How can we create a realistic and respectful plan that helps a person meet their basic physiological needs and begin building a more stable life?

Supporting Inquiry Questions:

1. Which basic needs are currently unmet?
2. Which needs require immediate attention?
3. What barriers are preventing the person from meeting those needs?
4. What resources are available?
5. What qualifications or documents may be required to receive assistance?
6. What actions should occur within the first 24 to 72 hours?
7. What actions should happen during the first 30 days?
8. How can the person maintain stability after receiving immediate help?

Your Community Stability Team will examine a realistic case study and develop a Basic Needs Stability Plan. To do this, you must:

• Identify the person's unmet physiological needs.
• Determine which needs are most urgent.
• Investigate the causes and barriers connected to those needs.
• Locate credible community and government resources.
• Verify important information before including it in your plan.
• Create immediate, short-term, and longer-term action steps.
• Explain who could assist with each step.
• Identify possible obstacles and backup options.
• Present the plan through a digital Book Creator guide.
• Reflect on what you learned about empathy, dignity, and community support.

Final Product: A Book Creator digital guide titled "Basic Needs Stability Plan," useful enough to genuinely share with students, families, counselors, social workers, community organizations, or other support professionals.

Everyone on the Community Stability Team is responsible for understanding and contributing to the entire project. Roles simply help organize the work.

Basic Needs Assessor

• Identifies which physiological needs are unmet in the case study.
• Ranks those needs by urgency, from immediate danger to longer-term concerns.
• Leads the team's needs-assessment and priority chart.

Resource Researcher

• Locates credible organizations, government programs, services, and community resources connected to each unmet need.
• Compares source types for credibility, relevance, and usefulness.

Barrier and Access Specialist

• Examines transportation, documentation, cost, eligibility, health, family, and communication barriers that could prevent the person from getting help.
• Helps the team design realistic backup options.

Stability Plan Coordinator

• Organizes the immediate (24-hour), short-term (72-hour and 7-day), and longer-term (30-day) action plan.
• Makes sure every recommendation connects clearly to a specific need and resource.

Digital Guide Designer

• Creates and organizes the final Book Creator guide.
• Ensures the guide is visually clear, well-organized, and easy for a real person to follow.

Team Reflection Leader

• Documents team decisions, contributions, feedback, and revisions throughout the project.
• Leads the team's reflection discussion and helps compile the written reflection.

(This case study is fictional. It is designed to be realistic, respectful, and complex, not a full solution. Your team will use research to fill in the gaps and design a plan. Some details are deliberately left unanswered and require research.)

Maria Alvarez-Reyes, 34, lives with her two children, ages 6 and 10, and her mother, 61, who has mobility difficulties and takes daily medication for high blood pressure. Three weeks ago, the family's apartment building had a major plumbing failure, and the building was condemned by the city until repairs are completed, a process the landlord says could take a month or more. The family has been staying in their car and, on especially cold nights, at a relative's already-crowded apartment two towns away, which isn't a sustainable long-term option.

Maria worked full-time at a retail store, but missing several shifts to manage the housing crisis put her job at risk, and her hours have since been cut significantly. Money is tight, and the family has been relying on gas-station food and whatever the kids' school provides, since there's nowhere to safely store or cook groceries right now. Maria's mother's blood pressure medication ran out four days ago; the pharmacy needs an updated prescription, but her doctor's office requires an in-person visit that Maria hasn't been able to arrange given everything else going on.

The children have been able to attend school, but both have missed showers for several days at a time, and the 10-year-old has mentioned to a teacher that "we don't really have a home right now," which is how the school counselor first learned something was wrong. Maria hasn't sought outside help yet. She's worried about what might happen to her children if she says too much, and she isn't sure what kind of help even exists or how to access it without transportation, since their car, which is currently doubling as shelter, is also their only way to get to work, school, and appointments.

Maria is not neglecting her family. She is a parent under enormous, compounding pressure: a housing emergency, a medical gap, a transportation bottleneck, and a shrinking income, all happening at once. This is exactly the kind of situation your Community Stability Team is being asked to help address.

When you're deciding what goes first in the stability plan, use this simple priority system:

Priority 1: Immediate danger or medical emergency Anything involving safety, injury, or urgent medical need comes first, always.

Priority 2: Food, clean water, and safe shelter The most basic survival needs come next.

