synthesis writing workshop

Walden University
Faculty Portal

Common Assignments: Synthesizing Your Sources

Synthesizing your sources.

To demonstrate your knowledge on a field through a review of literature, the key component is synthesis. To synthesize is to combine independent elements and form a cohesive whole; in essence, your literature review should integrate your sources and

Identify patterns
Critically discuss strengths and weaknesses of sources or the field
Compare and contrast methods, approaches, and findings of authors
Evaluate and interpret what is known in your field and what, if anything, is missing

A Metaphor for Synthesis

Imagine you are at a dinner party with other researchers and theorists from your field. Everyone is sitting around the table and discussing the state of your field of research. The beginning portion of your literature review would be similar to those dinner party guests who started the conversation by discussing foundational research and theories. The body of your literature review could take many forms: What guests are agreeing, and which are arguing? What are the debatable issues, and are there any subtopics of those key topics? Does one particular guest keep interrupting the table's conversation? The final portion of your literature review would be similar to the host of the dinner party ending the debate with a comprehensive speech that touches on all opinions yet provides closure for the conversation.

Local and Global Synthesis

When writers synthesize successfully, they present new ideas based on interpretations of other evidence or arguments. In a literature review, it can helpful to think about synthesis occurring at both the local (or paragraph) level and the global (or section/paper) level.

Local Synthesis

Local synthesis occurs at the paragraph level when writers connect individual pieces of evidence from multiple sources to support a paragraph’s main idea and advance a paper’s thesis statement. A common example in academic writing is a scholarly paragraph that includes a main idea, evidence from multiple sources, and analysis of those multiple sources together.

Example: Based on the metaphor above, local synthesis would occur during each individual conversation item. So, if you brought up a single issue within your topic, and several prominent scholars agree, while others disagree, you would represent this debate of a singular issue in that paragraph.

Global Synthesis

Global synthesis occurs at the paper (or, sometimes, section) level when writers connect ideas across paragraphs or sections to create a new narrative whole. In a literature review, which can either stand alone or be a section/chapter within a capstone, global synthesis in integral for cohesion and flow.

Example: Using the same dinner party metaphor, global synthesis occurs when a writer take a birds-eye view of the entire dinner party. What major topics were discussed and how were they linked to other ideas or conversations? What dinner party guests contributed to what ideas? And, finally, where did the guests leave the conversation at the end of the night? A summary of your dinner party, with its multiple guests and discussions, is what ultimately will bring order to major themes within your larger topic.

Tips for creating global synthesis within a literature review:

Quick Tip: Create a heading outline to think through which headings should be placed where.
Use topic sentences for each paragraph that clearly link ideas between paragraphs.
Incorporate appropriate transitions throughout your draft to clearly connect ideas.

Related Resources

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

Previous Page: Literature Reviews
Next Page: Commentary Versus Opinion
Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

Academic Residencies
Academic Skills
Career Planning and Development
Customer Care Team
Field Experience
Military Services
Student Success Advising
Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

Center for Social Change
Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
Office of Degree Acceleration
Office of Research and Doctoral Services
Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

Doctoral Writing Assessment
Form & Style Review
Quick Answers
ScholarWorks
SKIL Courses and Workshops
Walden Bookstore
Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
Student Safety/Title IX
Legal & Consumer Information
Website Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Accessibility
Accreditation
State Authorization
Net Price Calculator
Contact Walden

Events Calendar

UTA Events Calendar
Event Details

UTA Writing Center Workshop: Synthesis Essay

In this workshop, learn how to advance conversations by turning them in new directions. Consultants will offer specific advice on synthesizing arguments and structuring your papers, from introduction to conclusion. You will also get the opportunity to see selections for sample Synthesis Essays, discuss successful and ineffective elements, and practice synthesis for yourself.

Dial-In Information

Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:00pm to 1:00pm

UTA Libraries , UTA Writing Center

Students, Undergraduates

Recent Activity

No recent activity

People Interested

No activity yet

You're not going yet!

This event requires registration.

Login to UTA Events Calendar

Mapping a synthesis essay

When asked to write a synthesis essay, many students question the word “synthesis.” What does it mean to synthesize? Well, the dictionary tells us that synthesis is the combination of ideas to form a theory; the thesaurus provides synonyms such as fusion, blend, and creation. So ultimately, you are creating a combination of what your sources are conversing about (subject X) and how you have rearranged what is being said to create a new direction for that subject. This quick outline should get you well on your way to synthesizing.

Read your sources carefully and annotate as you go.

Read through once for a general understanding of the source.
Use a highlighter to call your attention to specific passages that you feel are key to this issue.
Make summary notes as you go, so you remember why you highlighted those passages.

Analyze the data you are getting.

Ask yourself what the author’s claim is–make note of it.
When the author brings in evidence, what is it? How does this evidence support the claim?
Note any common beliefs or assumptions embedded in the author’s use of evidence and claims.

What are sources “saying” to each other?

When you can summarize what each source is saying, then you can take a step back and ask yourself: Is there a pattern; how are these sources communicating/responding to each other?
Example: If The New York Times is speaking on gun control, they may say “X.” Later, Fox News may also be talking about gun control, but they are saying “Y.” Both are discussing gun control as the “conversation,” just in different ways and at different times.
Example: So, when you arrange the above example’s conversation, you can see that these sources are talking about “X” and “Y,” in terms of gun control, but no one seems to be specifying about “Z”. “Z” will be the gap in the conversation (you can suggest it as a new research area, new point to consider, etc.).

