Research & Explanatory Writing — Print · English 7: Reading, Evidence & Expression, Grade 7

Research Questions: Scope & a Search Plan

Learning goals

• I can use the skills in Research Questions: Scope & a Search Plan with a relevant detail or sentence.
• I can explain the relationship, test a misleading claim, and revise independently.

Readings for this unit

• A Good Question Leaves Room for an Answer

Research begins with an answerable question, not a pile of copied facts. Define the topic, setting, available records, and manageable scope. Break the question into smaller inquiries that lead to relevant sources. A search plan uses varied keywords and records how a source was found. The supplied packet supports core inquiry without requiring outside websites; optional searches need adult guidance about access and source quality.

Not every source deserves your trust, and learning to tell a credible source from a shaky one is one of the most useful skills of the internet age. A credible source is accurate and trustworthy — usually written by someone with real expertise, published by a reputable organization, and willing to show the evidence behind its claims. To judge one, get in the habit of asking a few blunt questions.

Ask: Who wrote this — a named expert with relevant training, or nobody at all? Where was it published — an established, reviewed organization, or a random blog or anonymous post? Does it show its evidence, or just assert things? And does it show obvious bias — a slant toward one side that colors how fairly it presents information, or a sense that it's trying to sell you something? A source can be biased and still useful, but you need to know the slant is there so you can read it with clear eyes.

Good research isn't only about judging sources — it's about gathering well. Use specific, precise search terms instead of vague ones, and never lean on a single source. Check two or three on the same question, and treat any claim that seems surprising or too good to be true as a flag to verify elsewhere before you trust it. Real confidence comes from several solid sources agreeing, not from one lucky hit.

A learner writes “community rooms” as a research question. The course provides questionnaire, attendance, budget, and resident-letter evidence for a particular trial.

In this unit, first establish the literal meaning, then apply the named distinction to a short passage or sentence. Explain your choice with a located detail, test an alternative, and save a revision. Word counts guide longer writing; accurate sentence analysis may require only a few sentences.

Worked examples

Avoid these mistakes

• Misleading claim: A broad topic is already an answerable question. Correction: A research question should be answerable within the time, sources, and purpose of the project. Avoid a question that already assumes the answer. “Why is this the perfect plan?” directs evidence toward praise instead of allowing investigation.
• Misleading claim: Research should begin by assuming the proposal is perfect. Correction: Divide the question into subquestions that call for different evidence. Preferences, recorded use, access concerns, and estimated cost are related but not identical. A questionnaire cannot answer the budget question, and a cost sheet cannot measure satisfaction.

Words to know

inquiry question

A focused question that evidence can help investigate.

scope

The defined boundaries of a question, claim, or assignment.

evidence

A located detail, observation, or source used to support a claim.

qualification

A condition or limit that makes a statement more accurate.

revision

A change to meaning, development, organization, or audience fit, followed separately by editing.

In the real world

Exit check

Is “Why is this proposal perfect?” an open research question?

Source Credibility, Relevance & Corroboration

Learning goals

• I can use the skills in Source Credibility, Relevance & Corroboration with a relevant detail or sentence.
• I can explain the relationship, test a misleading claim, and revise independently.

Readings for this unit

• Planning an After-School Room: Four Sources

A credible source provides reasons to trust particular information: relevant knowledge, traceable evidence, an appropriate method, and a clear context. Relevance asks whether that information helps answer this question. A polished design or confident tone does not prove accuracy. Corroboration compares independently produced evidence rather than counting repeated copies of one claim.

Not every source deserves your trust, and learning to tell a credible source from a shaky one is one of the most useful skills of the internet age. A credible source is accurate and trustworthy — usually written by someone with real expertise, published by a reputable organization, and willing to show the evidence behind its claims. To judge one, get in the habit of asking a few blunt questions.

Ask: Who wrote this — a named expert with relevant training, or nobody at all? Where was it published — an established, reviewed organization, or a random blog or anonymous post? Does it show its evidence, or just assert things? And does it show obvious bias — a slant toward one side that colors how fairly it presents information, or a sense that it's trying to sell you something? A source can be biased and still useful, but you need to know the slant is there so you can read it with clear eyes.