Priority 3: Medication, hygiene, clothing, and sleep Needs that affect health and functioning over the coming days.

Priority 4: Documentation, transportation, and service access The practical tools needed to reach longer-term help.

Priority 5: Maintaining stability over time Once the emergency has stabilized, focus shifts to keeping it that way.

Important boundary: You are not acting as doctors, therapists, attorneys, or licensed social workers. If your case study (or a real situation) involves serious health, safety, abuse, homelessness, or emergency concerns, the correct response is always to refer the person to qualified professionals and emergency services, not to attempt to solve it yourselves.

Student Directions: Before researching anything, get precise about the problem. Read the case study closely and figure out exactly what you're trying to solve.

Guiding Questions: - Does the person have safe shelter tonight? - Does the person have access to food and clean water? - Does the person need medical attention? - Does the person have clean clothing and hygiene supplies? - Is the person getting adequate sleep? - Are children, older adults, or people with disabilities involved? - What information is missing? - Which need should be addressed first?

Required Activity: Read the case study. Identify the person's unmet physiological needs. Separate immediate emergencies from less urgent needs. Complete a "What We Know, What We Need to Know, and What We Need to Verify" chart (three columns). Develop research questions. Write a clear problem statement.

Student Deliverable: Needs assessment, priority chart, problem statement, and research questions.

Teacher Checkpoint: Teacher reviews whether students identified the correct needs and prioritized urgent health or safety concerns appropriately before the team moves on.

Suggested Technology Tool: Shared Google Doc or Slide with a three-column chart.

Estimated Completion Time: One 45–60 minute session.

Student Directions: Brainstorm every possible source of assistance, then figure out which are most trustworthy and useful to investigate first.

Possible Source Categories: - Government assistance programs - Food banks and meal programs - Emergency shelters - Housing-assistance programs - Health clinics - Hospitals and urgent-care services - Hygiene and clothing programs - School or college support services - Transportation assistance - Employment services - Faith-based organizations - Nonprofit organizations - Social workers - Community hotlines - Public libraries - Local resource directories

Guiding Questions: Compare Sources Based On Credibility, relevance, location, eligibility, availability, cost, accessibility, hours of operation, documentation requirements, and urgency of services.

Required Activity: Brainstorm source categories as a team, then evaluate them against the comparison factors above.

Student Deliverable: A source strategy chart listing potential sources and explaining which will be investigated first.

Teacher Checkpoint: Teacher confirms the team's source list is realistic and appropriately prioritized before research begins.

Suggested Technology Tool: Shared spreadsheet or table.

Estimated Completion Time: One 30–45 minute session.

Student Directions: Now research the specific information needed to build your stability plan, and verify everything before using it.

Guiding Questions: - What service is provided? - Who qualifies? - What documents are required? - Is there a cost? - Is transportation available? - Are appointments required? - What are the hours of operation? - Is there a waiting list? - Is the service available immediately? - Is the location accessible? - Is language assistance available? - What should the person bring? - What is the backup option if the service is unavailable?

Required Activity: Research the categories of resources identified in Step 2. Verify important details using official websites, direct contact, or another reliable source. Do not invent phone numbers, addresses, schedules, eligibility requirements, or services. Use clearly marked placeholders when local details cannot be verified.

Student Deliverable: A verified community-resource chart with columns for: organization, service, need addressed, contact method, location, hours, eligibility, documents required, cost, transportation considerations, verification date, and backup option.

Teacher Checkpoint: Teacher spot-checks that resource entries are realistic, appropriately sourced, and that unverifiable details are clearly marked as placeholders.

Suggested Technology Tool: Shared spreadsheet with the columns listed above.

Estimated Completion Time: Two 45–60 minute sessions.

Student Directions: Review everything you've gathered and figure out what's actually relevant and useful for this specific case.

Required Activity: - Summarize information in your own words. - Identify the most useful resources. - Remove outdated or irrelevant information. - Compare similar services. - Determine which resource should be contacted first. - Connect each resource to a specific unmet need. - Identify possible barriers. - Develop backup plans. - Record citations. - Avoid copying and pasting large sections of text.

Student Deliverable: A resource-analysis worksheet explaining why each selected resource fits the individual's needs.

Teacher Checkpoint: Teacher reviews the worksheet for original wording, accurate citations, and clear reasoning connecting resources to needs.

Suggested Technology Tool: Shared document organized by need category.