Figure out what your particular stand is on this issue.

After seeing where others stand, where do you stand?
If you agree or disagree, why?
If you agree, but not quite, what could be done differently? How could you make a position that might be a bit different than what other authors are saying?

Take a moment to consider how others in the conversation might respond to your position.

Why would article X’s author argue with you?
How would this author argue with you?
If the author would agree with you, same thing –how and why?

After this imaginary conversation with your sources, you should be getting an idea about your thesis and where it fits into the “conversation” that your sources are having.

Research about topic A is currently indicating…
Maybe a lot of people are saying X about topic A, but you have found research that is actually indicating Y as the real problem of topic A, so you say that new research needs to be done…

Work on incorporating those “conversations” you just had into your essay.

Although many researchers are indicating “X,” in discussions involving topic A, many of those research methods are faulty in that…
When researchers in the field of topic A argue with researchers studying topic B, I am seeing that these two fields are actually linked in that…
Aside from topic A, some researchers are finding a trend that (topic B) is actually more…
In consideration of both topics A & B, I am led to believe that there is a vital resource that hasn’t been considered…

When incorporating conversations as you write, argue your thesis claim.

Many who deal with topic A take a position similar to mine in that…; however, I would argue that new research needs to be done in the field of topic B.
Although some who argue about topic A would oppose my position on developing new research in this field, here is why I still uphold its legitimacy…
Only a few researchers offer a slightly different perspective from topic A, and one perspective that I would call attention to is...
When sources A and B were doing the specific types of studies on subject X, there were two different research methods: method 1 and method 2. Of these methods, there are the following common themes… (and) the usual points of disagreements are… which justifies the need for new research in…

The successful synthesis essay will show readers how you have reasoned about the topic at hand by taking into account the sources critically and creating a work that draws conversations with the sources into your own thinking.

Contributor: Derrian Goebel

Module 8: Writing Workshop—Analysis and Synthesis

Putting it together: writing workshop—analysis and synthesis.

Now that you’ve worked through some more thorough definitions and examples of analysis, inference, and synthesis, you will be better positioned both to recognize these strategies in the work of others and to beneficially employ them in your own thinking and writing.

In academic writing, it’s thorough, rigorously analytical work that stands out and that demonstrates credible–and credit-worthy–learning. Incorporating elements of inference and synthesis into your essays and presentations will go a long way toward strengthening your work.

Image of woman biting pencil. Authored by : Jan Vasek. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/photos/laptop-woman-education-study-young-3087585/ . License : Other . License Terms : https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

Synthesis Brainstorm

This asynchronous workshop contains a set of activities designed to help students synthesize the conversation between the sources they are examining in their Texts in Conversation essay. It invites them to move through a variety of different activities, including a map, a dinner table conversation scenario, and a mad-lib style exercise.

Skip Content

General Writing

All ENGL 1301 Writing Workshops for Spring 2024 will be held on Wednesdays in the Writing Center at noon. Workshops will be recorded and available to all who register.

Discourse Community Analysis:

This workshop explores the first major essay for English 1301, the Discourse Community Analysis. Consultants will define what a discourse community is and review what makes for a successful DCA. Learn how to directly address your audience, come up with evidence, and establish your credibility as a writer. You will also get useful advice on some of the essentials of good writing, such as topic sentences and transitions.

Wednesday, February 7th @ noon

Explore the fundamentals of the RAE and reading critically. Learn how to identify the ways writers use ethos, logos, and pathos and evaluate the effectiveness of their arguments. Consultants will break down how to construct strong thesis statements and go step-by-step through the essay’s guidelines, including the structure of a good rhetorical analysis.

Wednesday, March 6th @ noon

Wednesday, April 3rd @ noon

All ENGL 1302 Writing Workshops for Fall 2023 will be held on Wednesdays in Microsoft Teams at noon. Workshops will be recorded and available to all who register.

Issue Proposal:

This workshop explores the first major assignment for ENGL 1302, the Issue Proposal. Workshop will review the assignment requirements and identify the best approach to completing the assignment according to the demands of the project. Consultants will discuss the assignment requirements and review what makes for a successful Issue Proposal. You will also get useful advice on some of the essentials of good writing, such as topic sentences and transitions.

Wednesday, February 14th @ noon

Mapping the Issue:

This workshop explores the criteria for the Mapping the Issue writing assignment for students enrolled in 1302. Consultants will discuss the assignment requirements and what makes for a successful Mapping the Issue paper. Learn how to organize sources based on a position, summarize main ideas from your sources, and synthesize sources that cluster around a position. The workshop will also offer techniques for transitioning between positions and using sources effectively.

Wednesday, March 27th @ noon

This workshop will cover the criteria for the final paper of ENGL 1302, the Researched Position Paper. In keeping with the other freshman writing workshops, these are intended to help students develop the skills necessary to complete the assignment and become academic writers. Consultants will offer specific advice on constructing arguments and structuring papers from introduction to conclusion as well as on using logos, pathos, and ethos in making a convincing argument.

Wednesday, April 17th @ noon

All General Writing Workshops will be held Wednesdays, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. An invite with a link will be emailed to registrants prior to the workshop.

Developing an Effective Writing Process:

Success in college depends on developing a writing process that works for you. This workshop will help you to recognize your own writing habits and overcome those habits that do not currently serve you. We will help you develop effective strategies for planning, invention, drafting, and revision. This workshop is open to writers of all levels and disciplines.

