English Language Arts: Gathering Sources (TEKS.ELA.9-12.12.D)
Help Questions
Texas High School ELA › English Language Arts: Gathering Sources (TEKS.ELA.9-12.12.D)
Research question: How effective are community-based flood mitigation strategies in Greater Houston since Hurricane Harvey? Potential sources:
- Peer-reviewed article in Journal of Flood Risk Management (2023) by hydrologists from Rice University and UT Austin; quasi-experimental difference-in-differences across 27 neighborhoods; preregistered; open data and code; medium-high impact factor; NSF-funded; strong local relevance and transparent methodology.
- Texas Water Development Board Flood Planning Data Hub (2022, updated quarterly); geospatial datasets on detention basins, buyouts, and bayou improvements; machine-readable formats; methods documented; authoritative state source; may undercount informal, community-led efforts.
- Houston Chronicle investigative multimedia feature (2021); interactive maps and interviews; editorial oversight; rich context; not peer-reviewed; potential for selective emphasis.
- Interview with licensed civil engineer at Harris County Flood Control District (2024); highly relevant practitioner insight; possible institutional bias; not generalizable; no formal peer review.
- Industry white paper from Coastal Infrastructure Alliance (2020); promotes large-scale concrete solutions; limited methods section; funded by member contractors; conflict-of-interest risk; partly outdated.
Which source or combination would provide the most relevant and reliable foundation for advanced research on post-Harvey community-based flood mitigation effectiveness in Greater Houston?
A. Combine the 2023 peer-reviewed Rice and UT Austin study with the 2022 TWDB datasets to triangulate causal findings against current, authoritative local data.
B. Use the 2021 Houston Chronicle multimedia feature alone because it offers detailed maps and human stories.
C. Rely on the 2024 civil engineer interview and the 2020 industry white paper to balance practitioner insights with policy recommendations.
D. Use the 2020 industry white paper alone because it directly advocates specific mitigation strategies.
Explanation
Choice A appropriately balances high relevance, peer-reviewed credibility, methodological transparency, and current government datasets. The other options are either insufficiently rigorous, overly biased, or not comprehensive.
Research question: Have platform-level algorithmic content moderation changes implemented since 2022 reduced the spread of misinformation on major social media platforms? Potential sources:
- Peer-reviewed article in Journal of Communication (2024); multi-platform natural experiments exploiting policy rollouts; preregistered; replication code available; independent funding; high-impact venue; clear limitations and robustness checks.
- U.S. Government Accountability Office report (2023) on federal and platform initiatives to mitigate misinformation; cross-agency interviews; mixed-methods; transparent methodology; notes scope limits; credible government source.
- Platform transparency report (2024) from a major social media company; highly current platform metrics; opaque definitions and measurement; clear conflict of interest; limited external validation.
- Preprint on arXiv (2025) using convenience samples; not peer-reviewed; uncertain methods and sampling biases.
- Podcast panel (2022) featuring journalists and a former policy staffer; accessible expert opinions; anecdotal evidence; scarce citations.
Which source plan best establishes a relevant and reliable foundation for an advanced literature review on algorithmic content moderation and misinformation since 2022?
A. Use the 2024 platform transparency report alone because it is the most up-to-date and comes directly from the source.
B. Pair the 2024 peer-reviewed Journal of Communication study with the 2023 GAO report, consulting select transparency metrics cautiously for operational definitions.
C. Rely on the 2025 preprint and the 2022 podcast because they discuss the latest developments in a timely way.
D. Use the 2023 GAO report alone since government documents are always unbiased and complete.
Explanation
Choice B triangulates a rigorous, peer-reviewed causal study with a credible, method-transparent government report and uses potentially biased platform metrics only as cautiously interpreted supplements. The other options rely on single or less credible sources.
Research question: What is the impact of dual-language bilingual education programs on high school literacy outcomes among recent immigrant students in U.S. urban districts? Potential sources:
- Peer-reviewed longitudinal cohort study (2022) covering 10 large urban districts; controls for socioeconomic status and prior achievement; open dataset and code; IRB approved; strong internal validity; high relevance.
- National Center for Education Statistics datasets (2016–2024) with student-level and school-level literacy indicators; detailed documentation; requires advanced data cleaning and appropriate causal design; authoritative federal data.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis (2019) of secondary bilingual programs; rigorous synthesis; somewhat dated; heterogeneous contexts; useful for theoretical framing.
- Advocacy report by a nonprofit (2023) highlighting model programs; limited methodology; selection bias likely; not peer-reviewed.
- Teacher blog series (2024) describing classroom experiences; timely and practical; anecdotal; lacks methodological transparency.
Which source selection best balances relevance, credibility, currency, and comprehensive coverage for advanced research on dual-language program impacts in urban high schools?
