Conduct an independent research project on a self-generated question, evaluate the relevance of evidence, and use digital skills and tools to publish and collaborate

Learning goal: This lesson teaches Ohio's 2026 standards W.8.7 and W.8.6, first implemented in 2027-28. You will conduct an independent research project to answer a question, including a self-generated question, by using credible sources on the topic, recording relevant evidence, evaluating and determining the relevancy of evidence, and generating additional, related questions for further research and investigation. You will also use a variety of digital skills (such as keyboarding) and tools (such as multimedia platforms) to produce and publish writing, present the relationships between information and ideas efficiently, and collaborate with others.

A self-generated question. An independent research project begins with a question you choose because you want the answer. A good self-generated question is specific enough to answer in a few weeks, open enough to need more than one source, and connected to something observable. "Why is traffic bad?" is too broad. "Why is the east doorway of our school so crowded at dismissal, and would directing more students to the west door help?" names a place, a time and a decision.

Using credible sources on the topic (W.8.7a). Credible sources come from people or organizations with knowledge of the topic who explain where their information comes from. For a local question, your own careful observation is a source too, if you record how you collected it. In the model project, sources are the student's own dismissal counts, the district's written bus schedule and a city planning guide on pedestrian walkways (both documents are model sources invented for this lesson). An anonymous comment on a parents' forum saying "the doors are a disaster" is not credible evidence: no author, no method, no data.

Recording relevant evidence (W.8.7b). Record evidence as you find it in a research log: the evidence (quoted or paraphrased), its source and location, and the date. Evidence is relevant when it helps answer your question. Recording it immediately, with its source, prevents both lost information and accidental plagiarism.

Evaluating and determining the relevancy of evidence (W.8.7c). Not everything you find belongs in your answer. For each note, ask: does this help answer my question directly, partly or not at all? A count of students using each door at dismissal is directly relevant. The bus schedule is partly relevant: it explains why students rush toward the east lot. The year the building opened and the color of the doors are true but irrelevant. Evaluating relevance is a judgment, and you should write the reason beside each decision, because the same fact can be relevant to one question and irrelevant to another: the building's age would matter if the question were about the doorway's width meeting a modern code.

Generating additional, related questions (W.8.7d). Research branches. As you answer your question, new ones appear: "Do students leave by the east door because buses park there, or because the west hallway is longer?" Record them. Some become the next project; some tell a reader what your answer does not cover.

Digital skills and tools to produce and publish writing (W.8.6). Digital skills include keyboarding, meaning typing accurately without looking at the keys, with fingers on the home row, building accuracy before speed; using shortcuts to copy, undo and find; and naming and organizing files. Digital tools include word processors, spreadsheets, shared documents and multimedia platforms, programs that combine text, images, charts, audio and video, such as a slide deck with an embedded chart and narration. Producing writing means drafting and revising in these tools; publishing means sharing a final version with a real audience, such as a school website or a class page, in a format that audience can open.

Presenting relationships between information and ideas efficiently. Some relationships are faster to see in a table or graph than in prose. A bar chart comparing students per door lets a reader see the imbalance in two seconds; a paragraph of numbers takes a minute. A table aligns times with counts. Efficiency means the reader grasps the relationship quickly and accurately, so every chart needs a title, labeled axes and units.

Collaborating with others. Shared documents let classmates comment and suggest edits; version history shows who changed what and lets you restore earlier text; a shared spreadsheet lets partners enter counts from two doors at once. Collaboration is productive when comments are specific ("your chart's y-axis lacks units") and when the author responds to each.

A common misconception. Students often think more sources and more notes make better research. Research quality comes from relevance: ten irrelevant notes weaken a report by burying the evidence that answers the question.

Original research log (excerpt) — Ruby's dismissal project (a model log; the school, counts and documents are invented)

Question (self-generated): Why is the east doorway so crowded at dismissal, and would directing more students to the west door help?
Note 1 (own observation, Tuesday, October 6, 3:05-3:11 p.m.): 310 students left by the east door; 120 by the west door. Method: two counters with clickers, one per door. Relevant: directly.
Note 2 (district bus schedule, page 2): all six buses load in the east lot. Relevant: partly; it explains the pull toward the east door.
Note 3 (city planning guide, section 4, paraphrase): wider walkways and a second route reduce crowding at a single entrance. Relevant: partly; general guidance, not our building.
Note 4 (school website, history page): the building opened decades ago and was renovated later. Relevant: no, for this question.
New question: If buses also loaded on the west side, how many students would change doors?

Worked example 1 — Evaluating relevance with reasons. Ruby sorts her notes into a table. Note 1 (310 east, 120 west): directly relevant, because it shows how unevenly the two doors are used; the east door carried 310 of the 430 students counted, more than 70%. It does not by itself measure crowding: a count of people passing through a door says nothing about how long they wait or how tightly they are packed, so Ruby records a related question: "How long do students wait to get through each door?" Note 2 (buses load east): partly relevant, because it offers a cause. Note 3 (planning guide): partly relevant, because it supports the possible solution but is not about her building. Note 4 (building history): irrelevant, because the question is about dismissal flow, not age; she removes it from the report and keeps it in the log with the reason.

Worked example 2 — Presenting a relationship efficiently. Ruby types her counts into a spreadsheet, two rows: East 310, West 120, and inserts a bar chart titled "Students leaving by each door, 3:05-3:11 p.m. (one Tuesday)." Beside it she writes one sentence: "The east door carried about 2.6 times as many students as the west door (310 ÷ 120 ≈ 2.58)." The chart shows the imbalance at a glance; the sentence gives the exact relationship; the title states the limit of one day's count.

Worked example 3 — Collaborating and publishing with digital tools. Ruby shares her draft in a class document. Her partner comments: "You say sending more students west would help, but your evidence only shows that the east door carries far more students, not how crowded it is or what students would do." Ruby replies in the comment thread, adds a sentence limiting her claim, and records a new question. She touch-types the revision, uses version history to recover a paragraph she deleted by mistake, then builds a four-slide multimedia version on a presentation platform: title, chart, recommendation with its limits, and a 45-second narrated clip of the doorway at 3:08. The report is published on the class page as a document readers can open without special software.

Representation task — research log with relevance ratings. Set up a digital research log (a table in a document or spreadsheet) with columns: note number, evidence (quoted or paraphrased), source and location, credibility check, relevance (direct, partial, none) and reason, and new question raised. Fill it with at least eight notes on a self-generated question. Then make one chart or table that presents the key relationship in your evidence efficiently, with title, labels and units.

Independent performance. Complete an independent research project over two to three weeks on a question you generate about your school or community. Produce a 600-word report in a word processor, a one-page chart or table, and a multimedia version (slides, audio or video) for a real audience, and publish both in a format your audience can open. Use a shared document for peer feedback and respond to every comment.

Success criteria: Your question is self-generated, specific and answerable. You use at least three credible sources, one of which may be your own recorded observation with its method. Your log records relevant evidence with sources as you find it. Every note carries a relevance rating and a reason, and irrelevant notes stay out of the report. You record at least two additional, related questions and include one in your conclusion. Your document is keyboarded accurately and edited with digital tools; your chart presents a relationship efficiently with title, labels and units; your comment thread shows collaboration; your published versions reach the intended audience.