Argumentative Writing:

Much of academic writing requires an effective written argument. This workshop introduces writers to argumentative writing and to the processes of creating an effective argument. We discuss how to create a compelling position on an issue and ways to generate reasons to support your arguable claims. We also address how to conduct research, including collecting, generating, and evaluating evidence. This workshop is open to writers of all levels and disciplines.

Would you like to improve your clarity and cohesion? In academic writing, constructing cohesive paragraphs is crucial to fostering a reader’s understanding of the ideas presented by the writer. In this workshop, we teach you how to produce well-crafted topic sentences, and how to develop additional sentences that effectively support your topic sentences. We also work with quotes and evidence to help you to effectively integrate them into your paragraphs. This workshop is open to writers of all levels and disciplines.

All Graduate Writing Workshops for Spring 2024 will be held Tuesdays, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., through Microsoft Teams. We will send out a Teams link to registered participants on the day of the workshop.

Writing in Graduate School:

Many graduate students are unsure of the expectations for writing at the graduate level. In addition to defining general graduate school writing expectations, this workshop will review basic tenets of good academic writing and editing.

Tuesday, February 6th, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Annotating Research Articles/Texts in Graduate School:

Join the Writing Center’s Graduate Executive Staff for an interactive presentation in which we examine the best practices for annotating research articles/texts. For scholars, annotating is a skill most are expected to know and implement; however, the process can become challenging when time constraints and large amounts of reading and research converge. Relying on scholarly works, the Executive Staff will offer a hands-on annotation workshop that will assist graduate students in all fields of study in developing a methodology and a checklist that will make annotating a more effective and manageable process. The workshop will include one to two writing examples that will be annotated together.

Tuesday, February 20th, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Be Your Own Editor:

Learn how to identify and correct grammar errors in your own writing. This workshop will allow students to put their editing skills into practice in a friendly environment in order to demonstrate how editing can improve their writing projects. Students may bring a draft or a previously graded writing assignment to this workshop.

Tuesday, March 5th, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Writing Abstracts:

Learn how to distill the main ideas and arguments from a much larger work into a concise, focused abstract. In this workshop, an experienced consultant will discuss the purpose of an abstract in scholarly work, academic conventions in writing an abstract, and best practices for condensing your writing in an abstract.

Tuesday, March 19th, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Writing Literature Reviews:

In this workshop, an experienced consultant will discuss the purpose of a literature review in scholarly work, the structure and components of a literature review, and the differences between a literature review in the arts and one in the sciences. In addition, the consultant will provide best practices on synthesizing sources that cluster around a position or issue, transitioning between positions, and using sources effectively.

Tuesday, April 2nd, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Personal statements are required in a variety of academic and professional settings, from applying to graduate school to seeking a research grant. This workshop reviews the standard structure of personal statements and best practices for presenting yourself and your work in an effective manner.

Tuesday, April 16th, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

UTA Writing Center

Contact the webmaster 411 Central Library Box 19497, Arlington, TX 76019

[email protected]

Group synthesis task in a workshop on academic writing

January 16, 2023 Mira Vogel 30-60 minutes , Break-out groups , Case studies , Experience - all levels , Medium-sized group , Preparation >30 min , Skills , Spaces with tables 0

Students studying and socialising in a room

This post is authored by Mariam Ghorbannejad , Learning Developer based at King’s Academy. She worked alongside Doctor Laura Gibson , Lecturer in Digital Content Management Education, who runs the Introduction to Digital Asset and Media Management module on the MA in Digital Asset and Media Management course.

Introduction to Digital Asset and Media Management is a 20-session module with 110 students. Laura and I collaborated to devise and deliver a series of two two-hour embedded sessions on academic literacy skills; the first focused on Critical Reading (including the ACT UP model of evaluating sources ) and the second was on Academic Writing. The latter session centred on synthesis. In this two-hour session, groups of students worked together to synthesise two extracts of sources from their discipline. They drafted the synthesis, then wrote it up on large (A3) sheets of paper. In the plenary, I read out some of the groups’ syntheses so other groups could provide their thoughts and constructive feedback on them.

Based on my experience, I have found writing tasks are less daunting when students work in groups. Scrivener (2005, p. 194) notes preparatory writing steps such as selecting and sequencing ideas and co-writing sections of text in groups is effective use of class time. I formed groups with as diverse a range of nationalities as possible to help learners develop more multicultural perspectives and awareness (Caruana, 2011). I observed this mixing encourages the use of English in discussions which positively influences linguistic development including fluency and learner confidence in their ability to express themselves.

Why did you introduce the Academic Writing session?

Laura and I met initially to discuss the needs of students in the cohort, the curriculum and the format of assessments in the module. Following this discussion, we both agreed on the foci of the two embedded academic literacy sessions. The first included activities to guide students in their approach to critical reading whilst the second was on academic writing with an emphasis on paraphrasing and synthesis. As a Learning Developer with a background in English for Academic Purposes, I designed the session and group synthesis task based on an understanding of the educational background of the students, their previous experience of paraphrasing, synthesis and British academic conventions and Laura’s input and expertise on the nature of writing within the field of Digital Humanities as well as her selection of suitable source extracts.

Students, both home and international, often find academic writing challenging and there seems to be an assumption amongst some academics/educators within higher education that learners possess higher order skills such as synthesis on entry. It is important, though, to avoid these kinds of assumptions to ensure we are as inclusive as possible and provide every learner with the tools they need to succeed on their course.

