Unit 07 · Research, Evidence & Media Literacy · Week 20
How can a researcher investigate a source instead of merely reading it?
A complete five-day investigation with a local source packet, explicit research instruction, printable evidence workspaces, and evaluator-reviewed mastery.
Weekly targets
Local research simulation · Rivermark Learning Annex
Decision: Rivermark must decide whether to convert an unused municipal annex into an evening study center for students ages 13–18.
Background brief: The annex has four rooms, basic internet wiring, and a bus stop nearby. Renovation, supervision, accessibility, transportation, operating cost, demand, and neighborhood impact all require investigation. No conclusion is supplied.
Evidence boundary: Rivermark and every document in this packet are course-created simulations. Students may cite them for this instructional case but must never present them as evidence about a real community.
Week 20 evidence packet
Dated 12 March 2026; signed by analyst Mira Chen. Reports that 163 of 240 voluntary online survey respondents supported the annex. The survey link appeared on the city youth-services page for ten days. Raw questions are attached, but respondent demographics are not.
Undated. Claims “learning hubs raise achievement by 40%.” It links to no study and offers Rivermark a renovation package. The company biography names designers but no education researcher.
Dated 28 February 2026; issued by Rivermark Transit. Shows the nearby route ends at 7:10 p.m. on weekdays. The proposed center would close at 9:00 p.m. The table documents schedules, not student travel behavior.
Dated 18 March 2026; signed by 31 residents. Predicts noise and parking problems but includes no measurement. It accurately notes that the annex lot has twelve spaces.
Day 96 · Required lesson
Distinguish what a page says from what can be learned about its producer.
Vertical reading examines claims and evidence on the source. Lateral reading leaves the source to investigate author, institution, funding, reputation, and independent coverage.
For Sources A and B, record two vertical observations and four lateral checks you would perform. State what each check could reveal.
Day 97 · Required lesson
Follow numbers and quotations to their original support.
A precise number can still be weak if the sample, measure, comparison, or origin is hidden. Trace the “40%” claim and the 163/240 survey result.
Complete a claim-trace chain: claim → original evidence → method → missing information → justified conclusion.
Day 98 · Required lesson
Identify perspective and incentive without treating bias as an automatic disqualifier.
Every source has a position. The question is how that position shapes selection, framing, omission, and interpretation—and whether usable evidence remains.
Write balanced audit notes for Sources B and D: one relevant contribution, one incentive or perspective, one limitation, and one responsible use.
Day 99 · Required lesson
Compare independent sources that address the same part of a claim.
Corroboration requires genuine overlap. Source C can test transportation feasibility but cannot confirm demand. Source D can identify concerns but cannot measure their probability.
Build a four-source matrix: claim addressed, evidence supplied, evidence missing, corroborating source needed, and present confidence.
Day 100 · Required lesson
Use calibrated language rather than “good source” or “bad source.”
Verdicts should be claim-specific: reliable for a narrow fact, useful with qualification, lead only, or unusable for the stated claim.
Submit four claim-specific verdicts and a 200–250 word memo explaining what the current packet can and cannot establish.
Weekly mastery assessment
Submit the named product, five daily responses, source notes, and final reflection. A button press or draft submission does not establish mastery.
| Criterion | 2 · Secure | 1 · Developing | 0 · Insufficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research concept accuracy | Specific, accurate and complete | Partly demonstrated; revision required | Missing, unsupported or inaccurate |
| Source use and attribution | Specific, accurate and complete | Partly demonstrated; revision required | Missing, unsupported or inaccurate |
| Evidence-to-claim reasoning | Specific, accurate and complete | Partly demonstrated; revision required | Missing, unsupported or inaccurate |
| Limitations and ethical disclosure | Specific, accurate and complete | Partly demonstrated; revision required | Missing, unsupported or inaccurate |
| Organization, revision and reflection | Specific, accurate and complete | Partly demonstrated; revision required | Missing, unsupported or inaccurate |
Mastery: 8/10 after evaluator review. Below 8/10, revise the lowest criterion and resubmit. Automated tools may organize evidence but may not award the score.
Earlier notes remain in their original fields. Bring revisions and tool evidence here.