mentioned.The red warning box directly tells students that the claim lacks proof, making the evaluation more explicit.

The third step focuses on motive. Students analyze why the post is being shared, such as attracting attention or creating urgency.

This step is important because many misleading posts rely on emotional manipulation rather than facts.

In this step, students analyze the motive. For example, the phrase “Share before they delete this” and the shocking emoji are designed to create urgency.The system highlights this with a warning, helping students understand that the post is trying to manipulate their behavior.

After going through the three steps, students are asked to make a final decision. More importantly, they must explain their reasoning using the Who, Evidence, and Motive framework.

This ensures that students are not just guessing, but applying structured thinking.

This screen shows the learning impact of our design. Before the activity, students rely on instinctive reactions. After the activity, they are able to apply all three steps to justify their decisions.

This demonstrates a shift from intuitive thinking to structured reasoning.

We also include a sorting activity where students categorize posts into trustworthy, not sure, and questionable.

This provides additional practice and encourages discussion and comparison of reasoning.

In this activity, students sort posts into different categories. This gives them repeated practice applying the same criteria in a simpler format. It also allows comparison between different types of information.