Estimated Completion Time: One to two 45–60 minute sessions.

Student Directions: Combine everything you've learned into the final Basic Needs Stability Plan, built in Book Creator.

Book Creator Page-by-Page Outline:

Page 1: Cover. Title, team members, class, and date.

Page 2: Understanding Basic Needs. A short explanation of physiological needs and why they must be addressed first.

Page 3: Case Study Summary. A respectful summary of the individual's situation.

Page 4: Needs Assessment. A list of unmet needs organized from most urgent to least urgent.

Page 5: Immediate Health and Safety Concerns. Identify any needs requiring emergency or professional assistance.

Page 6: First 24 Hours. Describe the first actions the individual should take.

Page 7: First 72 Hours. A plan for food, water, shelter, health, hygiene, clothing, and rest.

Page 8: First Seven Days. How the individual can begin organizing appointments, applications, documents, transportation, and support.

Page 9: First 30 Days. A plan for maintaining food access, stable shelter, health care, sleep, hygiene, and other necessities.

Page 10: Community Resource Guide. Verified resources connected to each basic need.

Page 11: Barriers and Solutions. Possible obstacles and realistic ways to respond to them.

Page 12: Support Team. Professionals, trusted adults, organizations, or community members who could assist.

Page 13: Backup Plan. What the individual can do if the first option is unavailable.

Page 14: Stability Checklist. A checklist that allows the individual to track their own progress.

Page 15: Dignity and Self-Advocacy. Respectful suggestions for asking questions, requesting help, keeping records, and communicating with service providers.

Page 16: Team Reflection. What the team learned about basic needs, empathy, problem-solving, and community support.

Page 17: References. All sources listed in the required citation format.

For every recommendation in the plan, clearly explain: 1. What action should be taken? 2. Why is it important? 3. Who can help? 4. What is needed to access the service? 5. What barrier might occur? 6. What is the backup plan?

Student Deliverable: A complete, polished Book Creator guide following the 17-page outline above.

Teacher Checkpoint: Teacher reviews a draft before final publishing, checking for completeness, accuracy, respectful tone, and verified resources.

Suggested Technology Tool: Book Creator.

Estimated Completion Time: Three to four 45–60 minute sessions.

Student Directions: Step back and evaluate both your final plan and the process you used to build it.

Self- and Team-Evaluation Questions: - Did we address every major physiological need? - Did we prioritize urgent needs appropriately? - Are our resources current and verified? - Is the plan realistic? - Is the plan respectful? - Did we consider transportation and eligibility barriers? - Did we create backup options? - Could a real person understand and use the guide? - Did we protect personal information? - Did every team member contribute? - What should be revised? - Did we fully answer the driving question?

Required Deliverable: Self-evaluation, peer evaluation, team reflection, and a revised final guide.

Teacher Checkpoint: Teacher reviews evaluations and confirms a clear revision plan before final presentation.

Suggested Technology Tool: Shared evaluation form (Google Form or document).

Estimated Completion Time: One 30–45 minute session.

Important note before you begin: This page intentionally does not list specific organizations, phone numbers, links, or eligibility requirements. Your team must research and verify real, current, local information, and your teacher should review anything before it's shared publicly.

Emergency Assistance - [Insert verified local emergency assistance hotline or service]

Food and Water - [Insert verified local food-assistance organization]

Shelter and Housing - [Insert verified local shelter] - [Insert verified local housing-assistance program]

Clothing - [Insert verified local clothing-assistance program]

Hygiene - [Insert verified local hygiene-supply resource]

Sleep and Rest - [Insert verified local shelter or safe-rest resource]

Physical Health - [Insert verified community health clinic]

Medical Care - [Insert verified low-cost or sliding-scale medical provider]

Transportation - [Insert local transportation resource]

Public Benefits - [Insert local government-benefits portal]

Employment - [Insert local workforce or employment-services program]

Childcare - [Insert verified local childcare-assistance program]

Documentation Assistance - [Insert local agency that helps replace or obtain documents]

School or College Support - [Insert school counselor or student-support office contact]

Community-Resource Directories - [Insert verified local or regional resource directory]

Citation and Source Evaluation - [Insert school or district library research/citation guide]

Teacher/Student Verification Reminder: Confirm every resource is current, accurate, and appropriate to share before it appears in the final guide. Do not include a resource your team hasn't personally verified.