Good research isn't only about judging sources — it's about gathering well. Use specific, precise search terms instead of vague ones, and never lean on a single source. Check two or three on the same question, and treat any claim that seems surprising or too good to be true as a flag to verify elsewhere before you trust it. Real confidence comes from several solid sources agreeing, not from one lucky hit.

A repost repeats Source A’s questionnaire numbers and presents them with a new chart. Source D independently describes a scheduling barrier.

In this unit, first establish the literal meaning, then apply the named distinction to a short passage or sentence. Explain your choice with a located detail, test an alternative, and save a revision. Word counts guide longer writing; accurate sentence analysis may require only a few sentences.

Worked examples

Avoid these mistakes

• Misleading claim: A polished website proves accuracy. Correction: Credibility concerns whether a source is dependable for a particular purpose. Examine authorship, method, date, access to information, and traceable evidence. A source can be useful for one question and weak for another. Appearance alone does not settle reliability.
• Misleading claim: Several copies of one report are independent corroboration. Correction: Follow a claim to its origin. A reposted chart based on Source A is not a second independent survey. Compare methods and source chains rather than counting web pages. If several pages repeat one record, identify the record they share.

Words to know

corroboration

Comparison with independently produced evidence that supports or challenges a claim.

relevance

The relationship between evidence and the specific question being investigated.

evidence

A located detail, observation, or source used to support a claim.

qualification

A condition or limit that makes a statement more accurate.

revision

A change to meaning, development, organization, or audience fit, followed separately by editing.

In the real world

Exit check

Can a source be credible but irrelevant to the task?

Research Notes, Quotation & Paraphrase

Learning goals

• I can use the skills in Research Notes, Quotation & Paraphrase with a relevant detail or sentence.
• I can explain the relationship, test a misleading claim, and revise independently.

Readings for this unit

• A Good Question Leaves Room for an Answer

Keep a record of a source’s exact wording, your paraphrase, and your commentary in separate categories. A quotation preserves words exactly; a paraphrase changes wording and structure while preserving meaning and qualifications. Both need attribution. Patchwriting swaps a few words while retaining the original sentence’s structure and can disguise copying. Re-read the source after paraphrasing to check that you have not enlarged its claim.

Not every source deserves your trust, and learning to tell a credible source from a shaky one is one of the most useful skills of the internet age. A credible source is accurate and trustworthy — usually written by someone with real expertise, published by a reputable organization, and willing to show the evidence behind its claims. To judge one, get in the habit of asking a few blunt questions.

Ask: Who wrote this — a named expert with relevant training, or nobody at all? Where was it published — an established, reviewed organization, or a random blog or anonymous post? Does it show its evidence, or just assert things? And does it show obvious bias — a slant toward one side that colors how fairly it presents information, or a sense that it's trying to sell you something? A source can be biased and still useful, but you need to know the slant is there so you can read it with clear eyes.

Good research isn't only about judging sources — it's about gathering well. Use specific, precise search terms instead of vague ones, and never lean on a single source. Check two or three on the same question, and treat any claim that seems surprising or too good to be true as a flag to verify elsewhere before you trust it. Real confidence comes from several solid sources agreeing, not from one lucky hit.

Source A states that 12 of 18 respondents selected quieter drawing from two offered activities. A draft says “Most residents demand a silent room.”

In this unit, first establish the literal meaning, then apply the named distinction to a short passage or sentence. Explain your choice with a located detail, test an alternative, and save a revision. Word counts guide longer writing; accurate sentence analysis may require only a few sentences.

Worked examples

Avoid these mistakes

• Misleading claim: Changing a few synonyms makes copied structure independent writing. Correction: A source note keeps exact quotation, paraphrase, and your own commentary visibly separate. Record the source label and location immediately. Waiting until the final draft encourages lost attribution and confusion about which wording is yours.
• Misleading claim: Ideas need no attribution when their wording is changed. Correction: To paraphrase, understand the passage, cover it, restate its meaning, and compare for accuracy. Preserve quantities, groups, and qualifications. Twelve of eighteen respondents means two thirds of respondents, not two thirds of all residents.