A. Use the 2019 meta-analysis only, since meta-analyses are always sufficient for current decision-making.
B. Combine the 2023 advocacy report with the 2024 teacher blog to ensure the most recent classroom perspectives guide the review.
C. Combine the 2022 longitudinal study with 2016–2024 NCES datasets for rigorous, current analysis, using the 2019 meta-analysis only for theoretical context.
D. Use the NCES data alone; raw numbers do not require peer-reviewed interpretation.
Explanation
Choice C integrates a recent, rigorous peer-reviewed study with authoritative federal data and situates findings within prior synthesized research. The other options either lack credibility, are outdated on their own, or fail to provide adequate analytical rigor.
Research question: For a grant proposal evaluating the cultural and economic impacts of preserving the San Antonio Missions World Heritage Site on surrounding communities, which criteria should guide source selection? Potential sources:
- Peer-reviewed cultural heritage management article (2022) using difference-in-differences to estimate economic impacts across U.S. World Heritage sites, including a San Antonio case subsection; transparent methods; robustness checks; reputable journal.
- City of San Antonio economic impact report (2023) produced with an independent economics firm; detailed input-output modeling; clearly stated assumptions and multipliers; potential promotional framing.
- Texas State Library and Archives Commission digitized primary materials (19th-century mission maintenance records and early tourism pamphlets); historically rich; provenance documented; essential for context; limited direct economic measures.
- Oral history collection from UTSA Institute of Texan Cultures (2000–2018); curated and IRB-compliant; captures community voices; possible representativeness limits.
- Tourism board brochure (2024) with headline statistics; no methodology; strong promotional bias; not suitable as a stand-alone source.
Which evaluation criteria are most important to apply for this complex inquiry when selecting sources for the grant proposal?
A. Emphasize only recency and ease of access, since the most current and convenient sources are best for proposal writing.
B. Focus on prestige and page length; longer, well-known publications will be comprehensive by default.
C. Prefer primary sources exclusively to avoid bias, and avoid any secondary analyses that might interpret the data.
D. Prioritize methodological transparency and credibility (peer review, independent economic modeling), strong relevance to San Antonio, current quantitative data for economic impacts, and triangulate with primary documents and oral histories to capture cultural dimensions and address potential bias.
Explanation
The correct choice recognizes the need to balance credibility, relevance, currency, and bias by combining peer-reviewed and independent analyses with authoritative economic data and contextual primary sources and oral histories for comprehensive coverage.
Research question: To what extent have Texas coastal restoration projects reduced hurricane storm-surge impacts on inland flooding since 2010? Potential sources:
- 2023 peer-reviewed meta-analysis in a coastal engineering journal synthesizing 15 Texas projects; uses NOAA tide-gauge and USGS stream-gage data; transparent methods, preregistered protocol, data/code archived; high credibility, high relevance, high currency; low bias risk; paywalled but library-accessible.
- 2022 Texas General Land Office (GLO) technical evaluation of coastal resilience projects; includes LiDAR, hydrodynamic modeling, and site-level performance metrics; detailed methodology appendices and downloadable datasets; very high relevance, high currency; credible government source but potential policy framing bias; free access.
- 2021 investigative newspaper feature on a single marsh restoration; narrative depth and stakeholder quotes; moderate credibility but not peer-reviewed; narrow scope; current enough; freely accessible.
- 2022 recorded interview with a coastal engineer who led a Galveston project; highly specialized insight, but single perspective with possible conflict of interest; not peer-reviewed; limited generalizability; accessible by request through a university archive.
- NOAA tide-gauge and storm-surge datasets, 2010–2024; primary data with documented methods and QA/QC; very high credibility, high relevance and currency; minimal interpretive bias; fully open access.
Which source set would provide the strongest, most reliable foundation for advanced research on the stated question?
The newspaper feature and the engineer interview, because they are richly detailed and highly relevant to Texas.
The peer-reviewed meta-analysis, the NOAA primary datasets, and the GLO technical report, because together they triangulate rigorous synthesis, raw data, and site-level modeling while allowing bias checks.
The engineer interview alone, because it offers insider technical knowledge about Galveston projects.
Only the GLO report, because government publications are always unbiased and sufficient.
Explanation
Choice B balances high relevance with strong credibility and currency: a peer-reviewed synthesis, authoritative primary data, and a detailed government technical report enable cross-validation and bias monitoring. A is highly relevant but lacks scholarly rigor and breadth. C is a single, potentially biased perspective. D overrelies on one source with possible policy framing and no independent synthesis.
Research question: What are the long-term cognitive effects of adolescent social media use? Potential sources:
- 2019 peer-reviewed longitudinal study (n=3,200, five-year follow-up) with preregistration, validated neurocognitive measures, propensity-score matching; replication attempts published in 2022; open data and code; high credibility and relevance; currency moderate.
- 2024 opinion essay by a technology executive citing proprietary internal survey results; no methodology transparency; high relevance but high bias risk; not peer-reviewed; current; accessible.
