- For a 5-day mini research project, an 8th grader asks: "How does blue light from screens affect sleep in middle school students?" They plan to use 4 sources: (1) a kids' health website article, (2) a short scientific study summary from a university site, (3) a book chapter on sleep from the school library, and (4) an interview with the school nurse. Which evaluation best explains why this is an appropriate research question for the short project?
Answer: It is appropriate because it is focused (blue light + sleep + middle schoolers), can be answered in a week using several accessible sources, and invites synthesis across sources.
The best answer recognizes that the question is focused on one factor (blue light), one outcome (sleep), and one group (middle schoolers), so it is small enough to research in five days yet still requires pulling ideas together from the website, study, book, and nurse—that combining is real research, not a single lookup. The 'too broad' choice is wrong because the question does not ask about every device, age group, or health effect; it targets one clear relationship the four sources can reasonably cover. The 'too narrow' choice is wrong because a 'how' question asks for explanation, and the four different source types (general, scientific, background, practical) offer different information rather than repeating one fact—so a single source would not answer it. The 'unanswerable' choice is wrong because the planned sources are all things students can actually reach and read; useful information is not locked away in professional journals only. Because only one choice correctly matches the question's scope, timeframe, and need for synthesis, it is the single best evaluation.
- For a 5-day social studies project, Jordan is assigned "research voting." He narrows it to: "How did the Voting Rights Act of 1965 change voter access in Mississippi between 1964 and 1968?" He plans to use 3–4 sources: a textbook chapter, a National Archives webpage with primary documents, a short scholarly article written for students, and a local newspaper retrospective. Which evaluation is most accurate about whether Jordan's research question is appropriate for a short project?
Answer: It is focused and time-bounded (place + years + topic), and the planned sources are accessible enough to answer it in about a week.
The best answer recognizes that Jordan's question is scoped tightly by place (Mississippi), time (1964–1968), and topic (the Voting Rights Act's effect on access), which makes it manageable in five days—and his planned mix of a textbook, National Archives documents, a student article, and a newspaper retrospective are all reachable and let him synthesize how access actually changed.
The "too broad" choice misreads the question: it treats it as covering every voting law across the whole country, but Jordan limited himself to one act, one state, and four years, so it is not broad at all.
The "too narrow" choice is wrong because explaining how access changed requires combining legal text, real data, and local effects—not a single date or yes/no lookup, so multiple sources genuinely help.
The "unanswerable" choice invents a false barrier: voting-law history and 1960s civil rights records are public through archives, libraries, and educational sources like the ones Jordan already listed, so no special clearance is needed.
- For a 5-day health project, Priya asks: "How does dehydration affect concentration during school?" She uses only one source: a single blog post written by an unknown author, and she does not check any other information. She then makes a strong claim that "dehydration always cuts test scores in half." Which evaluation best describes the problem with Priya's research?
Answer: Priya relies on a single, possibly unreliable source and makes an overconfident claim; she should use multiple credible sources and compare evidence.
The best answer points out that Priya trusted one blog post by an unknown author and then made a sweeping claim that dehydration "always" cuts scores in half. Good short research uses several credible sources, checks who wrote them, and keeps claims matched to the evidence—so this option names the actual problem and the fix.
The choice saying one clear online source is enough is wrong because being online does not make a source reliable, and a single source cannot confirm a strong claim or reveal errors and bias. The choice blaming her question for being too vague is wrong because attention and test performance are regularly measured, and her focused question is fine—her sourcing is the issue. The choice calling her topic too broad is also wrong: a question about dehydration and concentration is well scoped, and widening it to all nutrition and all learning would make a 5-day project unmanageable. Only the answer about using multiple credible sources and comparing evidence fixes what actually went wrong.
- A 1-week civics project asks students to investigate a community issue. Harper chooses: "Should our city ban single-use plastic bags?" She uses 5 sources: the city council agenda packet, a local grocery store manager interview, a nonprofit environmental group webpage, a short economics explainer on externalities, and a neighboring city's ordinance text. Which improvement would make Harper's research question more focused and easier to answer well in a week while still allowing multiple avenues of exploration?