When asked what they hoped to get out of the session, one student responded, ‘I’d learnt some English Academic writing in my undergrad, and I hoped this would reinforce skills I’d learnt during that.’ Another commented, ‘In my previous studies, the exams were nearly always oral. The written ones were a very different structure, so I needed more practical exercises and insight into these kinds of academic skills here in UK.’

How did you set it up?

This Academic Writing session was held towards the end of November, a few weeks after Reading Week in Term 1. Laura had got to know the students quite well by this stage through their induction, weekly lecture and seminar participation and discussion. This helped inform my planning of the session as I was able to tailor it to the needs of the students in the cohort. As the first 4,000-word summative essay was due in January 2023 (early in Term 2), the session was introduced early enough for students to begin drafting their assignment but with ample time afterwards to allow for processing of knowledge and application of the skills introduced/reviewed and practised.

I planned the session to include the features of academic writing, the difference between descriptive and analytical writing, the definition of a synthesis and the features of it, a step-by-step synthesis guide and some synthesis writing practice.

We decided to opt for face-to-face delivery as this allows for individual conversations with students about their understanding and facilitates monitoring of tasks and responding to learner questions on a one-to-one basis as well as providing opportunities for praise, guidance and encouragement.

The synthesis task involved students being placed in groups of six (randomly assigned to facilitate maximum engagement) who were all given the same two short extracts of Digital Humanities sources to synthesise. They were initially given 20 minutes to work on this although I extended this as I could see learners needed more time. They were encouraged to nominate a scribe who would draft their synthesis then write it up on an A3 sheet provided using larger flipchart pens.

Prior to the activity, there were a number of scaffolding tasks to build the foundation for synthesis writing. The first activity exposed learners to a synthesis which they were required to read and answer questions on. The purpose of this was to highlight what we mean by voices in a debate, introduce learners to reporting verbs and other useful phrases to signal transition in addition to the currency of the source.

In the next activity, learners were instructed to match reasons for synthesising sources to explanations. This was included to provide a rationale for synthesis to learners and a way for them to see its relevance to the marking criteria.

The activity which followed this focused on developing learners’ lexis to ensure they had sufficient means of combining sources that have similar stances/findings and those with divergent ones. Following this, I showed learners a step-by-step guide to synthesis before starting the group writing task. At the end of the synthesis writing practice, I read some of the syntheses aloud and elicited feedback from learners in other groups.

How did you introduce it to students?

I introduced the session with a focus on eliciting the features of good academic writing. Learners thought about this individually and then shared their ideas with a partner before I requested feedback. Many of the students mentioned the importance of structure, clarity and appropriate referencing while a few knew about hedging language. I was not able to elicit style (academic and formal vocabulary) or linking (the use of conjunctions, smooth transitions between paragraphs and the use of demonstratives/pronouns to avoid repetition of a word in a sentence or to refer back to a previous clause) so mentioned these and explained their importance.

I then proceeded to discuss the writing process and learners were instructed to rank the following academic skills from the easiest to the most difficult: write critically; use of sources; your written voice; write for your reader; and review. This was mainly an awareness raising task to allow learners to reflect on their own writing process and, from a teacher perspective, acted as a diagnostic activity to assess students’ current understanding and allow me to discuss common challenges and ways to overcome them.

How did you check students’ learning during or from the activity?

As this was a face-to-face setting, I was able to monitor the whole class by circulating the room. This meant I could check students were on task, provide clarification on instructions if necessary, respond to individual questions and encourage their discussions, exchange of ideas and praise their synthesis drafts. I was also able to see at a glance whether the majority of students had finished which is something that is more difficult to ascertain in a Teams setting where learners are placed in breakout rooms.

One student said, ‘The interaction between students and the teacher is great. Student feedback helps teachers keep the pace of the class. Also, teachers can answer students’ questions. It’s a win-win situation.’ Another learner commented, ‘I was very happy because the session was really useful, especially because I have a problem with synthesis, and I think that is a is a very common problem for students’.

It was also fantastic to have Laura present as the subject expert who acted as a secondary monitor and used her in-depth knowledge of the students to support them in a personalised way. Laura’s presence was particularly helpful in the plenary feedback where she could respond to the content of the syntheses while I was able to focus on the academic writing skills introduced/reviewed and practised earlier in the session.

What benefits did you see?

The benefits of collaborating and co-delivering a session involving an expert in academic literacy and a discipline specialist included the ability to plan a session that responded directly to student needs and which was subject specific. This had a positive effect on learner motivation; they could see the relevance of the skills being practised in their own context. When asked about how helpful having an embedded session was rather than a general writing one, one student responded, ‘There might be some overlap with the writing lab, but I think it’s important to have something more specific to DAMM [Digital Asset and Media Management] like this’. Another replied, ‘Yes, this was helpful. Some students already have general reading and writing skills. This session was perfect.’

I think timing was also significant; their summative assignment brief had just been released and I was able to link the skills in the session to those they would be required to demonstrate in their essays through the marking criteria. This further increased motivation and engagement in the session. The process of following a synthesis guide was also helpful to learners. Not assuming any baseline knowledge in this process and being explicit in how to approach drafting a synthesis provided sufficient scaffolding for all students to be able to attempt the task. I endeavoured to create a learning environment in which all learners are welcomed, valued, supported and challenged as inclusive pedagogies and inclusion are something both Laura and I are strong proponents of.

What challenges did you encounter?