Words to know

paraphrase

A restatement in new wording and structure that preserves a source’s meaning and limits.

patchwriting

Changing a few words while closely retaining source wording or structure.

evidence

A located detail, observation, or source used to support a claim.

qualification

A condition or limit that makes a statement more accurate.

revision

A change to meaning, development, organization, or audience fit, followed separately by editing.

In the real world

Exit check

Does paraphrasing remove the need for a citation?

Informative & Explanatory Writing

Learning goals

• I can use the skills in Informative & Explanatory Writing with a relevant detail or sentence.
• I can explain the relationship, test a misleading claim, and revise independently.

Readings for this unit

• How a Repair Log Helps a Team Learn

An explanatory text helps an audience understand a topic, process, relationship, or distinction. It needs a focused central idea, accurate definitions, relevant details, and a structure that fits its purpose. It differs from an argument that asks readers to accept a disputed recommendation, although both require evidence and clear reasoning. Use the repair-log article as a model for explaining categories without claiming every uncertainty is resolved.

Not all writing is trying to win you over. Where argument writing pushes you toward a side, informative/explanatory writing has a calmer goal: to examine a topic and make it clear. Think of a how-to guide, an encyclopedia entry, or a report on how volcanoes form — the writer isn't out to change your mind, only to hand you real understanding. Because you're not taking a side, your job is to be accurate, organized, and fair, and to let the information itself do the work.

Every good informative piece is anchored by a controlling idea — the main point that tells the reader what the whole piece will explain, much like a thesis. It's the promise you make up front: 'This report will explain the three main ways volcanoes form.' A blurry controlling idea produces a blurry piece, because you and your reader both lose track of what you're trying to show. A sharp one keeps every paragraph pulling in the same direction.

Inside the piece, each body paragraph should open with a clear topic sentence that states that paragraph's own mini-focus, and then deliver elaboration — the specific facts, examples, definitions, and details that develop the point. Elaboration is where the real teaching happens, and skipping it is the single most common mistake in informative writing. A paragraph that announces 'rainforests are important' and stops has handed the reader a label but no understanding; adding that a single rainforest can shelter more tree species than an entire continent is what makes the point actually land.

A learner needs to explain why a missing attendance entry differs from a recorded zero and a scheduled closure.

In this unit, first establish the literal meaning, then apply the named distinction to a short passage or sentence. Explain your choice with a located detail, test an alternative, and save a revision. Word counts guide longer writing; accurate sentence analysis may require only a few sentences.

Worked examples

Avoid these mistakes

• Misleading claim: An explanation must always persuade readers to adopt a policy. Correction: An explanatory response helps a reader understand a process, distinction, or relationship. State a controlling idea without making a recommendation unless the assignment requests one. Explain the topic accurately before trying to make the prose sound sophisticated.
• Misleading claim: An example can be used without defining its important categories. Correction: Organize according to the relationship. A explanation of missing data may define categories, give examples, and explain consequences. A procedure needs an accurate order. Choose sections because they help the reader, not merely to reach a fixed paragraph count.

Words to know

explanation

Writing that clarifies how, why, or in what relationship something can be understood.

definition

A precise account of what a term means in the relevant context.

evidence

A located detail, observation, or source used to support a claim.

qualification

A condition or limit that makes a statement more accurate.

revision

A change to meaning, development, organization, or audience fit, followed separately by editing.

The "so what" test for a controlling idea

A controlling idea can be accurate and still be weak if it doesn't clear the "so what" bar — does it tell the reader something worth an entire piece of writing, or just restate the topic? "This report is about hurricanes" isn't a controlling idea; it's a topic label. "Hurricanes form through a specific chain of atmospheric conditions, and understanding that chain is what allows meteorologists to predict a storm's path days in advance" clears the bar — it makes a claim about why the topic matters or connects, giving the whole piece a job to do beyond just listing facts. Before finalizing a controlling idea, ask: if a reader only got this one sentence, would they know what specific angle the piece is about to explore?