Answer: Revise to: "What were the environmental and economic effects in the first year after a plastic bag ban in a nearby city, and what evidence suggests similar effects might happen here?"
A strong one-week research question stays specific enough to answer with the available sources while still opening several lines of inquiry. The winning revision focuses on one nearby city, one timeframe (the first year), and two measurable effect types (environmental and economic), then asks what evidence predicts similar results here—so Harper can use the ordinance text, environmental group, grocery manager, economics explainer, and council packet, and still explore multiple angles. The question about a bag's materials and manufacturing steps is too narrow: it's a single factual lookup with no room for multiple avenues of exploration. The question asking for all arguments for and against a ban across cities is too broad and unfocused—covering every social and legal angle in every city can't be researched well in a week. The question about global shopping habits and waste in every country that has restricted plastics is also too broad; that worldwide scope is impossible to answer well with five local sources in a week. Only the focused revision balances a manageable scope with real depth.
- In a 1-week social studies inquiry, Jordan starts with the question: "Why did people move during the Great Migration?" Jordan uses 3 sources: a textbook chapter, a National Archives website page with photos and captions, and a short biography of a migrant family. After reading, Jordan writes an answer that connects job opportunities, segregation laws, and World War I factory demand, and notes that the biography adds personal reasons like family safety. Which set of new related questions best extends Jordan's research in multiple directions while staying focused enough for another short project?
Answer: "How did northern newspapers and recruiters influence decisions to move?" "How did housing policies in northern cities affect migrants after they arrived?" "How did the Great Migration change music or culture in Chicago?"
The best set asks about northern newspapers and recruiters, housing policies after migrants arrived, and cultural change in one city like Chicago. These questions grow directly out of what Jordan already found, push the research into new directions (persuasion, policy, culture), and each is narrow enough to answer in another one-week project.
The set about why people moved north, southern hardships, and wartime factory jobs is weak because Jordan already answered these in the first project—they repeat findings instead of extending them.
The set about every American city over two hundred years, people everywhere, and all of world history is far too broad to research in a short project; no single week of sources could cover that scope.
The set asking which year it began, which year it ended, and which states received the most migrants only calls for single facts you could look up in minutes—these aren't open questions that require synthesizing sources, so they don't extend the inquiry.
- For a 4-day environmental project, Nico's initial question is: "How does road salt affect a local pond in winter?" He uses 3 sources: a state environmental agency webpage on chloride pollution, a short article about amphibians and salt exposure, and a news story about salty runoff in his county. His draft answer says: "Road salt is bad. It can hurt animals." It doesn't mention chloride levels, runoff pathways, or the amphibian evidence from his sources. Which choice best describes what Nico needs to do to develop an answer from research?
Answer: Pull specific details from all three sources (how chloride reaches ponds, what levels are concerning, and how salt affects amphibians) and connect them to his pond to build a supported explanation.
The best choice tells Nico to pull specific details from all three sources—how chloride enters ponds through runoff, what chloride levels are concerning, and how salt harms amphibians—and connect them to his own pond. That turns a vague draft into a supported, evidence-based explanation, which is exactly what research requires. Focusing on how the topic makes him feel is wrong because a research answer must be built on evidence, not mainly on personal opinions. Summarizing only the news story and dropping the other two sources is wrong because using multiple sources is what makes research strong; cutting them removes the chloride data and amphibian evidence he needs. Narrowing the question to "What is salt?" is wrong because a one-line definition abandons his real inquiry and never uses his sources at all—easier is not the same as answering the research question. Only one choice actually synthesizes evidence from several sources and applies it to his specific pond.
- A teacher assigns: "Research social media." An 8th grader proposes this 1-week question: "How has social media affected society?" They plan to use 3 sources: a news article, a psychology website, and a documentary clip. Which revision makes the question more focused and still researchable in a week?
