Search for relevant information and record its limits

A search result is a lead, not a conclusion

• The materials team searches “best classroom labels” and finds advertisements, design tips and research papers. A result near the top may be popular or promoted; it does not automatically answer whether spacing changes sorting accuracy.
• This original GAC033-aligned lesson develops a search and source record. It introduces preparation for a literature review, not a claim that the fictional label study has already found real supporting research. Read and verify any real source you cite.

Build terms around the question

• Start with concepts: instruction layout, spacing, alignment, comprehension and sorting accuracy. Try synonyms and narrower settings. Record the search phrase, tool, date and useful result rather than relying on memory or repeating the same broad phrase.
• If a result is irrelevant, ask which term is too wide. “Sorting” can mean a computer algorithm or household waste; add the task context. Do not hide a lack of relevant results by replacing the question with whatever the first article discusses.

{callout:example} Search-log row: concept = instruction layout; query = “label alignment task comprehension”; result = candidate paper to inspect; decision = not yet included, because only the title has been read. {/callout}

Inspect beyond the title

• Read the abstract for the question, participants, method and result. Then inspect the relevant parts of the full source when available. A title can suggest relevance without revealing whether the task, age group or outcome matches yours.
• If only an abstract is available, record that access limit. You may report what the abstract explicitly says, but do not invent details of the full method or quote a sentence you have not seen. Seek an accessible version or another suitable source.

Evaluate authority and relevance together

• Ask who wrote it, where it appeared, what evidence supports the claims and whether the information is current enough for the purpose. A careful academic paper on a different task may have limited relevance; a relevant advertisement may still be weak evidence of effectiveness.
• Distinguish findings, recommendations and promotion. “We recommend larger labels” is not identical to “participants using larger labels made fewer errors in this task.” Record the measured outcome and conditions before transferring a claim to your project.

{callout:warn} Do not invent a citation, author, journal, date or result to fill a source table. If a detail cannot be verified, mark it unknown or exclude the source from claims requiring that detail. {/callout}

Keep notes linked to their source

• Record author or organisation, title, publication details, link, access date and a short relevance note. Put exact copied wording in quotation marks with its location. Keep your own summary separate so you do not later mistake copied words for your writing.
• A useful note also names a limitation: small sample, a different language or an outcome based on preference rather than accuracy. A limitation does not make a source worthless; it tells you how far you can use it in the proposal.

Select a small set you can explain

• Choose sources for their contribution: background to the problem, evidence about the design feature, or a suitable measurement method. Keep reasons for rejecting candidates too. Ten unread links are less useful than three verified sources you can accurately discuss.
• Create two source records and explain what each can and cannot support. Use real accessible sources for an actual proposal; the classroom search-log example above is only a procedure model. Unit 5.5 will connect sources instead of listing them one by one.

{callout:key} Search deliberately, inspect the source, separate findings from advice, keep traceable notes and state relevance and access limits before using a claim. {/callout}