- 2023 NIH-funded systematic review and meta-analysis registered in PROSPERO; includes studies through late 2023; low heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses reported; high credibility, high relevance, high currency; transparent funding and data extraction tables; accessible via academic databases.
- 2024 short-form video summary by a neuroscientist on a social platform; engaging but not a citable scholarly source; credentials not verified in the media; very current; moderate relevance.
- 2020 national health dataset on adolescent screen time; authoritative primary data; requires analytical expertise to connect exposure to cognitive outcomes; high credibility; currency moderate; open access.
Which evaluation criteria should most strongly guide source selection for this complex inquiry?
Prioritize recency above all else, even if methods are unclear or unreviewed.
Use only government sources, since they are unbiased by definition and sufficient for causal claims.
Choose sources with the largest sample sizes, regardless of peer review status or control of confounds.
Prioritize peer review and methodological rigor (e.g., longitudinal designs and preregistration), synthesis across multiple studies (systematic reviews/meta-analyses), up-to-date coverage, and transparency about funding and conflicts of interest.
Explanation
For advanced research on long-term cognitive effects, the best criteria emphasize rigor, synthesis, currency, and transparency (D). A overweights recency while ignoring quality. B ignores the need for methodological scrutiny and comprehensive coverage. C overemphasizes sample size without ensuring design quality or peer review.
Research question: How have Texas groundwater conservation districts affected Ogallala Aquifer depletion rates since 2000? Potential sources:
- 2023 USGS report and county-level datasets on High Plains aquifer levels in Texas; rigorous QA/QC, long time series; high credibility, high relevance, high currency; open access.
- 2022 peer-reviewed policy analysis in a top water-resources journal using difference-in-differences with USGS data to estimate district-level policy effects; transparent code repository; high credibility and relevance; high currency; limited by observational design assumptions.
- 2021 advocacy white paper funded by an agricultural consortium arguing against pumping restrictions; high relevance but unclear methods, undisclosed modeling assumptions; high bias risk; not peer-reviewed; accessible.
- Early-2000s oral histories in the Texas State Archives from producers and water managers; primary qualitative sources; illuminate compliance and local practice; credibility depends on triangulation; limited currency; open but requires curation.
- 2024 trade magazine article on irrigation technologies; moderate credibility; tangential to policy effects; current; accessible.
Which source strategy would provide the most reliable and comprehensive foundation for this research?
Integrate the 2022 peer-reviewed policy-effect study, the 2023 USGS aquifer datasets, and curated oral histories to triangulate quantitative trends with local implementation context.
Rely solely on the USGS report and datasets because raw data alone can answer causal policy questions.
Combine the advocacy white paper with the trade magazine article to capture stakeholder perspectives while excluding the peer-reviewed study.
Use the trade magazine article as the primary source because it is the most current.
Explanation
The combination in A pairs rigorous causal inference with authoritative primary data and contextual qualitative evidence, optimizing relevance, credibility, and coverage. B lacks a causal framework and qualitative context. C centers a biased, non-peer-reviewed source and omits the strongest study. D is current but insufficiently rigorous and only tangentially relevant.
Research question: Which urban heat island mitigation strategies have most effectively reduced summertime surface temperatures in large U.S. cities from 2005 to 2024? Potential sources:
- 2024 peer-reviewed meta-analysis of cool roofs, urban forestry, and permeable pavements across climate zones; reports effect sizes, moderator analyses, and publication-bias checks; high credibility, high relevance, high currency; open data appendix.
- EPA city-level urban heat metrics and satellite-derived land surface temperature datasets, 2005–2023; authoritative primary data with documented methods; high credibility, high relevance; high currency; open access.
- 2023 sponsored industry report from a roofing manufacturer promoting reflective roofs; model assumptions not fully disclosed; high relevance but conflict of interest; not peer-reviewed; current; free access.
- 2016 city sustainability blog post summarizing a small pilot project; anecdotal and outdated; moderate credibility; limited relevance and currency; accessible.
- 2023 webinar by a multi-institution expert panel; slides link to studies but content is secondary; variable credibility depending on cited sources; high currency; accessible recording.
Which choice offers the most relevant and reliable foundation for advanced research on the question?
Use only the sponsored industry report because it focuses specifically on cool roofs.
Rely on the expert webinar since it is the most recent and summarizes multiple perspectives.
Combine the 2024 peer-reviewed meta-analysis with the EPA primary datasets to validate synthesized findings against longitudinal city-level measures.
Use city blog posts from various years to gather practical examples that are easy to compare.
Explanation
Pairing a rigorous, up-to-date meta-analysis with authoritative longitudinal EPA datasets enables cross-validation and broad coverage with high credibility. A relies on a conflicted source. B is secondary and not necessarily rigorous. D is anecdotal and outdated, lacking methodological robustness.