Answer: "How does daily Instagram use relate to self-esteem and sleep habits in teenagers?"
The strongest revision narrows the topic to something you could actually investigate in a week with three sources. Asking how daily Instagram use relates to self-esteem and sleep habits in teenagers names one platform, one behavior, two measurable effects, and one age group—specific enough that a news article, psychology website, and documentary clip could each contribute evidence.
The choice about every platform changing communication, politics, and relationships worldwide since the 1990s is still far too broad, covering decades and the whole planet—no three sources could answer it in a week. The choice about how popular apps shape the way people everywhere think, feel, and behave sounds specific but keeps the same problems as the original question: 'people around the world' and 'think, feel, and behave' cover almost everything. The choice about how early companies developed the first platforms is really a history fact-lookup; it drifts away from studying social media's effects and doesn't need synthesis across your sources. Only the Instagram question focuses the scope while keeping real research value.
- For a 3–5 day ELA research sprint, a group must choose the best research question that allows multiple avenues of exploration and can be answered using 2–5 sources (library books, credible websites, and one interview). Which question is the best choice?
Answer: "How have community gardens in our city affected access to fresh produce in the last five years, and what challenges do organizers report?"
The best research question is the one about how community gardens have affected access to fresh produce over five years and what challenges organizers report. It is focused on one city and one timeframe, yet it opens several paths to explore—neighborhood differences, funding, health effects—and it truly needs multiple sources: books on urban gardening, websites with local data, and an interview with organizers. The rainforest question sounds researchable, but it points to facts you can look up in a single reference and even asks where to find them fast, so it needs no real synthesis across sources. The question about the history of food, science, cooking, and farming across the whole world is far too broad for a 3–5 day sprint; you could never cover that scope with 2–5 sources. The question about which garden is the prettiest and which one people personally like best asks for opinions and personal preferences, which sources cannot answer or prove. Only the fresh-produce question matches the assignment's scope, source variety, and room to extend—so it is the single best choice.
- In a 1-week ELA research project, Sam asks: "How accurate is the movie's portrayal of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake?" Sam uses 4 sources: (1) a museum website timeline, (2) a USGS educational page, (3) a diary excerpt from a survivor (primary source), and (4) a film review blog. In his write-up, Sam summarizes each source in separate paragraphs but never compares the movie scenes to the sources or explains which sources are more trustworthy. Which choice best assesses Sam's use of sources?
Answer: Sam gathers several sources, but he neither synthesizes them nor evaluates credibility; he needs to connect specific movie claims to evidence drawn from across his sources.
The best answer points out that Sam collected several sources but only summarized them one at a time—he never synthesized them or judged their credibility. Real accuracy analysis requires connecting specific movie claims to evidence across sources, like checking whether the film's fire timing matches both the survivor diary and the USGS page. That is exactly what Sam skipped. One tempting choice claims that listing and summarizing four sources already counts as full synthesis, but stacking separate summaries is not the same as integrating them into one judgment. Another says the diary should replace the museum and USGS sources because a primary source is always more trustworthy; a survivor's memory is valuable but limited to one viewpoint, so 'always more trustworthy' is false. The last choice says to rely mainly on the blog because a reviewer watched the whole movie; a review is an opinion piece, weaker for verifying facts than established institutions like a museum or the USGS. Strong research combines authoritative and primary sources and compares them to the film, rather than trusting one source or treating summaries as analysis.
- In a 5-day literature + history mini-research project, Elena asks: "How did rationing during World War II affect what families cooked at home in the U.S.?" She uses 4 sources: a WWII ration book image description from a museum site, two wartime recipe pamphlets (primary sources), and a modern historian's article for students. She writes an answer saying families substituted ingredients (like using less meat and sugar) and connects specific recipe changes to ration limits. She then generates these additional questions:
1) "How did rationing affect families differently in cities versus rural areas?"
2) "How did government propaganda encourage people to accept rationing?"
3) "What ingredients were rationed in the U.K. compared to the U.S.?"
