Complete a six-week research, writing and publication workshop

Learning goal: Conduct a focused inquiry using several sources, write for different purposes over short and extended periods, collaborate through an appropriate digital workspace and publish a revised piece with basic source information. Keep source evidence, your interpretation and invented illustrations distinct.

This workshop produces a portfolio through repeated work. Its six weeks do not stand for an entire year's writing. Use the schedule as a concrete sequence, save dated drafts and continue routine writing elsewhere in the course. Short responses are useful for thinking; longer projects allow investigation, feedback and revision. Both kinds of writing should have an identifiable purpose and audience.

The research inquiry begins with two museum records linked below: an Indus seal and a Mesopotamian proto-cuneiform tablet. Start with “What can object records establish about ancient writing, and what do they leave uncertain?” Inspect each record's stated date range, material, place, description and qualifications. These are objects from distinct settings; do not assume their writing systems or purposes are interchangeable. Use the record as evidence for its particular object, not for every person in an ancient society.

A broad question may need refocusing. “How did all writing begin?” exceeds what two records and a short project can answer. A narrower question might compare how the records communicate evidence and uncertainty about the selected objects. Add at least one relevant museum essay or scholarly source and one print source supplied by a school or library. If a chosen source does not answer the narrowed question, say so and seek another; do not force it into the report just to reach a count.

Assess credibility in relation to a claim. Identify the creator or institution, date or update information when available, expertise, evidence and purpose. A museum's object record can be useful for its cataloged object, while an advertisement using an ancient-looking symbol may provide little historical support. An old source is not automatically wrong and a new source is not automatically better. Check whether later evidence changes an interpretation, and retain qualifications such as probably or uncertain.

Take notes that prevent accidental plagiarism. Use separate spaces for exact quotation, paraphrase and your own response. An exact quotation requires quotation marks and a source label. A paraphrase restates the meaning in your own sentence structure while still crediting the source; changing a few words in the original sentence is not enough. Record author or institution, title, publication information or date if supplied, URL for digital material and access date. Never invent a missing author or date.

Making the project independent, and deciding whether evidence is relevant. The two museum records give everyone a common starting point, but the research project becomes independent when the question, the search and the judgments are yours. By the end of Week 1 you pose your own narrowed question, one you chose because you want to know the answer and that a few weeks of reading could actually answer. From then on you choose where to look, decide which sources to keep and write down your reasons. The teacher approves the question and checks your source cards but does not choose your sources for you. Independent does not mean unsupported: you may ask a librarian how a catalog or database works, but the decisions about what counts as evidence are yours. Recording relevant evidence depends on a test you apply to every note before you keep it. Evidence is relevant when it helps answer your question, not merely when it is about the same topic. Ask three things of each piece. Does it answer my question directly, answer part of it, or only give background? Does it concern the objects, places or period my question is about, or something nearby? Would my answer change if I removed it? Evidence that answers directly goes on a source card with its location. Evidence that answers part of the question is kept and labeled partial, with a note on what is still missing. Background goes on a separate list so that it is never presented as proof. Evidence that fails the test is set aside with a one-line reason, even when it is interesting. Credibility and relevance are separate judgments: a reliable museum record about a different object is credible, but it does not answer a question about this one.

Week 1 — Read and frame. In session 1, write a ten-minute initial question and knowledge inventory, distinguishing what you know from what you assume. In sessions 2 and 3, read the object records and create source cards. In session 4, compare them with an additional scholarly or museum source. In session 5, refine the question and write a short explanation of why the new scope is answerable. Keep the discarded broader question as evidence of refocusing.

Week 2 — Research and test notes. Use two sessions to locate and evaluate additional relevant print and digital material. In session 3, paraphrase one passage after setting it aside, then reopen it to check accuracy and originality. In session 4, compare a claim across sources and record agreement, difference or missing information. In session 5, write a one-page research plan with a provisional central idea, section order and source list. The central idea can change as the evidence develops.

Week 3 — Draft an explanation. Draft an introduction and two evidence sections across three sessions. Include a labeled comparison table or original diagram that represents actual source information accurately. In session 4, a partner reads for unsupported claims and unclear terms. In session 5, revise one section substantially. Save both versions and explain what the revision changed about the reader's understanding, not just how many words were added. Each writing type has its own grade-specific expectations: the report follows those for explanatory writing (a clear topic, related information grouped into sections, relevant facts and definitions, precise vocabulary and a concluding section), and the Week 4 claim evaluation follows those for argument (a claim supported by clear reasons and relevant evidence).

