Knowledge/Skill Building
🧭 Casino Question Studio
Critical Thinking & Problem Solving
Effective Communication
Collaboration
Content Expertise
Academic Mindset
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.7
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.9-10.7
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.2
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.1
Big Idea
Performance Tasks
Professional Role
Real World Challenge
Learning Partners and Clients
Students use a question ladder, source-type menu, and downtown Chicago context map to turn initial reactions into investigable questions about revenue, neighborhood effects, public safety, traffic, addiction, and small business impact. In pairs, they test whether each question can be answered with interviews, field observations, maps, and public data rather than opinion alone.
Plan day
Day 1
Duration
35 min
Grouping
Pair
Steps
9 steps
Lesson plan
9 steps · 35 min| # | What teachers do |
|---|---|
| 1 | Launch the studio by framing the reporter role, naming the central casino question, and previewing how strong reporting questions separate opinion from evidence. Model one weak question and one revised neutral, investigable question connected to revenue, neighborhood effects, or public safety. (10 min) |
| 2 | Guide pairs through a quick sort of sample casino questions into three categories: biased, too broad, or investigable. Debrief the patterns students notice and co-create class criteria for a strong question: neutral wording, clear focus, connection to the Chicago debate, and answerable through reporting methods. (15 min) |
| 3 | Introduce the question ladder, source-type menu, and downtown Chicago context map. Briefly explain how reporters can answer questions through interviews, field observations, maps, transit-accessible site visits, and public data rather than opinion alone. (10 min) |
| 4 | Have pairs generate an initial list of reactions and curiosities about the casino debate across the topic areas of revenue, traffic, addiction, public safety, neighborhood life, and small business impact. Ask them to turn at least six reactions into draft questions using the question ladder. (20 min) |
| 5 | Facilitate a pair-to-pair protocol in which partners exchange draft questions and test each one against the class criteria. Students revise wording to remove assumptions, narrow the focus, and make each question answerable through at least two source types. (20 min) |
| 6 | Ask students to use the source-type menu and context map to match each revised question with possible evidence pathways such as stakeholder interviews, city records, observations near transit-accessible locations, business owner perspectives, or public maps and datasets. (20 min) |
| 7 | Move students into small groups of four to compare question sets and identify which questions best surface tradeoffs and competing arguments. Each group selects three strongest questions and prepares a short justification for why those questions matter to Chicago audiences and future interview subjects. (15 min) |
| 8 | Lead a whole-group share-out where each group presents one top question and its evidence pathway. Capture strong examples publicly, push for clearer neutrality when needed, and note question types that will help with the podcast and debate dossier. (15 min) |
| 9 | Close with an individual exit task: students submit two final investigable questions, the source types they would use to answer them, and one possible stakeholder they should interview in a later fieldwork phase. (10 min) |
Preparation (10 items)
- Prepare a question ladder handout that helps students move from reaction statements to neutral, focused, investigable questions.
- Create a source-type menu that includes interviews, field observations, public records, maps, transit-accessible site visits, audio or video clips, and public datasets connected to the casino issue.
- Print or display a downtown Chicago context map showing the school location, the Bally's casino site, major transit lines, nearby neighborhoods, and other relevant public locations students could reach later by public transportation.
- Develop 9 to 12 sample questions about the casino debate that intentionally vary in quality so students can sort them into biased, too broad, or investigable.
- Prepare a short facilitator model that shows how to revise one opinion-based question into a neutral question and then match it to two or more evidence pathways.
- Arrange students into pairs in advance and identify a simple protocol for transitioning pairs into groups of four for the comparison round.
- Set up chart paper, sticky notes, or a shared digital board for collecting strong question examples and common revision moves during discussion.
- Prepare an exit ticket template with spaces for two final questions, likely source types, and one stakeholder to interview.
- Review current, age-appropriate background materials on the casino debate so examples and prompts stay grounded in real Chicago tradeoffs without steering students toward one conclusion.
- Post or project the class criteria for strong questions: neutral wording, specific focus, connection to the public issue, and answerable through credible evidence rather than opinion alone.
Student-facing instructions
You will work as a reporting team to turn first reactions about the Chicago casino debate into questions you can actually investigate. Using the question ladder, source-type menu, and downtown Chicago context map, your task is to write neutral questions that examine real tradeoffs such as revenue, traffic, public safety, addiction, neighborhood effects, and small business impact. Start by listing your reactions and curiosities with a partner. Then revise those ideas into questions that do not assume one side is right. For each question, use the source-type menu to decide how a reporter could answer it through interviews, field observations, maps, public records, or public data. You will exchange questions with another pair, revise them based on feedback, and select your strongest questions for a group share-out. You will need your handouts, writing materials, and access to the posted class criteria. Your goal is to leave with strong, balanced questions that can guide future fieldwork, interviews, and reporting for the podcast and debate dossier.