4) "Why do people like food?"
Which evaluation best describes the quality of Elena's additional questions?
Answer: Questions 1–3 extend the research in focused, researchable directions; question 4 is too broad and not clearly connected to rationing.
The best answer notes that questions 1–3 extend the research in focused, researchable directions while question 4 is too broad and not clearly connected to rationing. Questions 1–3 each grow out of Elena's findings and stay manageable: city-versus-rural differences, the role of propaganda seen in the pamphlets, and a U.S.–U.K. comparison of rationed ingredients. Each gives her a specific angle to investigate in a short project. Question 4, "Why do people like food?", is a huge, general question about all people everywhere; it doesn't come from her research on wartime cooking and couldn't be answered with focused sources.
Saying all four are equally connected is wrong because question 4 is neither focused nor tied to rationing. Claiming only question 4 extends the research is wrong because good follow-up questions need to be focused and researchable, not just broad or interesting—breadth alone is not the goal. Saying none of the questions extend the research is also wrong: strong follow-up questions should open new, related angles on the topic, not repeat the exact original question. Only the second evaluation correctly separates the three usable questions from the one that fails.
- For a 4-day health mini-inquiry, Lila writes the research question: "How does sleep affect teenagers?" She has access to 3 sources: a children's hospital webpage on teen sleep, a short psychology article about sleep and memory, and a school counselor interview. Which revision best improves the question's focus while keeping it open to research and answerable in a few days?
Answer: "How does getting 7 vs. 9 hours of sleep affect 8th graders' attention and mood during the school day, according to health and psychology sources?"
The best revision names a specific comparison (7 vs. 9 hours), a specific group (8th graders like Lila), specific effects (attention and mood), a specific setting (the school day), and source types that match what she has. That scope is focused enough to answer in four days, yet open enough to require combining her three sources. The option about how sleep shapes "overall health, mood, learning, and social life" stays too broad—it packs in many effects and no comparison, so four days and three sources can't cover it. The option about "every age group worldwide" and "nationwide policies" has an impossible scope and drifts into a separate policy question beyond sleep's effects. The option asking how scientists define sleep and what stages the body cycles through is a factual lookup with a settled answer, not an open inquiry that needs synthesis. Only the keyed question balances real focus with genuine research.
- An assignment says: "Research climate change." For a 1-week project, Sam proposes the research question: "How does climate change affect Earth?" Sam can access 4 sources: a middle school science textbook, NASA's climate website, a local news story about heat days, and a short article about sea level rise. Which revision makes Sam's question more focused and still researchable with those sources in a week?
Answer: "How has the number of extremely hot days changed in our state over the last 30 years, and what impacts does that have on students' outdoor activities?"
The best revision narrows the topic enough to finish in a week with the four sources: it names one place (our state), one clear measure (extremely hot days), one timeframe (30 years), and one specific impact (students' outdoor activities). NASA data and the local heat-day story directly support it, and the textbook explains the science—so Sam can synthesize sources instead of just looking up one fact.
The policy question asking what every country should do to end global warming stays impossibly broad and shifts to global solutions no student could research from four sources in a week. The question about how rising temperatures, rainfall, and melting ice have altered ecosystems worldwide sounds detailed, but 'across the whole planet' keeps the scope as wide as the original. The question covering causes, effects, and solutions for every ecosystem and region on Earth actually widens the topic instead of focusing it. Only the state-and-students question tightens the question while staying answerable with Sam's sources.
- A student has 1 week to research a question about local government. They start with: "How does our city decide where to build new parks?" Sources they found: the city parks department webpage, minutes from a recent city council meeting, a local newspaper article about a proposed park, and a short interview with a city planner. After reading, the student writes an answer explaining that decisions usually combine budget limits, land availability, and community feedback. Which set of additional questions best extends the research in multiple directions while staying focused and related?
Answer: "How does the city collect community feedback about parks (surveys, meetings, online forms)?" "What criteria are used to choose a park location (safety, walkability, equity)?" "How does park funding work (grants, taxes, donations)?"
