Conduct an independent research project, evaluate the relevancy of evidence, and use digital skills and tools to publish, cite and collaborate

Learning goal: This lesson teaches Ohio's 2026 standards W.7.7 and W.7.6, first implemented in 2027-28. You will conduct independent research projects to answer a question by using multiple sources on a topic; recording relevant evidence; evaluating and determining the relevancy of evidence; and generating additional, related questions for further research and investigation. You will use a variety of digital skills, such as keyboarding, and digital tools, such as multimedia platforms, to produce and publish writing, link and/or cite sources, and collaborate with others.

What makes a research project independent. An independent research project is one you drive: you choose or refine the question, find the sources, decide what counts as evidence and write the answer. A teacher may approve the question and check your log, but the decisions are yours. A good research question is focused enough to answer in a few weeks and open enough to need several sources. "What is food waste?" is too broad and can be answered with a definition. "How much food is thrown away at our school's lunch, and would a share table reduce it?" is focused, local and needs evidence.

Using multiple sources on a topic. No single source answers a real question completely. Plan at least three kinds of source: data you collect yourself (a count, a survey, an observation), an informational source from an organization with expertise (a university extension office, a government agency, an established news outlet), and a person with direct knowledge (an interview with a cafeteria manager). Multiple sources let you check one against another.

Recording relevant evidence. Keep a research log, either a table in a shared document or note cards. Each entry records the source (author or organization, title, date, URL or publication, and the date you accessed it), the exact quotation in quotation marks or an accurate paraphrase, the page or section, the sub-question it helps answer, and your relevancy judgment. Recording the source at the moment you take the note prevents accidental plagiarism later, when you can no longer remember where a sentence came from.

Evaluating and determining the relevancy of evidence. Relevant evidence bears directly on your question. Relevancy is not the same as credibility. A credible national report on grocery-store waste is trustworthy, but it tells you little about a middle school cafeteria. A student blog is less authoritative, but if it describes a share table in a school like yours, it may be partly relevant. Test each piece of evidence with four questions. Does it address my question or only the general topic? Does it match my setting and population (a school cafeteria, students of this age)? Does it match the time and scale (recent, and about lunches rather than a whole city)? Is it direct evidence or only related background? Evidence can be highly relevant, partly relevant (useful background, with limits you must state), or not relevant (leave it out, however interesting). Determining relevancy also means deciding where evidence belongs: a statistic about why food is wasted is relevant to the "why" part of your report, not to "how much."

Generating additional, related questions. Good research raises new questions. As you read, write down questions your sources cannot answer: "Which foods are thrown away most?" "Does the length of the lunch period change how much is wasted?" "What happens to food left on the share table at the end of lunch?" These additional, related questions for further research and investigation go in your report's final section and show where the next project could begin. They also keep you honest about the limits of what you found.

Digital skills: keyboarding and more. Keyboarding is typing efficiently: using the home-row position (fingers resting on A S D F and J K L ;), keeping eyes on the screen, and building accuracy before speed, because errors cost time to fix. Other digital skills make writing faster and cleaner: shortcuts to copy, paste, undo and find (Ctrl or Command with C, V, Z and F on most computers), formatting headings with styles instead of by hand, and inserting a table rather than lining up numbers with spaces.

Digital tools: produce, publish, link, cite, collaborate. A word processor or shared document produces the writing. A multimedia platform, such as a slide program, a class website, or an audio or video tool, publishes it with images, charts or recordings. To link a source, attach a hyperlink to descriptive words ("the county extension office's guide to share tables") rather than pasting a bare address, and check that the link opens. To cite a source, give author or organization, title, date, publisher or site and URL in a consistent format your class uses; a link alone is not a citation, because links break. To collaborate, share the document with teammates and the teacher, divide sections, use comments to ask questions and suggestion mode to propose edits, respond to every comment, and use version history if a change needs to be undone.

A misconception to avoid. Many students collect every source that contains their key words and cite them all, thinking more sources means better research. Irrelevant evidence weakens a report: it takes space, distracts the reader and suggests you have not judged your material. The strength of research is in the evidence you kept and why.

Original research log — How much food is thrown away at our lunch? (A student model with invented data.)

