Investigate several sources and write for different purposes

Learning goal: Investigate different aspects of a focused topic using several sources, keep accurate notes and source records, and produce writing over short and extended time frames. Use digital tools with adult guidance to compose, collaborate and publish for an intended audience. This six-week workshop is a pacing plan for an extended unit: it schedules repeated work, while the opinion, explanatory and narrative techniques it uses are taught in their own companion lessons. It does not certify a full year's writing or reading mastery.

The shared inquiry is “How can an information display help visitors find, handle and understand its cards?” Separate those aspects before searching. A source about attachment strength may help with handling but say nothing about understandable language. Several sources are useful when they contribute relevant evidence, not merely because a list is long.

Begin with three complete companion texts: “How a Card Display Becomes Easier to Use,” “Give the Display a Trial Week” and “The Last Card.” The first explains an invented test, the second recommends a next step using that scenario, and the third is fiction about a narrator's changed priorities. They share a setting but serve different purposes. The story supports analysis of a character; it is not independent evidence that an actual library tested a display.

Add an actual observation of a classroom display, an adult-approved print source about organizing information, and an adult-approved digital source addressing a relevant design question. The adult helps select accessible sources and checks author, title, date and relevance. If no suitable display or source is available, use a classroom prototype and obtain the missing sources before claiming the research project is complete. Record whether each item is a fictional model, observation, explanation or recommendation.

Create a source record as soon as you use something. For a book, record author or organization, title, publication information and useful page numbers. For a webpage, record author or organization, page title, URL, date if given and access date. For a classroom observation, record observer, date, location, task and what was actually seen. A source list lets another reader trace information; a list of search terms does not.

A useful note preserves meaning in your own words and keeps its source attached. Model sentence: “A neighboring card fell during three of the five attempts.” Paraphrase: “In the invented shared-clip trial, another card dropped in 3 of 5 attempts.” The note retains the condition, quantity and fictional status. “Shared clips are dangerous” adds a claim the source did not establish. Swapping a few words while copying the sentence structure is not the aim of paraphrasing.

A summary condenses the main ideas across a larger section. An evidence note may capture one useful detail. A direct quotation copies exact wording and needs quotation marks plus a source reference. Keep these forms distinct in notes so copied language does not accidentally enter a final draft as your own prose.

Week 1 — Questions and quick writing: In three thirty-minute sessions, examine the model texts, write a one-sitting explanation of the display problem and develop subquestions about finding, handling and understanding. Compare the narrator and Jalen in “The Last Card,” using specific actions and dialogue. Explain how their interaction changes the narrator's view. Save this literary response separately from factual research notes.

Week 2 — Gather and sort: Use three sessions to examine print and digital sources and carry out the classroom observation. Take paraphrased notes with source labels. Sort by subquestion and identify an unanswered aspect. Do not fill a gap with an invented observation.

Week 3 — Explain with evidence: Plan and draft an informational report over three sessions. Group related findings, define needed terms and include an explanatory visual. Explain which evidence supports each point and distinguish completed observations from proposed tests. A partner identifies a claim that needs clarification or stronger support.

Week 4 — Recommend and reconsider: Write a short opinion in one sitting for classmates choosing a display arrangement. In later sessions, compare it with the model recommendation, examine the match between reasons and evidence, and revise your longer report after adult and peer feedback. Trying a new organization is appropriate when the original does not answer the inquiry.

Week 5 — Compose and collaborate digitally: Type the revised report in an adult-approved document tool, using headings, paragraph breaks, ordinary editing commands and a labeled visual. Demonstrate keyboarding sufficient to compose and revise the piece. Share within the approved class space, give a specific comment tied to a passage and respond to a partner's comment. Keep a revision record and source list. Public posting is not required for this classroom publishing task.

Week 6 — Publish and reflect: Edit conventions, check each source-dependent claim and publish the report to the intended class audience. Write a brief narrative about a real or imagined revision moment, clearly marking fiction when used. Finally, compare an early quick-write with a revised piece and explain what changed in content, organization and evidence. Keep dated work showing different purposes, audiences and time frames.

Worked source use: The opinion model recommends a trial because small observations leave questions open. A research paragraph can explain that reasoning, citing the model as an example of argument. It must not count the opinion and explanatory model as two independent real experiments; both use the same invented situation.

Worked peer feedback: “Make it better” gives no action. “Your second paragraph says the headings were tested, but the source calls that a future check; revise the verb or add actual observation evidence” identifies a passage, problem and possible remedy.

Performance portfolio: Submit dated short responses, inquiry questions, several source records, paraphrased notes, the literary comparison, report drafts, a reasoned opinion, a narrative, peer comments, a digital final report and a revision reflection. The adult observes source gathering, keyboarding and collaboration rather than inferring them from a finished file.

Review conference: Explain how one source answered one subquestion, how you treated a source limitation and why you revised a passage. The reviewer checks traceable evidence, accurate literary analysis, organization for purpose and audience, independent wording, conventions and completion across the six weeks. Missing observations or sources remain unfinished tasks rather than checked boxes.