The keyed set works because each question grows directly out of what the student already discovered: they learned decisions combine community feedback, land factors, and budget, so they now dig deeper into each one—how feedback is gathered, what criteria pick a location, and how funding works. Every question is focused enough to answer in a week using the same kinds of local sources, and together they open three different but related paths.
The set asking what makes a park beautiful, why people enjoy the outdoors, and which country has the most impressive parks drifts away from the original question about how the city makes decisions—it explores taste and global comparisons instead of the local decision process.
The set counting how many parks exist worldwide, when parks were invented, and the largest park on Earth asks trivia-style lookup questions that don't build on the student's findings and can't be answered with local city sources.
The set about nearby cities, local businesses, and how long building takes is tempting because it sounds practical, but it shifts focus to other cities and construction timelines rather than extending how OUR city decides where to build—so it wanders off the original inquiry.
Only the keyed set stays anchored to the city's actual decision-making while branching into feedback, criteria, and funding.
- For a 4-day science mini-inquiry, a student investigates: "Do compostable utensils actually break down in a school cafeteria compost bin?" They use two sources: a product advertisement from a utensil company and a single TikTok video review. They conclude: "Yes, they always break down quickly." Which assessment of the source use is most accurate?
Answer: The research relies on limited and potentially biased sources; adding a composting guide or a waste-management site would strengthen the answer.
The best answer points out that both sources here are limited and likely biased: an advertisement wants to sell the product, and a single video is just one person's experience. Adding a composting guide or a waste-management site brings in credible, varied information, so this choice correctly diagnoses the problem and suggests a real fix. One wrong choice claims two agreeing sources make the conclusion reliable—but agreement between a seller and a single reviewer isn't proof, since both may be biased. Another says the project already has enough sources and just needs the video checked—two commercial and social-media sources aren't enough variety for a solid conclusion. The last wrong choice blames the question for being too broad, but this question is actually well focused for a 4-day inquiry; the real weakness is the sources, not the topic. Good short research needs several credible, varied sources, which is why only one answer fits.
- A student has 5 days to complete a mini research poster about nutrition. Their initial question is: "What should humans eat to be healthy?" Available sources: the USDA MyPlate website, a pediatrician Q&A page, a library book on teen nutrition, and a school cafeteria menu. Which option best improves the question's focus while still using those sources well?
Answer: How can an 8th grader build a balanced school lunch using MyPlate guidelines and our cafeteria menu?
The strongest refinement narrows the question to a specific age group, a specific meal, and a specific practical goal: helping an 8th grader plan a balanced school lunch. This scope fits the 5-day limit and lets you actually use all four sources together—MyPlate for meal structure, the pediatrician page and teen nutrition book for what adolescents need, and the cafeteria menu for real choices. The option about eating needs across every age, culture, and climate is still far too broad to answer well in 5 days, and your sources focus on teen nutrition, not the whole world. The option asking what makes some foods healthier than others for teens sounds reasonable but stays vague—it never narrows to a workable, answerable project and offers no plan for using the menu or MyPlate. The option about the chemical structure of glucose and how the body stores energy shifts to biochemistry, which your nutrition-focused sources can't support and which drifts away from meal planning. Only the school-lunch question matches your sources, timeframe, and purpose while staying meaningful.
- In a 1-week science mini-project, Maya wonders: "Do different brands of bottled water contain different amounts of microplastics, and how do researchers measure them?" She uses 4 sources: (1) a short scientific article summarizing microplastic-counting methods (filtration + microscopy), (2) a consumer lab website explaining contamination risks during sampling, (3) a news report about microplastics in bottled water, and (4) an interview email with a local university lab tech about basic lab steps. She writes an answer that compares what the sources agree on (contamination control matters) and what they differ on (which method is most accurate), then suggests next steps. Which set of additional questions best extends her research in multiple focused directions for another few days of work?
