Study guide: Civic Research and a Defensible Recommendation
Build a researchable civic question, trace support and propose a bounded next step.
Ideas to explain in your own words
- A useful civic question names a decision, population, period and measure. A value question asks what should matter; a descriptive question asks what exists; a causal question asks why; an implementation question asks how a process works. Different questions need different evidence, so avoid answering one with data designed for another.
- Provenance identifies where a source came from and how it was created. Corroboration compares relevant independent evidence. Scope states what the evidence covers; missingness states what is absent. A source can be useful without proving every claim, and multiple copies of one account are not independent corroboration.
- A recommendation should compare options using stated criteria and available evidence. Feasibility concerns constraints; expected benefit is a forecast; observed result is measured after action; uncertainty is what remains unknown. A plausible forecast may justify a bounded test, but it cannot be presented as already achieved.
- A civic brief should state its finding, support, limitation and next step. A revision rule names evidence that would change the recommendation. A small test can be completed as a paper design using fictional data; no real school, official response or personal disclosure is needed. Do not turn the proposal into an achieved outcome.
Useful vocabulary
- Value question
- a question about priorities or what should be done
- Descriptive question
- a question about measured or documented conditions
- Provenance
- information about creation and custody of a source
- Corroboration
- comparison with relevant independent evidence
- Feasibility
- whether an option fits stated resource or operational constraints
- Expected benefit
- a projected favorable effect not yet observed
- Finding
- the conclusion supported by the supplied evidence
- Limitation
- a relevant boundary on what the finding establishes
Watch your reasoning
- Treating An Answerable Civic Research Question as identical to Source Provenance and Corroboration; check the distinct feature each lesson teaches.
- Extending one supplied example or model to every person, place or period without matching evidence. Evaluate every required condition and name the evidence that changes the recommendation.
A worked review example
Worked analysis: A fictional report measures attendance, while a proposal asks whether changing a schedule caused inclusion to improve. First, separate the supplied facts and the question each can answer. Then compare the relevant rule, relationship or scope. The attendance record addresses description, not the entire causal or equity question. Define the group, period, outcome and comparison needed to assess the proposal. Match evidence design to the question rather than forcing one dataset to answer every kind of question.
Make a practice plan
- Review the factual notes for An Answerable Civic Research Question and explain its defining distinction.
- Complete the main checks and three practice questions in each of the four lessons; write a reason, operation or evidence limit before checking.
- Use the review questions to diagnose the specific lesson needing practice, then retry it with the changed-input extension.
- Write the unit transfer task before attempting its separate cumulative questions.