Five Days, Four Sources, One Unanswerable Question
For a Grade 7 inquiry on "Is the stormwater pond behind the school healthy?" students have five days and must use at least three sources. Riley has collected four: (1) a 2009 personal blog post with photos of algae; (2) a company website that sells pond aerators, stating that pond problems are "almost always" solved by aeration; (3) the provincial water-quality database, with 2019–2023 readings for dissolved oxygen and phosphorus at the pond; (4) a 2021 peer-reviewed study of urban stormwater ponds in the same ecoregion. Riley's draft question is "Is the pond dying?" and his thesis is "The pond is dying because the blog shows algae."
1. Evaluate the four sources and decide which ones Riley should use, which he should drop, and under what condition the aerator company's page could stay.
Read the worked answer
Use as the backbone (3) and (4).
- The provincial database is the only source that is about this pond, recent, and measurable. Dissolved oxygen and phosphorus readings can be compared to a standard or a range, which is what turns an opinion into a finding.
- The 2021 study supplies the interpretive frame - what oxygen and phosphorus levels mean for ponds in this region - and it has been reviewed. It is not about this pond, so it cannot be the sole evidence, but it tells Riley what to do with the numbers.
Downgrade (1). The blog is a genuine observation and worth keeping as context - someone saw algae, and photos are evidence of a sort - but it is 14 years old, unauthored by a qualified source, and shows no measurement. It can raise the question; it cannot answer it.
Drop (2), or keep it under an explicit condition. The aerator seller has a direct financial interest in a diagnosis of poor health. Keeping it is defensible only if Riley uses it as a claim to be tested, not as evidence - i.e., "the company says aeration solves most pond problems; the oxygen data would show whether low oxygen is even the issue." A Grade 7 student can manage that distinction if the teacher names it.
The error to name: Riley is currently building the thesis on his weakest source.
2. Rewrite Riley's question into a researchable one, and state exactly what evidence would answer it.
Read the worked answer
Why the original fails: "Is the pond dying?" is a yes/no question about a process no one can observe directly, over an unspecified time span, with no agreed measure. It cannot be answered by a five-day inquiry - which means any thesis becomes an opinion with citations attached.
A researchable rewrite: "How do the dissolved oxygen and phosphorus levels in the school stormwater pond from 2019 to 2023 compare with the healthy-pond ranges described in the 2021 regional study?"
What would answer it:
- The pond's yearly readings for both measures, plotted or tabled so a trend is visible;
- the comparison range from the study, quoted accurately;
- an explicit statement of what a match or mismatch would imply.
What would not answer it: photographs of algae, a company's claim, or a single year's reading.
Why this version is worth the rewrite: it is answerable with the sources Riley already has, it produces a finding rather than a verdict, and it makes his conclusion falsifiable - if the readings sit inside the healthy range, he must say so. That is the difference between inquiry and advocacy.
3. Riley says, "But there are pictures of green algae - doesn't that prove the pond is bad?" How should the teacher respond, and what should Riley do with the photos?
Read the worked answer
Respond: "The photos show you that something was there in 2009. They can't tell you whether it's there now, how much there was, or whether that much is harmful. What would tell you?"
Why this framing:
- It credits the observation rather than dismissing it, so Riley does not conclude that noticing things is unwelcome in research.
- It separates existence from significance - algae is normal in ponds; the question is quantity and type. That distinction is the actual content of the lesson.
- It ends with a question, keeping the next move with Riley.
What Riley should do with the photos: keep them, labelled as a dated observation and placed next to the water-quality data. If the 2019–2023 phosphorus readings are elevated, the 2009 photographs become corroborating historical colour; if they are normal, the photos become an interesting puzzle - what changed, or what was misread? Either outcome teaches more than deleting them.
What to avoid: refusing the blog outright. Riley will read that as "sources are either allowed or banned," which is the misconception that produced the citation of a seller's website in the first place.