Answer: "How do sampling steps (like rinsing bottles and wearing cotton vs. synthetic clothing) change microplastic counts?", "How do microscopy and spectroscopy compare for identifying plastic types in a school-friendly summary?", and "Do microplastic counts differ between bottled water and filtered tap water in our town?"
The best set asks how sampling steps change counts, how microscopy and spectroscopy compare, and whether bottled water differs from local tap water. These questions grow directly out of Maya's findings: they extend the "contamination control matters" agreement, dig into the "which method is most accurate" disagreement, and apply her learning to a local comparison. Each is specific, answerable in a few days, and points research in a different focused direction. One set asks broad, feelings-based questions—how contamination happens, why people worry, whether pieces match other foods—that stay vague and don't build on her method-and-contamination work. Another set is far too big for a one-week project: ranking every brand worldwide, imagining global plastic bans, and predicting ocean-wide effects are policy and scope questions, not measurement ones she could actually investigate. The last set is just single-fact lookups—a chemical formula, who invented bottled water, and when plastic bottles replaced glass—that could be answered with one quick search and don't require synthesizing or extending her research at all. Only the first set turns what she found into new, focused investigations.
- In a 6-day project, Aiden investigates: "Do native plants support more local pollinators than non-native ornamentals in our neighborhood?" He uses 5 sources: a local field guide to native plants, a state extension office webpage on pollinator gardening, a short scientific article on plant–pollinator relationships, a community garden's planting list, and his own 3-day observation notes. He answers by combining what his observations show with what the sources explain about nectar, bloom timing, and habitat. Which set of additional questions most effectively extends the research into different focused directions?
Answer: "How do bloom season and flower shape affect which pollinators visit?", "Which 3 native species would be best for a shaded school courtyard and why?", and "How do pesticides used on ornamentals change pollinator visits according to extension sources?"
The best set opens genuinely new, focused directions that grow out of what Aiden already learned. Asking how bloom season and flower shape affect visits deepens the plant–pollinator idea; asking which 3 native species suit a shaded courtyard applies findings to a new setting with a real constraint; asking how pesticides change visits investigates a factor discovered during research. Each is specific, researchable, and points somewhere different—exactly what "extends into different focused directions" means.
The set asking which plants are in the garden list, what the field guide said, and which pollinators the notes recorded only re-gathers information Aiden already collected, so it repeats the project instead of extending it. The set about the "prettiest" arrangement, a legal planting requirement, and the "single best plant everywhere" mixes subjective taste, a policy demand, and an impossible universal claim—none is a focused, researchable extension. The set counting all pollinator species on Earth, all ecosystems worldwide, and native plants on every continent is impossibly broad and cannot be answered by a short neighborhood study. Only one set both narrows scope and moves the inquiry forward.
- In a 1-week history mini-project, a student asks: "Why did people join the Great Migration (1916–1970)?" They use 4 sources: a textbook section, a Library of Congress primary-source photo caption set, a short article from a museum website, and a map-based encyclopedia entry. Their write-up lists one fact from each source in separate paragraphs but never connects ideas across sources. Which evaluation best describes the problem?
Answer: The student has multiple sources but did not synthesize them; they should combine evidence to explain major push/pull factors and show how sources support or differ.
The heart of research isn't collecting facts—it's connecting them. This student gathered four solid sources but left each fact stranded in its own paragraph. The best evaluation notes that the student has multiple sources but never synthesized them, and should combine the evidence to explain major push/pull factors (like discrimination pushing people from the South and factory jobs pulling them North) and show where sources agree or differ. That's the skill being tested.
The option praising the student for keeping each source separate is wrong: separation is the actual problem, not a sign of synthesis. The option claiming four sources is too few misfires because four appropriate sources is plenty for a one-week project—the trouble is how they're used, not how many there are. The option saying the question was framed poorly is also wrong: "Why did people join the Great Migration?" is a clear, answerable research question, and the causes can absolutely be connected—that's exactly what synthesis does. Only one choice correctly identifies that the student needs to weave the sources together into a single explanation.
