Design Your Studio¶
SDA Commons Wiki · South High School
This page walks you through the four decisions you need to make before you touch your contract: your Essential Question, your standard, your texts, and your demo mode. Work through them in order — each one builds on the one before.
Decision 1 — Your Essential Question¶
Your EQ is the question your entire studio is built around. Getting it right in Week 1 matters — a weak EQ leads to six weeks of work that doesn't go anywhere.
If you don't have a question yet — start here¶
Most students don't have an EQ when they sit down to design a studio. That's normal. Here's a process that works.
Step 1 — Name something that bothers you, confuses you, or makes you angry about the world right now.
Not "something important." Something you actually find interesting or frustrating. It can be small or huge. It can be something you read about, something you heard at home, something you noticed in your neighborhood, something you argued about with a friend.
Some examples:
- Why do some people get in serious trouble for breaking the law and other people don't?
- How do some religions get to make rules for everyone, even people who don't follow that religion?
- Why do we keep having the same arguments about immigration over and over?
- Who decides what books we're allowed to read?
- Why does it seem like the news only cares about some deaths and not others?
- Is it ever okay to do something violent to stop something worse from happening?
- Why does the government say it's protecting people but then does things that hurt people?
- When something is really unfair, what does it take for things to actually change?
Write your own. Keep it honest — you can clean it up later.
Step 2 — Find the pattern underneath it.
Most present-day tensions trace back to one of these persistent patterns in human history. Find the one that fits your concern:
| Pattern | What it's really about |
|---|---|
| Power — who has it | Who gets to make decisions, and why do some people get to control others? |
| Law & accountability | What happens when people in power break the rules, and who enforces the rules on the enforcers? |
| Identity & belonging | Who counts as a full member of a society — and who gets to decide? |
| Truth & propaganda | Who controls what people believe, and what happens when the truth is inconvenient to the powerful? |
| Violence & justification | When is violence justified, and who actually pays the cost? |
| Economic fairness | Who gets the benefits of a system and who bears the costs? |
| Religion & authority | Who gets to define the rules for everyone — and what happens when religious and political power clash? |
| Rights & freedom | What does "freedom" actually mean — and does everyone get the same version of it? |
| Resistance & change | When something is deeply wrong, what actually makes change happen — and at what price? |
Pick the pattern that fits. This is the thread you'll follow into the historical record.
Step 3 — Find the historical echo.
Your concern is happening now — but some version of it has happened before. Use this table to find a historical starting point:
| If your concern is about... | Where to look |
|---|---|
| Government lying about wars | Pentagon Papers / Vietnam (USH Unit 7) · Nazi propaganda (WH Era 4) |
| Police or state violence against civilians | Civil Rights movement and Birmingham (USH Unit 6) · Apartheid and Mandela (WH Era 4) |
| Immigration and who "belongs" | Progressive Era immigration (USH Unit 1) · post-WWI nationalism (WH Era 4) |
| Religious rules imposed on everyone | Medieval Church power vs. kings (WH Era 2) · Protestant Reformation (WH Era 2) · Iranian Revolution (WH Era 4) |
| Books, ideas, or information being suppressed | Nazi book burnings · Soviet censorship · Fahrenheit 451 · Orwell's 1984 |
| Who counts as a citizen with full rights | French Revolution's exclusions (WH Era 3) · Women's suffrage · UN Declaration of Human Rights (WH Era 4) |
| Environmental or industrial harm | Industrial Revolution (WH Era 3 / USH Unit 1) · The Jungle |
| Surveillance, technology, and control | Cold War domestic surveillance → Orwell's 1984 · Nixon / Watergate (USH Unit 8) |
| War and who actually suffers | WWI and "Dulce et Decorum Est" (WH Era 3) · Hiroshima and the atomic bomb (USH Unit 4) · Vietnam (USH Unit 7) |
| Economic inequality and who it hurts | The Jungle and the Progressive Era (USH Unit 1) · Great Depression (USH Unit 3) · Communist Manifesto (WH Era 3) |
| A small group resisting a much bigger power | Haitian Revolution (WH Era 3) · Las Casas and the Spanish crown (WH Era 2) · Mandela and apartheid (WH Era 4) · MLK and Birmingham (USH Unit 6) |
| Who gets blamed for a crisis | WWI blame and the Treaty of Versailles (WH Era 4) · Scapegoating in The Crucible / McCarthyism (USH Unit 5) |
You don't have to pick the first match. The best historical echo is one where you can find sources that argue different sides — because your EQ needs to be arguable.
Step 4 — Bridge the present to the past.
Now you have: a present concern + a pattern + a historical echo. Use these frames to draft your first EQ:
When [historical event] happened, [describe the central tension]. Today, [present version of the same tension]. What does history tell us about why this keeps happening — and whether it can be solved?
Or simpler:
[Historical group or event] dealt with [version of your pattern]. Did it work — and does that answer matter today?
These are rough starting drafts. The next section helps you refine them.