Students may use artificial intelligence for: - Brainstorming research questions - Organizing notes - Simplifying difficult language - Reviewing grammar - Generating possible categories - Improving the organization of the guide

Students may NOT use AI to: - Invent resources - Invent contact information - Fabricate quotations - Fabricate statistics - Make medical, legal, or professional decisions - Complete the entire project without student thinking - Replace verified research - Include private personal information

Students must verify all facts using credible sources before including them in the plan.

AI-Use Disclosure Statement (complete and include in your final guide if AI was used at any stage)

"I used artificial intelligence to help with ___. I verified the information by ___. The final decisions and explanations in this project were completed by ____."

Team Agreement: Address the Following as a Team

• Assigned responsibilities: Each member takes on one of the six roles from Section 5.
• Communication: Decide how and when you'll check in.
• Deadlines: Agree on internal deadlines that stay ahead of teacher checkpoints.
• Attendance: Agree on what happens if a member is absent during a key work session.
• Respectful disagreement: Listen to each perspective and resolve conflict calmly; bring unresolved disagreements to the teacher.
• Shared decision-making: Major decisions (like final resource choices) should involve the whole team.
• Documentation of contributions: Keep a shared contribution log.
• What happens when a task isn't completed: Agree on a fair, respectful process for addressing missed work.
• How the team will ask the teacher for help: Decide who reaches out and when.

Contribution Log Template

Week 1: Understanding the Problem

• Session 1: Entry event; introduction to physiological needs
  • Objective: Understand why this project matters.
  • Activity: Discussion and reflection.
  • Deliverable: Opening reflection.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher confirms understanding of project purpose.
• Session 2: Case study introduction
  • Objective: Understand Maria's situation.
  • Activity: Close reading and discussion.
  • Deliverable: Initial notes.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher checks comprehension.
• Session 3: Big6 Task Definition
  • Objective: Define the problem clearly.
  • Activity: Complete the "Know / Need to Know / Verify" chart.
  • Deliverable: Chart and problem statement.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher reviews chart.
• Session 4: Research questions and source planning
  • Objective: Plan the research approach.
  • Activity: Brainstorm and prioritize source categories.
  • Deliverable: Source strategy chart.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher approves research plan.
• Session 5: Begin research
  • Objective: Start locating resource categories.
  • Activity: Initial research begins (Big6 Step 3).
  • Deliverable: Early resource notes.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher spot-checks sources.

Week 2: Researching and Verifying

• Session 6: Resource research continues
  • Objective: Build out the community-resource chart.
  • Activity: Research and verification.
  • Deliverable: Updated resource chart.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher checks verification progress.
• Session 7: Verification and comparison
  • Objective: Confirm accuracy of resource details.
  • Activity: Cross-check sources and flag unverifiable details.
  • Deliverable: Verified resource chart.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher confirms no invented details remain.
• Session 8: Use of information
  • Objective: Analyze and organize research.
  • Activity: Complete the resource-analysis worksheet.
  • Deliverable: Worksheet.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher reviews reasoning and citations.
• Session 9: Needs prioritization
  • Objective: Apply the decision-making framework.
  • Activity: Rank needs and resources by priority.
  • Deliverable: Priority-ranked plan outline.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher confirms prioritization logic.
• Session 10: Begin the stability plan
  • Objective: Start drafting the Book Creator guide.
  • Activity: Draft early pages, cover through needs assessment.
  • Deliverable: Draft pages 1 through 4.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher reviews early draft.

Week 3: Building, Refining, and Sharing

• Session 11: Continue building the guide
  • Objective: Draft the action-plan pages.
  • Activity: Write the 24-hour, 72-hour, 7-day, and 30-day plans.
  • Deliverable: Draft pages 5 through 9.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher checks realism of the plan.
• Session 12: Complete the guide
  • Objective: Finish all remaining pages.
  • Activity: Draft the resource guide, barriers, backup plan, checklist, and dignity page.
  • Deliverable: Complete first draft.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher reviews full draft.
• Session 13: Peer feedback
  • Objective: Get outside feedback.
  • Activity: Peer-review exchange (see Section 20).
  • Deliverable: Completed feedback forms.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher confirms feedback was thoughtful.
• Session 14: Revision
  • Objective: Improve the guide based on feedback.
  • Activity: Make specific revisions.
  • Deliverable: Revised guide.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher confirms revisions were made.
• Session 15: Final presentation, self-evaluation, and reflection
  • Objective: Share the finished plan and reflect.
  • Activity: Present to an authentic audience; complete evaluation and reflection.
  • Deliverable: Final guide, evaluations, and reflections.
  • Checkpoint: Teacher scores using the rubric.