On my part, the challenge arose from not knowing all the learners well as I do not teach them on a regular basis. I had taught some of them in the first embedded academic literacy session on critical reading although this was delivered online a few weeks’ prior, so the context was different. I believe, though, that this was partially overcome through liaising extensively with Laura in meetings we organised before the sessions and having her present when I was teaching. You will inevitably have the issue of some students being more confident in their ability to identify areas of similarity and divergence in source texts possibly due to their general reading speed, critical reading skills and previous experience of doing this. This was one of the reasons why I opted for a group writing task as it would reduce these kinds of barriers impeding individual students and allow for discussion and peer teaching in producing a synthesis which would reflect a team effort.

What advice would you give colleagues thinking of trying this activity?

I think all of the tasks leading up to the synthesis were necessary foundational blocks to allow all learners to actively participate and be successful in the group synthesis exercise. Perhaps the features of academic writing and the writing process could be sent to students in advance so they were prepared for the initial discussions. I think, though, that expecting learners to complete tasks prior to an embedded session in a kind of flipped approach relies heavily on reminding students to do this. As a learning developer external to their department, therefore, the practicality of sending work in advance and reminding learners to complete it prior to the session is limited. You would also have the issue of some students not having done the preparatory tasks so class time would need to be allocated to this anyway.

I think, though, perhaps providing more time for the synthesis task would be good in order to allow all groups to receive some kind of immediate feedback on their drafts. Another suggestion might be to encourage learners to upload their submissions to a dedicated academic skills area of their module page on Keats while in class for later educator feedback would be beneficial. (Laura did set up a Padlet on Keats for student submissions although this was not widely used by groups after the session.)

*Feedback was collected on Friday, 9th December when Laura held a small online focus group with 5 students who attended the Critical Writing Skills in-person session in November. All students are international students: two from China; one from India; one from Italy; and one from South Korea.

Photo by Mimi Thian on Unsplash

Be the first to comment

Writing Resources

Student Paper Template
Grammar Guidelines
Punctuation Guidelines
Writing Guidelines
Creating a Title
Outlining and Annotating
Using Generative AI (Chat GPT and others)
Introduction, Thesis, and Conclusion
Strategies for Citations
Determining the Resource This link opens in a new window
Citation Examples
Paragraph Development
Paraphrasing
Inclusive Language
International Center for Academic Integrity
How to Synthesize and Analyze
Synthesis and Analysis Practice
Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
Decoding the Assignment Prompt
Annotated Bibliography
Comparative Analysis
Conducting an Interview
Infographics
Office Memo
Policy Brief
Poster Presentations
PowerPoint Presentation
White Paper
Writing a Blog
Research Writing: The 5 Step Approach
Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
Step 2: Explain
Step 3: The Big Picture
Step 4: Own It
Step 5: Illustrate
MLA Resources
Time Management

ASC Chat Hours

ASC Chat is usually available at the following times ( Pacific Time):

Days	Hours (Pacific time)
Mon.	9 am - 8 pm
Tue.	7 am - 1 pm 3 pm - 10 pm
Wed.	7 am - 1 pm 3 pm - 10 pm
Thurs.	7 am - 1 pm 2 pm - 10 pm
Fri.	9 am - 1 pm 3 pm - 5 pm 6 pm - 8 pm
Sat.	7 am - 1 pm 6 pm - 9 pm
Sun.	10 am - 1 pm 5 pm - 9 pm

If there is not a coach on duty, submit your question via one of the below methods:

928-440-1325

Ask a Coach

[email protected]

Search our FAQs on the Academic Success Center's Ask a Coach page.

Learning about Synthesis Analysis

What D oes Synthesis and Analysis Mean?

Synthesis: the combination of ideas to

show commonalities or patterns

Analysis: a detailed examination

of elements, ideas, or the structure of something
can be a basis for discussion or interpretation

Synthesis and Analysis: combine and examine ideas to

show how commonalities, patterns, and elements fit together
form a unified point for a theory, discussion, or interpretation
develop an informed evaluation of the idea by presenting several different viewpoints and/or ideas

Key Resource: Synthesis Matrix

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is an excellent tool to use to organize sources by theme and to be able to see the similarities and differences as well as any important patterns in the methodology and recommendations for future research. Using a synthesis matrix can assist you not only in synthesizing and analyzing, but it can also aid you in finding a researchable problem and gaps in methodology and/or research.

Use the Synthesis Matrix Template attached below to organize your research by theme and look for patterns in your sources .Use the companion handout, "Types of Articles" to aid you in identifying the different article types for the sources you are using in your matrix. If you have any questions about how to use the synthesis matrix, sign up for the synthesis analysis group session to practice using them with Dr. Sara Northern!

Writing Icon Purple Circle w/computer inside

Was this resource helpful?

<< Previous: International Center for Academic Integrity
Next: How to Synthesize and Analyze >>
Last Updated: Jun 11, 2024 10:55 AM
URL: https://resources.nu.edu/writingresources