Sub-question 1: How much food is thrown away? Source 1: our own lunch-waste count, five school days, food scraps weighed after each lunch. Evidence: Monday 38 pounds, Tuesday 41, Wednesday 35, Thursday 44, Friday 32; total 190 pounds, an average of 38 pounds a day. Relevancy: highly relevant (our school, our question, this month).

Sub-question 2: Would a share table reduce waste? Source 2: a county extension office guide to school share tables (organization, title, date, URL recorded). Evidence (paraphrase): a share table is a place where students leave unopened, packaged items they will not eat, for other students to take, following local health rules. Relevancy: relevant background; it explains the idea but gives no numbers for our school. Source 3: our own trial week with a share table: Monday 30 pounds, Tuesday 33, Wednesday 29, Thursday 31, Friday 27; total 150 pounds, an average of 30 pounds a day. Relevancy: highly relevant, with limits: one week each, and the menus were not identical. Source 4: a news article about restaurant food waste. Relevancy: not relevant to a school cafeteria; not used.

Additional questions: Which foods were most often left? Did the different menus cause part of the change? Would the drop last beyond one week?

Worked example 1 — Focusing the question. Starting question: "How can we stop food waste?" Too broad: it covers homes, stores and farms, and cannot be answered in three weeks. Focused question: "How much food is thrown away at our school's lunch, and would a share table reduce it?" The revised question names a place, a measurable amount and one possible solution, so the researcher knows what evidence would answer it.

Worked example 2 — Calculating from recorded evidence. Before the share table: 38 + 41 + 35 + 44 + 32 = 190 pounds over five days, 190 ÷ 5 = 38 pounds per day. During the trial: 30 + 33 + 29 + 31 + 27 = 150 pounds, 150 ÷ 5 = 30 pounds per day. Difference: 190 − 150 = 40 pounds, and 40 ÷ 190 is about 0.21, a drop of about 21%. The report must state the limits: one week each, different menus, and the scraps were weighed, not sorted by type, so the evidence supports "waste was lower in the trial week" rather than "the share table cut waste by 21%."

Worked example 3 — Evaluating relevancy of three pieces of evidence. (a) A national report that grocery stores discard large amounts of produce: credible, but not relevant; wrong setting and scale. (b) An extension office guide explaining how share tables work and which items may be shared: relevant background for sub-question 2, credible, but it does not measure our school. (c) The cafeteria manager's interview statement that "milk cartons and apples are what I see left most": directly relevant to the additional question about which foods are wasted, from a person with direct knowledge; record it as one observation, not a count.

Worked example 4 — Using digital tools to publish, link, cite and collaborate. The team writes the report in a shared document. One member types the data table using the table tool; another formats headings with styles. A teammate comments, "Should we say the share table caused the drop?" and the writer replies with the menu limitation and revises the sentence. The published version goes on a class website with a bar chart of the two weeks. In the text, the words "county extension office's share-table guide" are linked, and the works-cited list gives the organization, title, date and URL, so readers can find the source even if the link later breaks.

Representation task — research log and relevancy table. Create a research log in a shared document using the table tool. Columns: source (full citation details), quotation or paraphrase, location, sub-question, relevancy (high, partial, not relevant) and reason. Enter at least six pieces of evidence from at least three different sources, including at least one you decide is not relevant and one that is only partly relevant, with the reason. Type the log yourself using home-row keyboarding and note how many minutes it took.

Independent performance. Over two to three weeks, conduct an independent research project on a question you choose and your teacher approves. Publish a 600-word report on a multimedia platform your class uses (a class website, a slide presentation with speaker notes, or a document with an embedded chart), work with one partner through comments, and end with a section of additional questions.

Success criteria: Your question is focused and answerable. You use multiple sources of at least two kinds, and your log records relevant evidence with full source information. You evaluate and determine the relevancy of every piece of evidence you kept and explain why you left out at least one source. Your report states the limits of your evidence. You generate at least three additional, related questions for further research and investigation. You produce the report with digital tools, publish it, link at least two sources with descriptive link text, cite every source in a consistent format, and show at least two collaboration comments you answered or acted on.