Week 4 — Write across reading tasks. Write a short literary analysis comparing the poem and drama in the companion lesson, with evidence about their related themes and different forms. Extend and revise it during a second session. In two further sessions, evaluate a claim in the library argument texts, distinguishing supported information from proposed outcomes. In session 5, write a brief science-process explanation from an observation or assigned science text, recording its evidence and limits. These tasks apply reading evidence across literary, informational and disciplinary purposes.

Week 5 — Collaborate and revise. Place the research draft in a teacher-approved shared document or equivalent accessible writing tool. Use comments to ask specific questions about claims, organization and clarity. Respond to a partner's feedback by explaining whether and how you will revise. Practice keyboarding during short daily passages: use accurate text entry, navigation, paragraph breaks and corrections to produce readable work. Compare your own accuracy and independence over time rather than treating an unsupported words-per-minute threshold as an Ohio requirement.

Week 6 — Edit, publish and reflect. Check citations, quotation boundaries, paraphrases, factual qualifications and graphic labels. Edit grammar, spelling and tone after the structure works. Editing for conventions means applying the grade 6 Language standards you have studied: pronouns in the proper case with clear antecedents and no unintended shifts in number or person, commas, parentheses or dashes around nonrestrictive elements, correct spelling, and a formal style kept consistent from section to section. Publish the revised report to the designated class or teacher audience using the approved tool; online publication may occur in a private classroom space. Complete a final short timed response to the research question, then compare it with the extended report. Reflect on what research, revision and collaboration made possible that a single timed sitting did not.

Worked refocusing: A student begins with “What did all ancient symbols mean?” The linked records cannot answer that enormous question. A defensible revision is “How do two museum records distinguish observed features from interpretations of their selected objects?” The narrower inquiry still needs several sources but gives the writer a criterion for including evidence.

Worked note separation: A source card has three headings: Exact wording; My paraphrase; My question. Copy a brief phrase only into the first space with quotation marks and location information. In the second, explain the relevant idea after putting the source aside, then check that its meaning and uncertainty remain intact. In the third, state a question the source does not answer. Keeping these functions separate helps avoid turning your question into a claimed finding.

Worked feedback: “Add more detail” is vague. “Your comparison says both objects served the same purpose, but the seal record marks part of its identification as uncertain with a question mark; revise that claim or supply evidence” identifies a specific issue and a path forward. A useful response explains the change and cites the relevant record rather than silently accepting every comment.

Worked relevance decisions for an independent question: A student's own narrowed question is "How does each of the two museum records signal which of its statements about the object are uncertain?" Three pieces of evidence arrive. First, a record's own qualifying wording beside a date range or an interpretation, copied exactly onto a card with its location: relevant and direct, because it is the very thing the question asks about. Second, a general encyclopedia paragraph on the history of writing: background only, because it describes writing in general and says nothing about how these records mark uncertainty, so it goes on the background list. Third, a gift-shop advertisement that uses an ancient-looking symbol: not relevant, because it is not about the recorded objects or how uncertainty is signaled, and it is also weak on credibility; it is set aside with that reason written down. The student then checks whether the direct evidence is enough. If qualifying wording has been recorded for only one record, the question, which asks about each record, is not yet answered, so the next search is for the second record's wording. The decisions, and the reasons for them, are the student's own.

Required portfolio: Submit the dated initial and refined questions; at least four evaluated sources including print and digital material; source cards separating quotation, paraphrase and interpretation; a research plan; an explanatory report of approximately 700 words with a useful graphic and bibliography; literary and informational analyses from Week 4; a science explanation; peer comments and responses; a revised published version; and the final short response with reflection. Length is a planning guide, not a substitute for substance.

Independent review: Check whether the report answers its actual question, whether every important factual claim has relevant support, and whether uncertainties remain visible. Check that the literary analysis compares forms using passage evidence and the informational analysis evaluates claims rather than just stating agreement. Explain one instance of refocusing, one meaningful revision and one improvement in digital production. An adult reviews the completed work and the process evidence; completing the short-answer prompts alone does not complete this workshop.

Relevance log: For every source you consult after Week 1, write one line: the source, the piece of evidence, your label (direct, partial, background or not relevant) and the reason for the label. Keep the set-aside lines; they show your judgment as clearly as the evidence you kept.