Research Bundle — Skinny¶

Standard: 9-10.IR.1–5 — Conduct short and extended research projects by developing a focused question; gathering, synthesizing, and evaluating information from multiple sources; citing sources correctly; and presenting findings Applies across: All studios — every project involving primary or secondary sources Integrated with: W.3 (explanatory), W.4 (argument), R.9 (argument/source analysis), IR standards (1–5 individually scaffolded below) NDSBL Target: 3.0 score Estimated Time: Varies by project scope (short research: 1–2 hours; extended research: multiple sessions) Subject: ELA — Independent Research

What You Need to Know (Score 2.0)¶

Research is not "looking things up." Research is a process of asking a question, finding relevant and reliable information, evaluating that information critically, synthesizing it into a coherent understanding, and communicating the findings clearly. The IR.1–5 standards are bundled because they describe the five stages of the research process — each depends on the others.

IR.1 — Develop a Research Question¶

Research Question: A specific, focused, answerable question that drives a research project. A good research question is: (1) focused enough to actually answer with available evidence, (2) open enough that the answer isn't already obvious, (3) significant — the answer matters.
Too broad: "What caused WWI?" (a dissertation could barely answer this)
Too narrow: "What was the date of the Archduke's assassination?" (a single Google search answers this; it's a lookup, not research)
Researchable: "Was the alliance system or nationalist movements more responsible for WWI escalating from a regional conflict to a world war?"
Subtopics: Breaking a big research question into smaller component questions you can actually investigate.

IR.2 — Gather Information from Multiple Sources¶

Primary Source: A first-hand account or direct evidence from the historical period — original documents, letters, speeches, photographs, data. What happened vs. what someone says happened. (MLK's Letter is a primary source; a historian's analysis of the Letter is secondary.)
Secondary Source: A source that analyzes, interprets, or comments on primary sources or events. Most history textbooks, academic articles, and encyclopedia entries are secondary sources.
Multiple Sources: Research requires triangulation — finding information from at least 2–3 different sources so you can identify agreements and contradictions.

IR.3 — Synthesize Information¶

Synthesis: Combining information from multiple sources into a coherent, original understanding — not summarizing each source separately, but weaving them together. The result of synthesis is a claim supported by evidence from multiple sources, not a summary of what each source says.
Paraphrase: Restating someone else's idea in your own words, completely — not just swapping out a few words. Paraphrase + citation is how you use sources without over-quoting.

IR.4 — Evaluate Sources for Credibility¶

Credibility: Whether a source can be trusted — based on: the author's expertise, the publication's standards, the evidence provided, and whether the claims can be verified elsewhere.
Relevance: Whether the source actually addresses your research question — not just vaguely related to the topic.
Bias: A systematic tendency to favor certain perspectives or conclusions. Every source has a perspective — the question is whether the bias distorts the information or is acknowledged and accounted for.
SIFT Framework: A quick credibility check:
Stop — don't share/use before evaluating
Investigate the source — who wrote this, why, for whom?
Find better coverage — is there a more authoritative source?
Trace claims — follow the evidence; does it actually say what the source claims?
Lateral Reading: Rather than reading a source deeply to evaluate it, quickly check what other sources say about this source. What do others say about this publication, organization, or author?

IR.5 — Cite Sources Correctly¶

Citation: Giving credit to the source of information you used — required for direct quotes, paraphrases, and specific data or claims.
MLA Format: Modern Language Association format — the citation standard in ELA. A basic MLA in-text citation: (Author's Last Name, Page or Paragraph #) or (Author's Last Name). A Works Cited entry includes: Author. "Title." Publication, Year. URL or DOI if digital.
Why Cite? Three reasons: (1) Academic honesty — claiming others' ideas as your own is plagiarism; (2) Credibility — showing you have evidence makes your claims stronger; (3) Traceability — your reader can follow your evidence to verify and extend it.
Plagiarism: Using someone else's words or ideas without attribution — whether intentional or not. Accidental plagiarism is still plagiarism.

Basic Processes: - [ ] Narrow a broad topic into a specific, focused research question. - [ ] Find at least two sources on your question — one primary, one secondary. - [ ] Read each source and identify: the author's perspective and any potential bias. - [ ] Write a paragraph that synthesizes information from both sources — don't summarize each separately. - [ ] Cite both sources in MLA format (in-text citation + Works Cited entry).

A student who can score a 2.0: A student who finds relevant sources and summarizes them accurately — but whose "synthesis" is a series of paragraphs about each source separately, rather than a unified explanation that weaves the sources together around a central claim.

The Standard (Score 3.0)¶

9-10.IR.1–5 — Conduct research by developing a focused question; gathering, evaluating, and synthesizing information; citing correctly; and presenting findings

To meet this standard at 3.0, your research must demonstrate all five stages of the process working together: a focused question that drives the research; sources gathered and evaluated for credibility and bias; information synthesized (not just summarized) into a clear claim; and findings presented with correct citations.

3.0 Example: A student researching whether the Haitian Revolution was ideologically independent or derived from European Enlightenment ideas develops the question: "Did the Haitian revolutionary leadership apply Enlightenment principles borrowed from Europe, or did they develop an independent ideological framework that the Enlightenment failed to supply?" Sources gathered: (1) Primary: excerpts from the Haitian Declaration of Independence (1804) — language, word choice, what was borrowed from French Revolution vs. what was different; (2) Secondary: a historian's analysis of Toussaint Louverture's speeches vs. the Declaration des droits de l'homme; (3) Secondary: a historian arguing for the Haitian Revolution's ideological originality. The student evaluates each for credibility (peer-reviewed vs. popular press), notes the historians' different interpretations, and synthesizes: "The Haitian revolutionary leaders borrowed the Enlightenment's language of rights but extended it to enslaved people in a way the Enlightenment never did — which made the Haitian Declaration of Independence both derivative and genuinely original." Citations are in MLA format throughout.