Worked mini-analysis: elaboration that actually develops versus elaboration that just repeats

Compare two versions of the same paragraph. Version 1: "Sharks have an incredible sense of smell. Their sense of smell is very strong and helps them find things in the water." Version 2: "Sharks have an incredible sense of smell — some species can detect a single drop of blood diluted in 25 gallons of water, roughly the size of a small swimming pool. This sensitivity comes from specialized receptors lining their nostrils, which are used purely for smelling and never for breathing, unlike a human nose." Version 1's second sentence just restates the topic sentence in slightly different words — no new information is added. Version 2's elaboration adds a specific, vivid comparison (25 gallons, a swimming pool) and a mechanism (specialized receptors, contrasted with human anatomy) that genuinely deepens the reader's understanding. True elaboration always adds information the topic sentence didn't already contain, rather than saying the same thing with new adjectives.

Common mistake: organizing by "everything I found" instead of by structure

A frequent first-draft problem is organizing an informative piece in the order facts were discovered while researching, rather than by a deliberate structure (sequence, cause-effect, compare-contrast, categories) that best serves the reader. This often produces paragraphs that jump between unrelated ideas because that's simply the order they appeared in a source. Before drafting body paragraphs, it helps to sort your notes into groups first and ask which nonfiction text structure actually fits your topic best — a piece about how volcanoes form probably wants sequence or cause-effect; a piece about two energy sources probably wants compare-contrast.

Precision over impressiveness: choosing exact words

Strong informative writing favors precise words over merely impressive-sounding ones. A student aiming to sound sophisticated might write "the phenomenon of photosynthesis is utilized by flora to procure sustenance," when "plants use photosynthesis to make their own food" is clearer, equally accurate, and easier for a reader to actually learn from. The goal of informative writing is transferring understanding, not demonstrating vocabulary — every added syllable should earn its place by adding real precision, like a technical term with no simpler equivalent, not just formality for its own sake.

In the real world

Writing a clear how-to guide, a school report, or even a set of clear instructions for a group project all depend on the organizing and elaborating skills of informative writing.

Exit check

Does an explanatory conclusion have to recommend an action?

Integrate & Cite Evidence in Your Writing

Learning goals

• I can use the skills in Integrate & Cite Evidence in Your Writing with a relevant detail or sentence.
• I can explain the relationship, test a misleading claim, and revise independently.

Readings for this unit

• Planning an After-School Room: Four Sources

Evidence integration connects a source with your sentence and purpose. Give enough context to avoid a misleading fragment, use short quotations when their wording matters, and paraphrase when the information matters more than its exact words. Course originals use source letters and paragraph numbers; the novel uses chapter locations. Do not invent page numbers, dates, or bibliographic details. References help readers trace evidence and do not guarantee the inference is valid.

Finding strong evidence is only step one; the harder skill is weaving that evidence into your own writing so it reads smoothly. The classic beginner mistake is the 'floating quote' — a quotation dropped into a paragraph with nothing connecting it, like: 'Students face many challenges. "The library closes at 4 p.m." This is a problem.' It's jarring because the quote just sits there, orphaned, with no lead-in and no explanation, so the reader is left to do all the work of figuring out why it's even there.

The first fix is a signal phrase, a short lead-in that tells the reader where the evidence comes from and eases them into it — openers like 'According to the school newspaper' or 'The author explains.' Pair that with learning to integrate the quote, blending it into a complete sentence of your own instead of letting it stand alone. Watch the difference: 'According to the school newspaper, the library "closes at 4 p.m.," leaving little time for students with after-school jobs to use it.' Now the quote is stitched into your sentence rather than crash-landing in the middle of your paragraph.

Even a smoothly integrated quote isn't the finish line, though. The step that actually earns you credit is the analysis — your own explanation of what the evidence means and why it supports your point. Evidence never speaks for itself as plainly as you'd expect; two readers can look at the exact same quote and walk away with opposite conclusions. Your analysis is where you tell the reader precisely how to read it, and it's the part where the real arguing gets done.