Before finalizing your guide, exchange drafts with another team and use these peer-review questions:

1. Are the most urgent needs addressed first?
2. Is the plan realistic?
3. Are the resources verified?
4. Are the directions easy to understand?
5. Does the plan respect the dignity of the individual?
6. Are transportation, eligibility, and documentation considered?
7. Are backup options provided?
8. What is one strength?
9. What is one area needing improvement?
10. What specific revision should the team make?

After receiving feedback, each team should create a short list of specific revisions and update their guide before final submission.

You started this project by looking closely at how unmet basic needs can quietly take over a person's whole life. By now, your team has researched real categories of support, built a realistic and respectful Basic Needs Stability Plan, and thought hard about what it actually takes to help someone move from crisis toward stability.

That work doesn't end when the project is turned in. A well-built stability plan is the kind of resource a counselor, family member, or community organization could genuinely use. Take a moment, as a team, to recognize what you've built, and then share it.

Your Basic Needs Stability Plan deserves a real audience. Present it to an authentic group such as classmates, school counselors, social workers, community-resource professionals, nonprofit leaders, school administrators, health educators, or family-support professionals.

Presentation Requirements: - Summary of the case - Most urgent needs - Research process - Recommended first actions - Selected resources - Barriers and backup plans - What the team learned - Time for audience questions

1. What did you learn about unmet basic needs?
2. Which need was most urgent, and why?
3. What barriers surprised you?
4. How did the Big6 process help your team?
5. What did you learn about finding community resources?
6. How did your understanding of people experiencing hardship change?
7. How did your team demonstrate empathy?
8. What part of your plan was strongest?
9. What would you revise?
10. How could this project help someone in the real world?

By the end of this project, students will be able to:

1. Define physiological needs.
2. Identify unmet basic needs in a realistic situation.
3. Prioritize needs according to urgency.
4. Explain barriers that make it difficult to access assistance.
5. Conduct credible research.
6. Evaluate community resources.
7. Verify important information before using it.
8. Develop a realistic action plan.
9. Collaborate with a team.
10. Communicate recommendations clearly.
11. Demonstrate empathy and respect.
12. Create a digital guide.
13. Reflect on the effectiveness of their solution.

ISTE Student Standards - Knowledge Constructor: Students plan and use research strategies to locate, evaluate, and verify credible community resources. - Innovative Designer: Students design a Book Creator guide as a real-world solution, revising it across multiple drafts. - Digital Citizen: Students evaluate source credibility, protect personal information, and use AI tools responsibly. - Empowered Learner: Students seek feedback from peers and revise their guide based on it.

Social-Emotional Learning Competencies - Social Awareness: Students practice empathy and perspective-taking while analyzing a case study without judgment. - Relationship Skills: Students collaborate, communicate, and resolve disagreements within their team. - Responsible Decision-Making: Students design realistic, ethical, evidence-based recommendations.

Health Education Standards - Students analyze how unmet physical needs (nutrition, sleep, hygiene, medical care) affect overall health and functioning, and practice accessing valid health information and services.

Information-Literacy Standards - Students inquire, evaluate, and verify information before using it, a core information-literacy skill emphasized throughout the Big6 process.

Communication Standards - Students write and present clearly for a real, non-academic audience.

Career-Readiness Skills - Students practice research, verification, organization, teamwork, and professional presentation. These skills transfer directly to fields like social work, health care, and community services.

Problem-Solving Skills - Students apply a structured, prioritized decision-making process (see Section 15) to a complex, real-world situation.

Purpose: This project focuses students on the physiological level of human need, not the full theory of Maslow's Hierarchy, through empathetic, verified, real-world research. Students build genuine skills in prioritization, resource verification, collaboration, and respectful communication.

Grade Level: 9–12; adaptable for adult learners.

Subject Areas: Health Education, SEL, Research/Information Literacy, Community Studies, ELA, Career Readiness.

Project Length: 3 weeks (12–15 sessions).

Standards: See Section 7 for full alignment (ISTE, SEL, health education, information literacy, communication, career readiness, problem-solving).

Learning Objectives: See Section 6.

