TASC Student Directed Inquiry key terms

A clear, focused question that guides an investigation and can be answered with evidence rather than opinion. It defines what the researcher will study and what counts as a satisfactory answer.

A question that can realistically be investigated using available time, tools, data, and methods. It is specific enough to answer with evidence and avoids questions that are purely personal preference or impossible to test.

The boundaries of an investigation, including which population, time period, place, and variables are included or excluded. A clear scope keeps a project manageable and prevents overgeneralized conclusions.

A testable statement predicting a relationship between variables or an expected outcome. It is written before data collection and can be supported, rejected, or revised based on the evidence gathered.

A statement that no relationship or difference exists between variables. Researchers test it so that evidence, rather than hope or bias, determines whether an observed pattern is meaningful.

A precise description of how a concept will be measured or observed in a study. For example, 'engagement' might be defined as minutes spent on a task, making the idea concrete and repeatable.

Any factor, characteristic, or condition that can change or take different values in an investigation. Researchers identify variables so they can observe, measure, and compare them systematically.

The factor that a researcher deliberately changes or groups by, to observe its effect. In an experiment, it is the presumed cause being tested.

The outcome that is measured in an investigation and may change in response to the independent variable. It is the presumed effect the researcher records and analyzes.

An outside factor that influences the dependent variable and is mixed up with the independent variable, making results misleading. Researchers try to control or account for these to protect the accuracy of conclusions.

Original material produced by a participant, witness, or researcher at the time of an event, such as raw data, interviews, or original documents. It offers direct evidence rather than secondhand commentary.

Material that interprets, summarizes, or analyzes primary sources, such as review articles, textbooks, or news summaries. It is useful for context but depends on the accuracy of its sources.

The trustworthiness of information based on the author's expertise, the publisher's reputation, the evidence offered, and the date of publication. Credible sources let readers check claims and avoid unsupported assertions.

A process in which independent experts evaluate a study before publication, checking methods, evidence, and reasoning. It improves quality but does not guarantee that findings are correct or unbiased.

A systematic slant or error that pushes results, sources, or interpretations in a particular direction. It can arise from sampling, measurement, wording, or the interests of the people producing information.

The tendency to notice, seek out, and favor information that supports existing beliefs while ignoring contrary evidence. Researchers reduce it by actively looking for disconfirming data and using preplanned methods.

Using multiple sources, methods, investigators, or data sets to check a finding. When different approaches point to the same conclusion, confidence in the result increases.

Confirming a claim or piece of evidence with an independent source or dataset. Corroborated information is stronger than a single unverified statement because separate lines of evidence agree.

The overall plan for how an investigation will be carried out, including participants, procedures, measures, and analysis. A sound design aligns methods with the question being asked.

The system of principles and procedures used to gather and analyze data. It explains why particular methods suit the research question and how the study will be conducted and evaluated.

The procedure used to select participants or items from a larger population. The method affects how representative the sample is and how far findings can be generalized.

A group selected so that its key characteristics reasonably reflect the larger population being studied. Representative samples support broader conclusions than samples drawn from a narrow or convenient group.

A distortion that occurs when some members of a population are more likely to be selected than others. It can make results unrepresentative and lead to conclusions that do not hold beyond the sample.

A comparison group that does not receive the treatment or condition being tested, or receives a neutral version. Comparing it with the treatment group helps isolate the effect of the independent variable.

Formal review and permission from an oversight body before a study involving people or sensitive data begins. It confirms that risks, consent, privacy, and fair treatment have been addressed.

Voluntary agreement to take part in research after being told the purpose, procedures, risks, and right to withdraw. It protects participants and respects their autonomy.

Information expressed as numbers or counts that can be measured and statistically summarized. It is useful for detecting patterns, comparing groups, and testing relationships between variables.

Non-numerical information such as interview responses, observations, or written accounts that captures meaning, experience, and detail. It is often analyzed by identifying themes and patterns.

The arithmetic average found by adding all values and dividing by the number of values. It summarizes a data set but can be pulled strongly by unusually high or low values.

The middle value when data are ordered from lowest to highest. It is less affected by extreme values than the mean and is useful for skewed data.

A data point that lies unusually far from the rest of the values. Researchers examine outliers to decide whether they reflect error, a rare event, or an important pattern.

A statistical relationship in which two variables tend to change together. Correlation alone does not show that one variable causes the other, because other factors may explain the link.

A relationship in which a change in one factor directly produces a change in another. Establishing causation usually requires controlled comparison and ruling out plausible alternative explanations.

A result unlikely to have occurred by chance alone under a stated probability threshold. It indicates an observed pattern is probably not random, but it does not by itself prove importance or causation.

A measure of how large a difference or relationship is, independent of sample size. It helps readers judge practical importance rather than relying only on whether a result is statistically significant.

A statement that asserts something is true and requires support. In evidence-based reasoning, claims are judged by the quality and relevance of the evidence offered for them.

Information, data, or findings used to support or challenge a claim. Strong evidence is relevant, reliable, and sufficient, and it is clearly connected to the point it is meant to establish.

The reasoning that explains why a piece of evidence supports a particular claim. It makes the logical link explicit so readers can evaluate whether the inference is justified.

An opposing view or alternative explanation that challenges a claim. Addressing counterarguments strengthens reasoning by showing that the author considered and answered competing evidence.

A weakness or constraint in a study's design, sample, or data that affects how confidently results can be interpreted. Honest reporting of limitations shows what the evidence can and cannot support.

The extent to which findings from a study can be applied to other people, settings, or times. It depends on how representative the sample is and how similar the new context is to the original.