Question & Explore

What this unit covers

The topics below follow the published Seminar course framework for Unit 1. Seminar publishes no per-unit weighting, so there is no percentage to chase here.

Lessons in this unit

• Forming a Research Question13 min · 3 objectivesNarrow a broad topic into a focused, researchable question · Distinguish a strong research question from a question that is too broad, too narrow, or merely factual · Use lenses and stakeholders to open a topic up before committing to a question
• Exploring a Topic & Gathering Sources12 min · 3 objectivesDistinguish primary, secondary, and scholarly sources and know when each is appropriate · Use search strategies to gather a range of relevant sources efficiently · Recognize the value of seeking sources that disagree, not only those that confirm a view
• Evaluating Source Credibility: RAVEN & CRAAP14 min · 3 objectivesApply the RAVEN and CRAAP frameworks to judge a source’s credibility · Distinguish a credible source from an authoritative-looking but weak one · Explain why credibility is contextual — a source can be strong for one purpose and weak for another

Every term in Unit 1

All 25 terms we publish for Question & Explore, with definitions. Reading them through is the fastest way to find the ones you cannot define — then drill those in cram mode until you can produce them without the prompt.

Narrowing a topic to a question

Move from topic to issue to question by adding a population, a place, a time frame and a measurable outcome. "Social media" becomes "How has algorithmic curation affected local news consumption among US adults since 2016?"

Open vs closed research question

A closed question has one findable answer and ends the inquiry. An open question admits several defensible answers supported by different evidence, which is the only kind that can sustain an argument.

The "so what" test

If you cannot say who is affected by the answer and how, the question is not yet researchable. Applying this early prevents a topic that produces summary instead of argument.

Scope creep in a research question

A question spanning every country and every decade cannot be answered with the evidence available to a student. Narrowing scope is not a retreat; it is what makes the argument defensible.

Background research vs argumentative research

Background research establishes what is known and is not cited as evidence for your claim. Argumentative research finds the sources that bear directly on your question.

Keyword strategy

List synonyms, related terms and the vocabulary each discipline uses for the same concept. A search that returns nothing is usually a vocabulary problem rather than an absence of evidence.

Boolean operators

AND narrows, OR broadens, NOT excludes; quotation marks force a phrase. Using them turns a database from a keyword guesser into a precise instrument.

Databases vs open web

Academic databases return peer-reviewed material with stable citation data. The open web returns what is optimized to be found, which is a different quality entirely.

Google Scholar and its limits

Useful for locating and for citation counts, but coverage is uneven and it surfaces preprints alongside peer-reviewed work without distinguishing them.

Following a citation trail

Take a strong source, read what it cites (backward) and what cites it (forward). The fastest way into a scholarly conversation, and it surfaces the disagreements a keyword search hides.

Reading an abstract strategically

The abstract gives the question, method, finding and claim in that order. Reading fifty abstracts before reading five papers is a better use of time than the reverse.

Identifying the scholarly conversation

Ask who is arguing with whom and about what. Sources that all agree usually mean you have found one side of a debate rather than the whole of it.

Preliminary vs refined question

Your question should change as you read. A question that survives the entire research process unchanged usually means you were confirming rather than investigating.

Research log

A running record of searches run, terms used, sources found and dead ends. It makes the process reconstructable, which is what the oral defense asks you to do.

Documenting a dead end

Recording what you looked for and failed to find is evidence about the state of the field. It also protects you from repeating the search.

Distinguishing information need types

Facts, definitions, expert opinion, empirical data, and theoretical framing serve different roles. Naming what you need before searching prevents collecting the wrong thing.

Currency of a source

How current a source needs to be depends on the field. A 1970 study of rhetorical theory may be foundational; a 2015 study of platform behavior is already dated.

Authority is contextual

A cardiologist is authoritative on cardiology and not on health policy economics. Judge authority against the specific claim, not against the person's general standing.

Purpose of a source

Inform, persuade, sell, entertain or advocate. Purpose does not disqualify a source; it tells you what to be careful about when you use it.

Funding and conflict of interest

Check who paid for the research. Funding does not invalidate a study, but undisclosed funding is a serious problem and disclosed funding is context you must report.

Peer review and what it does not guarantee

It checks method and plausibility before publication. It does not guarantee replication, correctness or absence of bias, and treating it as a stamp of truth is itself uncritical.

Gray literature

Government reports, NGO publications, think-tank papers and dissertations. Often the only source for recent data, and its lack of peer review must be stated when you use it.

Lateral reading

Instead of reading a source deeply to judge it, leave and see what other sources say about it. Faster and more reliable than internal inspection.

The CRAAP or equivalent checklist

Currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose. Useful as a prompt, but a checklist alone cannot substitute for reading laterally about a source.

Recording citations as you go

Capture the full citation at the moment you find a source. Reconstructing citations at the end is where most accidental plagiarism originates.

What examiners penalize here

• The AP Seminar rubrics reward a clearly stated, focused research question. On the Individual Research Report and the Individual Written Argument, an early, explicit question or line of inquiry frames everything that follows — vague or sprawling questions cost you points across the whole task.
• Both the IRR and the team project reward a *range* of relevant sources. Graders look for evidence you consulted different types and viewpoints — a bibliography that is all one kind of source, or all one side, signals shallow research.
• On the IRR and IWA, do not just *use* sources — briefly *evaluate* them. Naming a source’s expertise, purpose, or potential bias (a sentence of RAVEN/CRAAP reasoning) is exactly the analytical move the rubric’s "evaluate sources and evidence" row rewards.

Practice Seminar

Our practice bank is drawn from across the whole course rather than filtered to one unit, which is closer to how the exam asks anyway — it will not tell you which unit a question is testing.

Questions about this unit

All 5 units of AP Seminar

1. Unit 1 · Question & Explore
2. Unit 2 · Understand & Analyze
3. Unit 3 · Evaluate Multiple Perspectives
4. Unit 4 · Synthesize Ideas
5. Unit 5 · Team, Transform & Transmit