Prior Knowledge: No prior knowledge of Maslow's Hierarchy is required. Basic familiarity with internet research and shared document tools is helpful.

Required Materials: Device with internet access per team (or shared devices), Book Creator access, shared document/spreadsheet tool, printed or digital case study copies, rubric copies.

Teacher Preparation: - Set up Book Creator classroom access in advance. - Preview and, if needed, adapt the case study for your student population. - Consider identifying real, local, verified resources ahead of time to share as a vetted starting list. - Arrange an authentic audience for the final presentation if possible.

Grouping Strategies: Groups of five or six work well to fill all roles in Section 5; roles can be combined for smaller groups.

Formative Assessment: Teacher checkpoints at each Big6 stage (Sections 8–13), informal check-ins, and review of the priority chart and resource chart.

Summative Assessment: Final Book Creator guide and presentation, scored with the 100-point rubric in Section 22.

Facilitation Strategies: - Circulate during research to catch unverified or invented resource details early. - Model empathetic, non-judgmental language before students begin analyzing the case study. - Use whole-class check-ins between Big6 steps to keep teams paced together.

Safety Considerations: Remind students they are not acting as licensed professionals (see Section 15). Serious real-world concerns should always be referred to a trusted adult or professional.

Sensitivity Considerations: - This topic may be personal for some students. Do not require students to share their own housing, food, financial, health, or family circumstances. - Students should analyze the fictional case study rather than disclose personal experiences. - Be prepared to privately support any student who discloses a personal connection to this topic, and know your school's counseling referral process. - Preview the case study and adjust tone or details as needed for your specific student population.

Differentiation: - Allow struggling readers to work with a partner on the case study analysis. - Provide sentence starters for reflection and analysis writing. - Allow advanced students to research additional complexity (e.g., a second case study or comparison of resource systems).

Accommodations: - Provide text-to-speech or read-aloud support for the case study and research materials. - Allow extended time for research and writing. - Permit alternative input methods (voice-to-text, assistive technology) for the Book Creator project.

Community Partnerships: Consider partnering with a school counselor, social worker, or local community organization to review student work and/or serve as the authentic audience for final presentations.

Extension Activities: - Invite a social worker or community-resource professional to give feedback on student plans. - Have students research how local policy affects access to housing, food, or health care. - Extend the project to explore Maslow's higher levels once physiological needs are stabilized.

Recommended Professional Boundaries: Students are not expected to act as counselors, case managers, or medical professionals. Their role is to research, organize, and recommend, not to provide direct services. Reinforce this boundary throughout the project.

Support students who face any of the following:

• Limited internet access: Provide printed resource packets and downloaded webpages.
• Limited device access: Use shared classroom devices and pair students strategically.
• Reading difficulties: Provide audio directions, captioned videos, and simplified directions.
• Disabilities: Ensure screen-reader-compatible materials and speech-to-text options.
• Language needs: Provide visual organizers and translated materials where possible.
• Limited technology experience: Pair students with strong tech skills alongside those who need more support; offer teacher conferences as needed.
• Transportation limitations: Provide in-class completion time so work doesn't depend on outside access.
• Difficulty completing work outside school: Build in-class research and drafting time, and offer extended deadlines when needed.

Additional Options: Printed resource packets, downloaded webpages, shared classroom devices, offline research notes, audio directions, captioned videos, screen-reader-compatible materials, speech-to-text, visual organizers, simplified directions, extended time, peer support, teacher conferences, alternative final products (e.g., printed booklet or slideshow instead of Book Creator), and dedicated in-class completion time.

Before launching this WebQuest, confirm it includes:

This WebQuest is designed to be copied directly into Google Sites, Wix, Canva, or another WebQuest platform. Headings, tables, and checklists are formatted for easy transfer. The goal is not for students to memorize Maslow's Hierarchy. It's for them to use research, empathy, critical thinking, collaboration, and community resources to help a real person move toward physical stability.

This rubric is separate from the student-facing rubric on the Evaluation page. It is the instructor's rubric for assessing this WebQuest as a course assignment, not a tool for scoring student work created through the WebQuest itself.

Note: the assignment guide provided full criteria only for the top performance level (4, Exceptional). Levels 3, 2, and 1 were not included in the source material. Let me know if you'd like those added.