- A student has a 1-week project on energy at school. They self-generate this question: "How much electricity could our school save by switching classroom lights from fluorescent to LED?" They plan to use 5 sources: the school's recent electric bill (with permission), a district facilities webpage about lighting, a government energy-savings calculator page, an article comparing LED vs fluorescent efficiency, and an interview with the head custodian. Which choice best explains why the planned sources fit the question?
Answer: They are varied and relevant: real school data plus expert info and efficiency comparisons, which can be synthesized to estimate savings within a week.
Tests conducting short research projects to answer questions (including self-generated questions), drawing on several sources (multiple not single), and generating additional related focused questions that allow multiple avenues of exploration extending initial inquiry. Short research projects develop research skills through manageable focused investigations: student self-generates specific question "How much electricity could our school save by switching classroom lights from fluorescent to LED?" and plans 5 sources combining real data with expert information for comprehensive analysis within 1-week timeframe. Drawing on several sources strengthens research through variety and relevance: school's electric bill provides actual baseline usage data (real numbers for current costs), district facilities webpage offers context about current lighting systems, government calculator enables standardized savings projections, article comparing LED vs fluorescent supplies technical efficiency data, custodian interview contributes practical insights about implementation—together these sources provide quantitative data, technical specifications, and practical considerations necessary for estimating savings. Answer B correctly explains sources are varied and relevant: real school data plus expert info and efficiency comparisons, which can be synthesized to estimate savings within a week—the combination allows student to calculate current usage (from bill), understand current system (from facilities page and custodian), research LED efficiency advantage (from comparison article), apply savings calculator (government tool), and consider practical factors (custodian's experience)—synthesis produces estimated savings grounded in actual school data and technical research. The incorrect options misunderstand appropriate source use: A dismisses sources as opinions when bill provides hard data, calculator uses established formulas, and article presents technical specifications; C incorrectly claims only single source allowed when multiple sources are required for synthesis; D suggests more than two sources makes project impossible when 5 sources are manageable in week for focused question. Effective source selection for estimation requires: real baseline data (electric bill shows actual usage/costs), technical information (efficiency comparisons provide percentage improvements), practical context (custodian knows number of fixtures, usage patterns, maintenance needs), calculation tools (standardized method for projecting savings), authoritative information (government and district sources ensure accuracy)—combining quantitative and qualitative sources enables realistic estimation. Student demonstrates sophisticated research planning: self-generated question addresses real school issue, source selection balances data with expertise, variety enables comprehensive analysis, all sources accessible within week—showing how focused question with well-chosen sources makes meaningful research feasible in short timeframe.
- In a 1-week project about media, Anika asks: "How do advertisements on social media influence what middle schoolers buy?" She uses 5 sources: (1) a consumer education nonprofit website, (2) a short psychology article about persuasion techniques, (3) a class survey about recent purchases, (4) a few saved example ads (screenshots) to analyze for techniques, and (5) an interview with a local store manager about popular items. Anika's answer explains persuasion techniques, shows how the example ads use them, and compares that to survey results and the store manager's observations. Which statement best evaluates Anika's research process?
Answer: Anika's research is strong because she uses varied sources and synthesizes them to build an evidence-based answer connected to her question.
The best answer says Anika's research is strong because she uses varied sources and synthesizes them—she connects persuasion techniques from the article to real examples in the saved ads, then to her survey data and the manager's observations. That combining of different source types into one evidence-based answer is exactly what a good short research project does.
The choice claiming she used too many kinds of sources is wrong: for a question this rich, varied sources actually give a fuller picture, and Anika kept them all pointed at her question rather than drifting off topic.
The choice saying she leans mostly on the psychology article is wrong: her answer clearly draws evidence from the survey, the ads, and the interview too, not just one source.
The choice saying she only summarizes each source is wrong: the stem shows she links the techniques to actual ads and to what students bought and what the manager saw—that is synthesis, not a list. Only the correct answer captures both the variety of sources and the way she ties them together.
