MODULE 08 · Skill training · 95 MINUTES

Research questions, source evaluation, and evidence synthesis

Learn the principle. Practice the work. Preserve what you learn.

Your learning goals

Create an answerable program research question.
Evaluate sources against the intended decision.
Write a synthesis that preserves uncertainty.

Preparation

Start with a decision and a question

Research is most useful when it informs a concrete program decision. Begin with the intended audience, need, intervention or activity, outcome, and context. A broad topic such as leadership can become a bounded question: “Which features help adult learners turn a short reflection exercise into a specific service plan?” Define what information would change the design. Separate a descriptive question about current practice from an effectiveness question about outcomes. Write inclusion criteria before selecting sources: topic, audience, date range where relevant, type of evidence, language, and setting. Keep the search record transparent so another contributor can see how the evidence was assembled.

Read sources for their actual contribution

Evaluate authorship, methods, sample, setting, measures, analysis, limitations, and relevance to the current program. A research paper, official program page, theological source, participant account, and promotional statement contribute different kinds of evidence. Record what each can support. Read beyond the abstract for claims central to the design. For a study, identify whether the outcome was observed, self-reported, short-term, or compared with another group. For organizational information, use the current official source and record its date. When evidence is incomplete or conflicting, explain the uncertainty and the practical effect on your recommendation. Keep source quotations brief and properly attributed.

Synthesize across sources

A synthesis organizes findings around the question, not around a sequence of article summaries. Group recurring design features, disagreements, gaps, and context differences. Use an evidence table to connect each claim with its source and limitation. Then write a short decision brief: question, search approach, strongest relevant findings, uncertainty, recommendation, and next test. Avoid giving every source equal weight when its methods or relevance differ. A modest recommendation may be the strongest outcome: pilot a clear worked example, measure usability, and revisit the design with participant feedback. Keep the distinction between a literature-supported rationale and evidence from the actual Q45 program visible.

Worked example

title

Worked example: a bounded evidence recommendation

body

Synthetic source packet: Source A is a small learner survey reporting that examples improved perceived clarity; Source B is an instructional design guide recommending explicit success criteria; Source C is a promotional page claiming universal transformation. The synthesis gives A a limited self-report role, uses B for a design principle, and treats C as a claim requiring independent support. Recommendation: add a completed fictional example and a clear action-plan criterion, then test whether learners can identify their next step. The brief states that effectiveness in the Q45 setting remains to be evaluated.

Your practical assignment

Write a decision-focused evidence brief

Create one answerable question for a Q45 educational or mission initiative.
Document search terms, selection criteria, and source dates.
Build an evidence table with at least six inspected sources or use a clearly labeled synthetic source packet for practice.
Compare the findings and their limitations.
Write a 900–1,200-word brief with a bounded recommendation and a proposed learning test.

Evidence to prepare

A search record and six-source evidence table.
A 900–1,200-word synthesis brief.
A claim-to-source verification checklist.

Assignment scoring guide

Use these criteria for self assessment and feedback. Each criterion contributes 25 points to the 100-point assignment rubric.

Criterion	Points	Evidence
Question and search	25	The question is bounded and the search process reproducible.
Source appraisal	25	Evidence types, methods, relevance, and limitations are distinguished.
Synthesis	25	The brief compares findings and supports a practical recommendation.
Fidelity	25	Every material claim is traceable and proportionate to its source.

Reflection

Which source changed your initial recommendation?
What uncertainty most affects the next program decision?

Scoring and revision guidance

Evidence is absent or cannot be assessed.

Limited evidence; substantial guidance and revision are needed.

Partially demonstrated; a material element needs revision.

The essential requirement is met; minor corrections remain.

Complete, accurate, traceable, and usable evidence for the criterion.

Review the explanation for each missed question, revisit the relevant lesson, and retry. Revise practical work against the rubric and document the change.