Working through the Big6 model while building this WebQuest reinforced something I had only understood abstractly before: inquiry learning works because it puts the student in the position of needing to know something, rather than being told something. Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1990) designed the Big6 around a simple premise, that information problem-solving is a learnable process with distinct stages, and that structure is exactly what makes an emotionally difficult topic like unmet basic needs approachable for a classroom. Students are not asked to have an opinion about poverty or housing insecurity on day one. They are asked to define a task, seek information, evaluate sources, and synthesize findings, and empathy develops as a byproduct of that process rather than as the starting point.

The value for digital citizenship is closely related. Ribble (2015) frames digital citizenship as a set of norms around respectful, informed, and responsible technology use, and Big6 Steps 2 and 3 (Information-Seeking Strategies and Location and Access) operationalize that directly. Students in this WebQuest are required to verify every resource before including it and are explicitly prohibited from inventing contact information, statistics, or services. That is digital citizenship taught through practice, not through a lecture about misinformation.

Building the WebQuest itself, and then working through it as if I were a student, were genuinely different experiences, and that gap taught me the most.

I was most successful in the Synthesis stage. Once the research categories and the case study were solid, translating that material into a 17-page, phased Basic Needs Stability Plan felt natural, because the Big6 structure had already done the hard organizational work. Dodge (1995), who originated the WebQuest format, argued that a well-built WebQuest should scaffold a learner toward a genuine transformation of information into understanding, not just a collection of links. Seeing the case study research turn into a 24-hour, 72-hour, and 30-day action plan was the clearest moment where I felt that transformation actually happen.

Where I struggled was earlier, in Location and Access. Writing a resource-verification chart while being honest that I could not verify a specific local shelter or clinic (because none of the case study's placeholders are real organizations) forced me to sit with an uncomfortable tension: a real version of this project depends entirely on a teacher or student doing that verification legwork in their own community, and no amount of design polish substitutes for that. I resolved it by building the placeholder-and-verification system into the Resources page itself, so the gap is honest rather than hidden.

From the ISTE Standards for Students, this project leans most heavily on the Knowledge Constructor standard, specifically indicators 3a and 3b, which call for students to plan and employ effective research strategies and to evaluate the accuracy and relevance of information (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016). Every Big6 step is, in effect, a scaffolded version of that standard. The Innovative Designer standard (4a, 4b) shows up in Synthesis, where students design, revise, and improve their Book Creator guide across multiple drafts rather than submitting a single pass.

From the ISTE Standards for Educators, the Designer standard (5a, 5b) describes exactly what I did in constructing this WebQuest: designing authentic, learner-driven activities aligned to content standards (International Society for Technology in Education, 2017). The Facilitator standard (6c) was just as relevant on the classroom-management side, since a project like this requires a teacher to manage student use of shared documents, Book Creator, and verified research simultaneously, across a three-week span.

Larmer, Mergendoller, and Boss (2015) describe high-quality PBL as requiring a genuine need to know, sustained inquiry, and a public product, and mapping that framework against the ISTE standards side by side made it clear that the two are not competing checklists. Good project-based learning design and good technology-standard alignment turned out to be almost the same exercise.

Before this project, I thought of educational technology mostly as a delivery mechanism, a better way to hand students content. Building this WebQuest changed that. The technology here (the shared documents, the resource-verification spreadsheet, Book Creator, even the tabbed website itself) is not delivering content. It is structuring a process that would otherwise be too large and too emotionally heavy for students to organize on their own.

That shift matters for my philosophy of educational technology going forward. I am less interested in tools that make information available and more interested in tools that make a difficult process navigable, whether that difficulty is cognitive (too much information to sort through) or emotional (a topic like housing instability that students may find personally close). Prensky's (2001) observation that today's students think and process information differently than previous generations is often used to argue for flashier technology, but what this project taught me is that the more important design question is not how fast or novel the tool is, but whether it gives a student a clear next step when a problem feels too big to start. A well-designed WebQuest, at its core, is really just a well-designed sequence of next steps.

Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for Internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1(2), 10–13.

Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information problem-solving: The Big Six skills approach to library and information skills instruction. Ablex.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. ISTE.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for educators. ISTE.

Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project based learning. ASCD.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.

Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know (3rd ed.). ISTE.

Note: these citations reference foundational, widely used works in this field (the Big6 model, WebQuests, ISTE Standards, project-based learning, and digital citizenship). If your course assigned specific readings different from these, swap in your actual syllabus citations before submitting.