|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Critical Thinking & Problem Solving
|
- I can identify key claims, risks, and potential benefits in the Chicago casino debate and sort them into “evidence-based” versus “assumption/opinion.” I can use what I learn from interviews, articles, and documents to explain how one piece of evidence supports or challenges a claim.
|
- I can generate a focused research question about the Bally’s Chicago casino tradeoffs and narrow or broaden it as I gather information
- I can compare multiple sources in different formats and evaluate credibility (bias, missing perspectives, or accuracy) to decide which evidence is strongest for answering my question.
|
- I can synthesize evidence across interviews, city documents, and reporting into a balanced analysis that clearly separates verified facts from competing arguments
- I can justify my reasoning by linking each conclusion to specific, credible evidence and by addressing at least two plausible counterarguments.
|
- I can independently refine an investigation plan and produce an unbiased, decision-ready analysis of complex tradeoffs (e.g., revenue vs
- addiction risks, traffic impacts, and unequal neighborhood effects)
- I can use strategic digital evidence presentation (e.g., audio/visual/audio snippets or structured dossier claims) to show nuanced reasoning and demonstrate how my conclusions change when new credible evidence is introduced.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Effective Communication
|
- I can participate in collaborative discussions about the Bally’s Chicago casino debate by listening to others, responding respectfully, and clearly sharing my own ideas using evidence I have documented
- I can ask and answer clarifying questions so the group understands key points and differing perspectives.
|
- I can lead parts of collaborative discussions by building on others’ ideas, expressing my own claims clearly and persuasively, and citing specific evidence from interviews, reports, and documents
- I can integrate information from multiple media (e.g., audio/visual/text) to explain how sources support or challenge each other, while naming credibility and possible bias.
|
- I can synthesize multiple sources into a balanced explanation for my podcast and debate dossier by connecting evidence to claims about fiscal benefits and social risks (e.g., addiction, traffic, small business impacts, unequal neighborhood effects)
- I can revise my communication based on feedback and listening protocols so my reasoning is clearer, my facts are more accurate, and my conclusions transparently reflect tradeoffs.
|
- I can independently communicate an unbiased, audience-ready analysis by presenting verified facts, clearly attributed competing arguments, and a transparent, evidence-based conclusion tailored to a Chicago audience
- I can strategically use digital media elements (audio structure, framing, and visuals/graphics when appropriate) to strengthen understanding, and I can respond to audience questions in ways that reflect active listening, fairness, and strong research synthesis.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Collaboration
|
- I can participate in group discussions about the Bally’s casino debate by sharing my ideas clearly and responding respectfully to classmates, building on others’ points when they help our shared understanding
- I can follow group roles and norms (e.g., turn-taking, evidence check) during teacher-led or one-on-one collaboration.
|
- I can collaborate with diverse partners to investigate the casino debate by asking focused questions, listening to understand, and integrating others’ perspectives into our shared research plan
- I can contribute evidence from at least two sources (including oral or digital media) while stating what each source supports and how it connects to our inquiry.
|
- I can lead parts of a collaborative discussion by synthesizing multiple perspectives into a balanced claim, clearly separating verified facts from arguments and uncertainties
- I can coordinate with my group to refine our research dossier/podcast with targeted feedback (from interviews, maps/data, and reporting) and make decisions about what evidence to trust and why.
|
- I can independently facilitate effective collaboration by using strategic discussion moves (summarizing, probing for missing viewpoints, and mediating disagreements) to strengthen fairness and accuracy
- I can help the group revise our final investigative product by integrating credibility-evaluated evidence across formats (oral, written, visual/quantitative, and audio) and clearly explaining how our conclusion reflects shared decision-making.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Content Expertise
|
- I can ask a focused research question about the Bally’s casino debate and identify key evidence categories (revenue, risks, community impacts) to guide my investigation
- I can explain what I found using information from a few sources and note obvious gaps or missing perspectives I still need to look for.
|
- I can refine my research question as I learn and gather information from multiple credible sources in different formats (articles, reports, maps/data, and interviews)
- I can summarize and compare key claims, distinguishing what is verified from what is argued, and I can explain how the evidence supports both benefits and harms.
|
- I can synthesize evidence across sources and media to build a balanced, well-supported argument that answers my question and shows tradeoffs (including unequal neighborhood impacts and community well-being)
- I can evaluate credibility and bias in sources/interviews, incorporate the strongest counterpoints, and revise my dossier/podcast notes to correct omissions or misinterpretations.
|
- I can independently direct a sustained, multi-source investigation by narrowing/broadening my inquiry based on what the evidence shows
- I can produce a clear, transparent synthesis for a Chicago audience that integrates verified facts, competing stakeholder arguments, and missing perspectives, using strategic audio/digital choices to strengthen understanding and persuasively explain my conclusion while maintaining an unbiased tone.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Academic Mindset
|
- I can explain my initial thinking about the Bally’s Chicago casino debate and ask a research question I will investigate using a few credible sources
- I can identify which parts of my evidence support claims and which parts still need more information.
|
- I can refine my research question based on what I find and gather additional sources (including interviews and digital/text/audio materials) to compare perspectives on revenue and risks like addiction and traffic
- I can evaluate the credibility of each source and describe how it connects to specific parts of my reasoning.
|
- I can synthesize evidence from multiple media formats to build a balanced research dossier that clearly separates verified facts from competing arguments and identifies missing perspectives
- I can narrow or broaden the inquiry to address gaps and justify my final focus with evidence from the research process.
|
- I can independently and strategically conduct a sustained investigation to answer my question, transparently tracking how new evidence changed my conclusions and what tradeoffs remain unresolved
- I can produce an analysis-ready product (e.g., podcast script and debate dossier) that accurately integrates diverse, credible sources and demonstrates strong understanding of the issue for a Chicago audience.
|