Fully-worked examples:
| Present concern | Pattern | Historical echo | Draft EQ |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Why do some people get away with breaking the law?" | Law & accountability | Magna Carta → Nuremberg → Watergate | When someone powerful is held accountable for breaking the rules, what actually changes — and what stays the same? |
| "Why does the government lie about wars?" | Truth & propaganda | Vietnam / Pentagon Papers | When a government lies about a war and the lie is exposed, what changes — and who pays? |
| "How do religions get to make rules for everyone?" | Religion & authority | Pope Gregory VII vs. Emperor Henry IV (1076) · Protestant Reformation | When religious and political authority conflict, who wins — and does it matter? |
| "Who decides what books we're allowed to read?" | Truth & propaganda | Nazi book burnings · Fahrenheit 451 | When governments try to control what people read, what are they actually afraid of? |
| "Is violence ever justified to stop something worse?" | Violence & justification | Haitian Revolution · WWII atomic bomb decision | When people are pushed to the edge, what makes some forms of resistance heroic and others criminal — and who gets to decide? |
| "When is something unfair enough that people actually do something about it?" | Resistance & change | MLK / Birmingham · Las Casas · Malala | What actually makes people decide to resist — and what does it cost them? |
What makes a good EQ?¶
A good Essential Question passes three tests:
1. It's genuinely arguable. Reasonable, informed people should be able to disagree about the answer. Not because there's no evidence, but because the evidence can be interpreted more than one way.
2. It can't be Googled. If someone can find a definitive answer in three clicks, it's not an EQ — it's a research question. An EQ requires you to build an argument, not look something up.
3. You actually care about it. This one matters more than it sounds. Six weeks is a long time to spend on a question you find boring. Pick something that makes you want to know the answer.
Bad → Better → Best¶
| Version | The Question | Problem |
|---|---|---|
| Bad | What caused World War I? | Factual — this has a standard answer. You're just collecting information. |
| Better | Was WWI inevitable? | Arguable, but vague. "Inevitable" is hard to define and hard to research. |
| Best | Who bears the most responsibility for WWI — and does assigning blame actually matter to the soldiers who died in it? | Arguable, specific, has two linked parts that push your thinking further. |
| Version | The Question | Problem |
|---|---|---|
| Bad | What is 1984 about? | This can be answered in one sentence from any book review. |
| Better | Is 1984 still relevant today? | Arguable, but everyone will say yes. Too easy to agree with. |
| Best | Orwell wrote 1984 to warn people about a specific kind of government. Did he predict anything that actually happened — or did he predict something worse? | Forces you to compare the novel to the real world with specific evidence. |
Common traps¶
- It's a yes/no question with an obvious answer. ("Was slavery wrong?" — yes. That's not arguable.) Try adding "to what extent" or "in what ways" to force nuance.
- It's too big. "What is justice?" needs a philosophy dissertation, not a six-week studio. Narrow it to a specific time, place, or event.
- It doesn't connect to a standard. A great question that has nothing to do with your standard won't earn you evidence. You'll need to be able to argue your answer using the texts and skills your standard requires.
Connecting your EQ to an era or unit¶
If you're in a World History or US History studio, your EQ should connect to a specific era or unit. You don't have to be locked into one — but you need to be able to find primary sources that help you argue your answer.
Check the Studio Packet Archive — the existing EQs are strong models. Don't copy them, but notice how they're structured.
A quick EQ check before you move on¶
Before you move to Decision 2, run your draft EQ through this checklist:
- [ ] Could two informed people give different, well-supported answers? (arguable)
- [ ] Would you need more than one source to answer it? (research-worthy)
- [ ] Can you find at least one primary source from the SDA Reading Library that helps answer it? (connected to the curriculum)
- [ ] Would you still care about the answer in Week 4? (personally meaningful)
- [ ] Is it specific enough that you could write a 3.0-level response in six weeks? (scoped)
If you're checking all five boxes, your EQ is ready. If not, bring it to Reese — he'll help you sharpen it.
Decision 2 — Your Standard¶
The standard is what you're proving you can do. Your texts and your demo are both in service of demonstrating the standard.
A simple decision tree¶
Start with: what is your studio primarily about?
Are you analyzing an argument, speech, document, or historical claim?
→ R.9 (Reading 9) — informational and argumentative text analysis
→ Pair it with a WH or USH standard for the historical content
Are you analyzing a novel, memoir, play, or poem?
→ R.8 (Reading 8) — literary elements and author's craft
Are you writing a structured argument using evidence?
→ W.4 (Writing 4) — argument writing
→ This often pairs with R.9 (read the arguments, then write one)
Are you writing to explain a historical process or concept?
→ W.3 (Writing 3) — explanatory writing
Are you researching a historical question using multiple sources?
→ A WH.X or USH.X standard (pick the one that fits your era/unit)
→ IR bundle is always running — it counts automatically
Are you using a literary text AND a historical text to argue the same thing?