Board of Trustees
Provost’s Messages to the Drew Community
Faculty Personnel Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy – Grievance Procedures (amended)
President’s Messages to Drew Community
Honorary Degree Nominations
President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching
Strategic Planning
Drew in a Nutshell
Mission & History
Manager Resources
ADP & College Time Information
Confidentiality Agreement
Gender Inequity Agreement
Employment Opportunities
Frequently Asked Questions
Recruitment & Onboarding
Faculty and Staff Conditions of Employment
Open Enrollment
Additional Pay
Student Employment
Updating Personal Information
Wellness Programs
Faculty/Staff Self-Identification Form
COVID-19 Faculty/Staff Accommodation Request Form
The Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center Residency
Upcoming Events
Recordings at Drew
S.W. Bowne Great Hall
Simon Forum and Athletic Center
Ehinger Center
Brothers College
Drew Forest Preserve
Special Occasion Photo Requests
Internal Meetings and Events
Summer Conferences and Camps
Meet the Staff
Make a Payment
Our Services
Energy Consumption
Water Testing Results
Campus Sustainability
Our Staff & Contacts
Mail Services
Print Services
Laundry Services
The Bookstore
CLSA Divisional Staff
Employment & Practical Training
Important Forms and Policies
Scope of the Student Conduct Policy
Community Standards
Anti-Hazing Policy and Information
Silent Supporter
Student Conduct Process
Conduct and Reporting Forms
NJ Transit Student Discount
Bike Rental Agreement
Climate Neutrality
Keep It On The Screen
Get Outdoors
Recycling Guide
Student Groups
Meet the Team
Partner with Us
Share a Profile Recommendation
Share Your News
Action Scholar Questionnaire
The Communications Toolkit
Policies & Guides
Internal Forms
Meet Our Staff
Banner Requests
Treasury Services
Accounts Payable
Business Entertainment Policy
Chart of Accounts
Program Codes
Credit Card Policies and Procedures
“How To” Guides
Vendor Code of Conduct
Contractor Guidelines
Purchase Order Terms & Conditions
STORES Requisition Form
Travel Policy and Procedures
Requisition to Purchase Order
Non-PO Purchases
Standing (Blanket) Purchase Orders
University Contracting
Student Accounts
University Events, Announcements, and Resources for Staff
Executive Board
Constitution and By-laws
Volunteer Opportunities
President’s Award for Distinguished Staff Service
Instructional Technology Department
Opportunities
Campus Event Spaces and Documentation
Voice Services
Password Self-Service
Passwords and Logging In
Technology Services Portfolio
Teaching Remotely
#40771 (no title)
Working Remotely
Your Internet Connection
Two-Factor Authentication Self-Service
Loaner Policy
User Support Policies
Departmental Computer Purchase Policy
Google Shared Drives Policy
Responsible Use of University Data
Microsoft Campus Agreement
Network User Agreement
Laptop Program
The Alan Candiotti Fund
Work For Us
MAT Program Information
Student Right to Know
Student Complaints Resolution
Institutional Research
About Policies
University Complaint & Grievance Policies & Procedures
Protect The Forest
Programs of Study
CLA Dean’s List
Drew Scholarships, Fellowships, Grants and Award Winners
Phi Beta Kappa, Gamma of NJ
Community Education Audit Program
Specialized Honors Guide
Faculty Highlights
Center for Language and Learning
Center on Religion, Culture and Conflict
Religion and Global Health Forum
Faculty by Program
Announcements
City semesters
Adult Degree-Seeking Students
Non-Degree Students
Summer Intensive
Team Projects
Student Information Form
Application Form
Accepted Students
Summer Term
Class Schedule & Course Information
Academic Calendars
Frequently Asked Questions: Registration
Ladder Degree Audit
Petitions to Academic Standing
Cross Registration
Final Exam Schedule
Registering for a Closed Class with an Override
Add or Drop a Class Simultaneously
Declaration or Change of Major and Minor – (CLA) Student Instructions
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
Musical Instruction Registration
Digital Diplomas & Certificates
Credential Validation
Individual Instruction (Independent Study) Registration Request for CLA
Transcript Requests
Notarization Requests
Veteran Benefits at Drew University
Approving a Declaration/Change of Major/Minor
Grade Information
Registration Overrides
Request for Student Data Information
Roster Verification
Writing a Course Description
Viewing Your Waitlist
Course Attribute Overview
Locating a Student’s PIN
Transfer Credit
Transcripts & Enrollment Verification
Graduation & Diplomas
Contact/Meet the Staff
Meet The Mentors
Meet the Faculty/Staff
First-Year Toolkit
Academic Alerts (Beacon) – for Students abc
CAE LibGuide
Remote Learning Resources
Location and Staff
Accommodate
Getting Started
Current Students
Documentation Guidelines
Policies and Procedures
Rights and Responsibilities
Faculty Resources
Information for Parents
University Writing Center
Academic Alerts (Beacon) – for Faculty
Academic Integrity for CLA Faculty
Policies and Forms
Further Resources
Work at the CAE
Library Services and Resources
Research Resources
Special Collections & University Archives
Digital Collections
News, Events, and Podcast
Giving to the Library
About the Library
Internship Registration
Internship Awards
Full-time Job Searches
Pre-Health Advising
Make a Donation
Student Resources
Professionals in Residence
For Faculty and Staff
Presentations
Internship Evaluations
Our Approach
First Destination Survey
First Destinations
AmeriCorps Safer Communities Initiative
Arts of Respect High School Program
Qisasna (Our Stories) US/Yemeni Podcast Program
“We Refuse to Be Enemies”: Author talk with Sabeeha Rehman and Walter Ruby
Reflections
CRCC and Afghan Girls Financial Assistance Fund Partnership
Global Learning
Distinguished Visiting Scholars
Drucker Fellows Program Arts of Respect
Drew University Institute for Emerging Leaders
Drew Institute on Religion and Conflict Transformation
The Peacebuilder Award
The Shirley Sugerman Interfaith Forum
Past Events
Make a Gift
Civic Engagement Showcase & Awards