A draft writes “300 proves everyone can use the room,” with no source label. The number is the total of selected estimated costs in Source C.

In this unit, first establish the literal meaning, then apply the named distinction to a short passage or sentence. Explain your choice with a located detail, test an alternative, and save a revision. Word counts guide longer writing; accurate sentence analysis may require only a few sentences.

Worked examples

Avoid these mistakes

• Misleading claim: A citation makes an unsupported inference valid. Correction: Integration joins a source detail with your own purpose and reasoning. Introduce the source accurately, use a short quotation or paraphrase, and explain its relevance. Dropping a quotation between unrelated sentences does not create a supported paragraph.
• Misleading claim: Missing page numbers should be invented for a formal appearance. Correction: Synthesise sources by comparing their contributions to a question. The budget supplies an estimate; the letter identifies an access concern. One does not cancel the other. Explain why a plan may meet a listed budget while still requiring a scheduling revision.

Words to know

attribution

Identification of the source of words, information, or ideas.

locator

A paragraph, line, chapter, or other available label that helps a reader find evidence.

evidence

A located detail, observation, or source used to support a claim.

qualification

A condition or limit that makes a statement more accurate.

revision

A change to meaning, development, organization, or audience fit, followed separately by editing.

Varying your signal phrases so they don't sound robotic

New writers often lean on the exact same signal phrase ("According to the text...") every single time, which becomes repetitive fast across a whole essay. Skilled writers vary the phrasing based on what they want to emphasize: "The article reveals..." emphasizes something surprising or hidden; "As the author explains..." emphasizes a clear, direct explanation; "The data shows..." emphasizes objective numbers over opinion; "One expert cautions that..." emphasizes a note of concern or warning. Choosing a signal phrase isn't just about avoiding repetition — different phrases subtly frame how the reader should receive the evidence that follows, so the choice is part of your argument, not just decoration.

Worked mini-analysis: analysis that adds versus analysis that just restates the quote

Read this quote-sandwich attempt: "According to a school survey, 'sixty percent of students said they'd use a quiet study room if one were available.' This shows that sixty percent of students would use a quiet study room." Notice the "analysis" sentence just repeats the quote in slightly different words — it adds zero new thinking. Compare: "According to a school survey, 'sixty percent of students said they'd use a quiet study room if one were available.' That number suggests the demand isn't a fringe request from a handful of students — it represents a majority, which is exactly the kind of broad support a principal would need to justify reallocating an existing room." The second version does real analytical work: it interprets what the number means and connects it to a broader implication. Genuine analysis always moves past the quote to explain its significance, not just its content.

Common mistake: over-quoting when paraphrase would serve better

Some students, worried about "getting it wrong," end up quoting entire sentences when only a key phrase actually matters, which can make an essay feel like a scrapbook of other people's words rather than the student's own argument. If the exact wording isn't essential to your point, paraphrase the idea in your own words and save direct quotation for phrases where the specific language truly matters — a precise number, a memorable phrase, or language you want to examine closely. A paragraph should sound like your voice interrupted occasionally by someone else's exact words for a good reason, not someone else's voice with your name attached.

Citing sources fairly, even when they complicate your point

A subtler skill professional writers practice is citing evidence honestly, even the parts that don't perfectly support their claim. If a source you're using for evidence also contains information that complicates your argument, ignoring it isn't neutral — it's a version of the same "unfair dismissal" problem from evaluating other people's arguments. Strong writers sometimes address this directly ("while some data suggests X, the larger trend still points to Y") rather than cherry-picking only the convenient sentence. This habit doesn't just make your writing more honest — it also makes it more persuasive, since readers trust writers who show they've considered the full picture rather than only the parts that were convenient.

In the real world

Smoothly integrating evidence is exactly what you need for research papers, debate prep, or backing up a point in a classroom discussion with something more convincing than 'I just think so.'

Exit check

Should a writer invent a page number because every citation looks more formal with one?