The Difference: A 2.0 student summarizes three sources on the Haitian Revolution with in-text citations. A 3.0 student uses a focused research question to drive source selection, evaluates sources for credibility and bias, synthesizes into an original claim, and presents with correct citations.

Going Further (Score 4.0)¶

To reach a 4.0, your research must account for the limits of your sources — acknowledging where the evidence is incomplete, contested, or absent — and adjust your claims accordingly.

Transfer Tasks: 1. Source gap analysis: For any research project, explicitly identify: What would I need to find to be more confident in my claim? What kind of source would answer that? Did you look for that source and not find it, or did you not look? This kind of reflection on your own research is part of the research process. 2. Conflicting sources: Find two credible sources that reach different conclusions about the same question. Analyze: Why do they disagree? Is it different evidence, different framing, different values? Which do you find more convincing, and why? This is how historians actually work. 3. Primary source analysis as research: Rather than using a primary source just as evidence for a claim, make the primary source itself the subject of analysis. What does this source tell us about who wrote it, for whom, and under what conditions? What doesn't it tell us?

4.0 Example: A student researching Nazis' use of propaganda analyzes both Goebbels' own writing on propaganda techniques (primary source) and a historian's analysis of how ordinary Germans responded to Nazi propaganda (secondary source). The student identifies a gap: the historian's evidence is based on post-war survivor testimony, which is subject to hindsight bias — people who survived and were willing to speak may have been different from the population being studied. The student acknowledges this limit: "My claim that ordinary Germans were active participants rather than passive recipients of propaganda is supported by the evidence available, but that evidence is incomplete — we don't have access to what the majority who didn't survive or testify believed." This is not hedging; it is intellectual honesty about the limits of historical knowledge.

Reading Library Research Opportunities¶

These texts model research-worthy questions and provide primary source material: - Hammurabi's Code — Primary source; compare legal principles to modern law; research question: "Does Hammurabi's Code represent justice or control?" - MLK — Letter from Birmingham Jail — Primary source; rich for rhetorical analysis and historical context research - Common Sense — Paine — Primary source; research question: "How did Paine's argument change public opinion on independence, and can we measure that?" - Declaration of the Rights of Man — Primary source; compare to Haitian Declaration; research question: "What did the French Revolution exclude that the Haitian Revolution did not?" - Wollstonecraft — Vindication — Primary source; research question: "What did Wollstonecraft's argument assume that she never examined?" - Night — Wiesel — Primary source memoir; research question: "How did Wiesel's account of the Holocaust differ from historical records, and what does that difference tell us?"

Demonstration of Learning — Choose One¶

How will you show you know this standard? Pick one mode.

#	Mode	What You Do for This Specific Standard
1	Written Assessment	Complete a short research project: (1) Write a focused research question, (2) gather 2–3 sources and evaluate each for credibility/bias in 2–3 sentences, (3) write a synthesis paragraph that weaves information from all sources around your central claim, (4) include a Works Cited in MLA format.
2	Extended Writing	Complete an extended research piece (400–600 words) on a question from your studio. Must include: a focused research question stated in the intro, evidence from at least 3 sources synthesized (not summarized), in-text citations throughout, Works Cited page, and a 100-word reflection on your source evaluation process.
3	Verbal Conversation	Present your research process in a 3-minute "Research Talk": (1) What was your focused question? (2) How did you find and evaluate your sources? (3) What did each source contribute? (4) What is your synthesized claim? (5) What would you need to find to be more confident?
4	Visual/Creative	Create a "Research Map": a visual showing your research question at the center, your sources branching out (labeled by type and credibility), your synthesis claim at the end, and your Works Cited list. Annotate each source with: What it contributed. Why you trust it. Any bias you identified.
5	Multimedia/Performance	Record a 3–4 minute "Source Evaluation" video: show a source on screen, walk through the SIFT framework, explain why you trust or question it, and explain how it supports (or complicates) your research claim.
6	Portfolio Annotation	Select a previous project that involved research. Write a 200-word reflection: Was your research question focused enough to drive the project? Did you evaluate sources for credibility and bias? Did you synthesize information or summarize it separately? What would you do differently?

Scale Tasks¶

[ ] 2.0 task: Narrow a broad topic ("The Holocaust") into a focused research question (not "What caused the Holocaust?" but "How did the Nazi bureaucracy use legal processes to normalize genocide before the Final Solution?"). Test it: Is it focused? Is it answerable? Is it significant?
[ ] 3.0 task: Write a synthesis paragraph using at least two sources. Check: Does the paragraph argue a claim, or does it summarize each source separately? Are all sources cited? Is the synthesis your original claim supported by the sources, or just a summary?
[ ] 4.0 task: For one source you used, write 100 words identifying: What is its perspective? What might it miss? What would I need to find to verify its key claim? Does any part of what it says rely on assumptions I should examine?

MLA Quick Reference¶

In-text citation: (Author Last Name page/paragraph #) or (Author Last Name) - Quote: MLK writes, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (King 1). - Paraphrase: King argues that local injustice has national implications (King 1).

Works Cited entry — Book: Last, First. Title of Book. Publisher, Year.

Works Cited entry — Website/Online Source: Last, First. "Title of Page." Name of Site, Date. URL.

Works Cited entry — Reading Library text: Wiesel, Elie. Night. Hill and Wang, 1960. SDA Commons Wiki Reading Library, 2026.