Meet The Faculty
Action Scholars Take Action!
Changemakers Certificate Program
Drew Food Pantry
MLK Day of Service
Immersive Experiences
Sustainability At Drew
Democracy at Drew
Civic Scholars
Get Engaged
Featured Stories
Staff and Faculty
Board of Associates
Schedule of Events
Summer Institute (DHSI)
Projects & Courses
Technology Fellows
Tools & Resources
Meet the Director
Mentors and Projects
Information for Students
Information for Mentors
Our Research Fellows
RISE Student Information Form
RISE Talk Series
Drew Summer Science Institute (DSSI)
Past winners for Heroes in Drug Discovery
Meet the Co-Chairs
Facilities & Instrumentation
Social Impact (Formerly Social Entrepreneurship)
Museums and Cultural Management
United Nations
Communications & Media
New York Theatre
Contemporary Art
Wall Street
Art and Cultures of the Mediterranean in Southern France and Morocco
Building a Sustainable Creative Practice in India
Community Resilience and Prosperity in Vietnam
Food, Culture, and Sustainability in Tuscany
Healthcare and Human Development in South Africa
Psychology of Group Conflict and Reconciliation in South Africa
Spanish Language & Culture in Barcelona
London Semester
Global Partner Programs
TREC Finances
TREC Ambassadors
Health and Safety Protocols
View our Academic Programs
Admissions Counselors by Area
Meet Our Student Tour Guides
Drew Accolades
Tuition & Fees
Transfer Students
International Admissions
International Baccalaureate Students
Courses On Campus
Continuing Ed and Non-Degree Programs
Test Optional Policy
For Parents
You’re Invited!
Campus Visit
Graduate Tuition
International Students
Virtual Tour
Undergraduate Visits & Events
Graduate Visits & Events
Student Orientation
Verification and Outstanding Requirements
Applicants to Drew’s EOF Program
Grants & Scholarships
Drew Scholarship for the Arts
BA/MD Dual Degree Program & Scholarship
Meet The Mentors abc
Student Employment & Work Study
Financial Aid Advisors
Financing Your Education
Cost of Attendance
Cost Calculator
Tuition and Fees Schedules
Payment Options
1098-T Information
Health Insurance
Authorized Viewer Setup (PROXY)
Credit Refund Information
Federal Perkins Loan
Institutional Refund Policies (Withdrawal / Leave of Absence from University)
Refunds of Federal and State Aid
Student Accounts Office Holds
Student Loan Disbursement
Understanding Your Bill
Military / Veterans
Alumni Community
Stay Connected
Planned Giving
What to Support
Ways to Give
University Advancement
Club Sports
Intramural Activities & Classes
File a Report
Active Shooter Response Training Video
Annual Fire Safety and Security Report/Clery Statistics
Daily Crime & Fire Log
LiveSafe at Drew
Meet The Staff
Parking and Motor Vehicle Information
Sexual and Relationship Violence and Prevention
Well-being@Drew
Group Psychotherapy
What to Expect in Counseling/Therapy
Workshops/Seminars
Self Help & Resources
For Faculty/Staff
Counseling Staff
Emergency Information
Hours and Services
Information and Updates
New Students: Submitting Your Health Forms
Insurance Information
Additional Health Resources
International Travel Advisory
Dining Hours
Treeline Dining at Drew
Diversity Equity & Inclusion Programming
Office of the Chaplain & Religious Life
Hoyt-Bowne & Asbury Hall
McLendon, McClintock, Foster & Hurst Hall
Haselton, Eberhardt, Riker, & Baldwin Hall
Holloway Hall
Tolley, Brown & Welch Hall
Undergraduate Theme Houses
Specialized Floors
Tipple Hall
Housing Process
Residence Hall Floor Plans
Important Housing Dates
Room Selection Process
Grad/Theo New Resident Information
Grad/Theo Current Resident Information
Quarantine/Isolation Housing Guidelines
Community Advisors & House Assistants
Gender Inclusive Housing
Faculty & Staff
LGBTQ+ History, Activism & Education
Mentorship Program
Graphics & Flag Info
Visa Application Information
International Student Orientation
Before Booking Your Flight
I20 Information and Application
DS-2019 Info And Application
New Caspersen and Theology Students
International Student FAQs Fall 2023
On Campus Employment
Undergraduate CPT Application Process
Graduate Student CPT Application
Optional Practical Training (OPT)
Students on Approved OPT
J-1 Academic Training
Tax Information
i-House Fall 2023 Application Form for New Students
One To World
Tilghman International Awards
International Ambassador Program
Asian Student Union
International Students Association
Extra Time On Exams For International Students
Info for Faculty & Staff
Family Visits
INTO Drew University
Student Activities
Diversity Initiatives & Programs
Financial Policies & Procedures
Funding an Event
Before the Event
Posting Policy
Campus Wide Announcement Policies and Procedures
Off-Campus Trips
Post-Event Responsibilities
Fundraising Guidelines
Club Events
Responding to Current Events
Off-Campus Event Registration form
Ad-hoc Request Form
Club Website Information
Event Review Form
Rights & Responsibilities
Student Event Policies
Graduate & Theological Student Groups & Associations
Student Government Funded Club Fundraising Policies
Purchases & Student Travel
Supplies & Resources
Alcohol at Student Events
Offices & Storage Spaces
Digital Signage in the Ehinger Center
Club Email Access
Club Leader Position Information
Path Instructions for Club Leaders
Well-being @ Drew
Volunteer Without Borders
The Ehinger Center
Staff Contact
Winter Orientation
Summer Orientation
Fall Orientation
Transfer Orientation
Commuter Students
Orientation Committee
Placement Exams
Parents & Families
Parking on Campus
Drew Seminar Course Descriptions
Family Weekend
Title IX Staff
Decorum Policy
Local, State and National Resources
Trans* Equality Policy Statement
Campus Climate Survey Results
Non-Discrimination of Students on the Basis of Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Related Conditions
Commencement FAQ
Campus Map/Parking
Commemorative Program Request
Apply to Graduate
Diploma Requests
Past Commencement Speakers and Honorary Degree Recipients
Zipcars at Drew
Caspersen School of Graduate Studies
Drew Theological School
Departments & Offices
Maps & Directions
Privacy Policy