→ Consider a Crosswalk studio (two standards, one demo)
→ Check the Crosswalk pages first to see if this combination already exists
The five most commonly chosen standards¶
| Standard | Plain language | Best for |
|---|---|---|
| 9-10.R.9 | Compare two arguments — how they're built, what they assume, where they agree and disagree | Studios with two primary sources taking different positions |
| 9-10.R.8 | Analyze what a literary text is doing — theme, structure, character, author choices | ELA studios centered on a novel, play, or memoir |
| 9-10.W.4 | Write a clear, evidence-based argument with a claim, evidence, and addressed counterargument | Any studio that ends in an argument essay or extended writing |
| WH.6_12.3 + Era X | Analyze how political systems developed, changed, or failed in a specific era | Government, law, revolution, rights studios |
| WH.6_12.5 + Era X | Analyze cause and effect — what caused this, what were the consequences | War, economic change, social movement studios |
For the full breakdown of every standard, pull the skinny for that standard. The skinny has the 2.0 / 3.0 / 4.0 breakdown in plain language — read it before you finalize your choice.
Picking just one (or two)¶
Most studios have one primary standard. You're proving you can do one specific thing at a 3.0 level — that's the goal.
You can add a crosswalk standard if your studio genuinely spans both ELA and SS — but only if the demo can actually show evidence for both. A crosswalk studio is more work, not less. If you're not sure, start with one standard and add the crosswalk in your contract if Reese agrees.
Decision 3 — Your Texts¶
You need a minimum of one primary source and one secondary source. Three or four texts is typical for a full six-week studio.
Start in the Reading Library¶
The Reading Library has 101 entries — primary sources and literary texts with embedded passages, standard connections, and studio ideas. This is your first stop.
How to find texts that fit your EQ: 1. Think about which era or topic your EQ connects to 2. Go to that section of the Reading Library 3. Read the plain-language description of each entry — if it connects to your question, open the entry 4. Check the "Studio Ideas" section of the entry — if your question is similar to one of those, you're in the right place
Also check the Studio Packets¶
Even if you're building your own studio, the Studio Packet Archive is worth browsing — each packet lists four recommended texts for its essential question. If your EQ is close to an existing packet's question, those texts probably work for you too.
How to judge if a text works for your EQ¶
A text works if you can answer yes to both of these:
- Can I use this text as evidence to argue an answer to my EQ? Not just "it's about the same topic" — but specifically: does this text help me take a position?
- Does this text connect to my standard? If your standard is R.9, the text needs to be making an argument you can analyze. If your standard is R.8, the text needs to have literary elements worth analyzing.
What to do if the text you want isn't in the library¶
Bring the title and author to Reese. He'll help you determine if it fits and whether it can be added to the Reading Library. Don't build a whole studio around a text before getting that conversation in.
Decision 4 — Your Demo Mode¶
Your Demo of Learning is how you prove you understand the standard. There are six modes. Pick the one that fits your question, your standard, and how you work best.
The six modes — plain language¶
Mode 1 — Written Assessment A focused written response to a specific prompt. Usually 300–600 words. Structured, clear, direct. Reese gives you the prompt or you propose one.
Best if: You want clear structure and a defined prompt. You work well under constraints.
Mode 2 — Extended Writing Your own essay, analysis, or argument piece — longer and more fully developed than a written assessment. 600–900 words. You set the structure and argument.
Best if: You're a writer who wants space to build a full argument. You have a lot to say about your EQ.
Mode 3 — Verbal Conversation A one-on-one conversation with Reese. You walk him through your understanding — your claim, your evidence, your counterargument. He documents what you show him.
Best if: You think better out loud than on paper. You get stuck when writing but can explain yourself clearly when talking.
Mode 4 — Visual/Creative A sketchnote, annotated diagram, concept map, or infographic that shows your understanding visually. Includes written annotations connecting each element to your standard.
Best if: You think visually. You want to show how ideas connect rather than just explain them linearly.
Mode 5 — Multimedia/Performance A podcast episode, documentary video, structured debate, or recorded presentation. Minimum 8 minutes. You demonstrate the full standard through what you made.
Best if: You want to make something people can watch or listen to. You're comfortable with audio or video production.
Mode 6 — Portfolio Annotation You select two pieces of work from previous studios and annotate them for a new standard. You write a metacognitive commentary explaining how the work demonstrates the standard and what you now understand differently.
Best if: You have prior work that connects directly to the new standard. You want to make your growth visible across studios.
Things to consider before you choose¶
- Does this mode fit my standard? W.4 (argument writing) is hard to demonstrate in a sketchnote. R.8 (literary analysis) is hard to demonstrate in a debate. Make sure the mode lets you actually show the evidence the standard requires.
- Does this mode fit my EQ? Some questions are better answered in writing. Others naturally become conversations or visuals.
- What do you want to get better at? SDA is the place to push yourself. If you always do written assessments, consider trying extended writing or a verbal conversation.
You're Ready for Your Contract¶
Once you've made these four decisions — EQ, standard, texts, demo mode — you have everything you need to fill out your Studio Contract.
→ Your Contract & Getting Approved
Design Your Studio · SDA Commons Wiki · South High School See also: Skinnies · Reading Library · Standards · Studio Packets