Connect With Us

Staff Spotlight
Petitions to Academic Standing abc
TREC Planning
View our Academic Program
Athletics & Recreation
Social Security
Drew Connect
Black Alumni Association
Young Alumni
Alumni Services & Discounts
Alumni Achievement Awards: Recipients
Reunion 2024
Virtual Alumni Art Show
Senior Gift Society
Giving Societies
Giving Home
Gift Options
About Bequests
Calculators
Drew Seminar Writing Resources

by [email protected] | Nov 13, 2023

Writing Studies

Resources for Writing Intensive Courses
Why Use Writing Workshops and How to Use Them Well
Types of Workshops – Structures that Work
Workshops That Work – Write-to-Learn
Workshops That Work – Drafts & Revision
Write-to-Learn Assignments

Connections Experiences Opportunities

Academics >
Writing Studies >
Resources for Teaching Writing >

The workshop structures below are designed to follow the writing sequence of the DSEM although they can be used in other classes or at other times than suggested. For example, part way through the semester you might realize that your students need to work on reading or summary skills. Repeating a workshop or holding a brief impromptu workshop on another class day as needed are both effective ways to help students strengthen their writing. These workshops may be facilitated by Professors and/or Writing Fellows, but they work best if either the Professor or the Writing Fellow takes responsibility for logistics and both circulate and offer feedback as the students work. These structures can be adapted to any course content.

Planning DSEM Workshops

Before you start, the first two documents will be helpful reviews, especially if faculty and Writing Fellow discuss them before the first workshop. Samples of workshops that work offer general examples that may be used in class or adapted.

General Workshop Guidelines – why they are helpful, how to make them succeed
Kinds of workshops – from 5 minute to whole class.
Write-to-Learn Assignments – a list of assignments & related classroom and workshop activities

THE FIRST DSEM WRITING WORKSHOP

This occurs before a paper is due and gets students used to working with peers and seeing writing and talking as ways to learn, not just as things to be graded. It also introduces students to Writing Fellows and their role as part of class instruction. If they run the workshop with full support of the faculty member, their authority with students will increase, as will the likelihood that students will elect to work with them. Below are a list of possible structures with links to handouts where relevant.

Workshops that work 1: Write-to-Learn – this document describes a number of workshops that can be used for the first DSEM workshop, or adapted for use as short workshops as necessary throughout the semester. Writing Fellows may also use these working with small groups of students outside of class.
Reading: How to highlight a text – workshop
Reading for Connection and Comprehension – workshop
Note-taking – workshop
Summary Writing (using They Say I Say ) – workshop
Synthesis – workshop
Summary Writing – includes questions to guide peer review at the end
Synthesis Writing – includes questions to guide peer review at the end

THE SECOND DSEM WRITING WORKSHOP

This may occur as students are brainstorming ideas for a paper, after they have a general idea of what they will write, or after they have written a very rough draft.

Workshops that Work 2: Drafts & Revision – this document describes a number of workshops that can be used for writing workshops of any length once students are working on a paper. Writing Fellows may also use these working with small groups of students outside of class.
Working with First Drafts – workshop
Thesis and Organization workshop – workshop
Color Coding the Parts of a Draft to aid Revision –- workshop
Using Skeleton Outlines in the Revision Process – workshop
Rhetorical Reading Information Literacy – handout
Paper Organization Flow Chart [Template] – a handout

HOW TO HIGHLIGHT A READING – A WORKSHOP

Discussion and workshop by Marley Amico (Drew University, Fall 2016)

Why this workshop?

Students often struggle to read actively and therefore fail to get the most out of their readings. This workshop asks them to focus on a small sample of text, read and highlight it and then discuss what they took from it. In addition to students learning strategies for highlighting and note-taking, instructors may find this workshop a useful way to gauge the reading skills of their students.

Students will have a better sense of how to get more information out of their readings and remember more of that information so they can contribute to class discussions and write more effective papers.

The Workshop

Begin the session with a brief discussion of reading strategies and the importance of active reading. You may want to discuss how you read and even demonstrate an annotated text.
Review the strategies for highlighting at the beginning of the workshop handout,
then ask students to practice reading and highlighting the paragraph provided.
Once they have highlighted the text, students should be put into groups (ideally 3-5 students per group) and asked to compare their highlighting and perhaps use it to write a one or two sentence summary of the main point of the paragraph.

You may want to highlight the text yourself and invite students to compare their highlighting with yours .

You may want to replace the sample with a sample from your class, this can be particularly helpful for a difficult text, the first reading of the semester, or an anchor text that needs to be understood if students are to learn essential concepts in the course.

Instructions

Copy the material below and print as a handout or share it with students

How to Highlight

Determine what information you need to know – what is the goal of reading this reading? What purpose will it serve in class discussions, future papers? Use those question to guide your highlighting process.
Try not to highlight more than one or two lines per paragraph – use highlighting as a tool to focus in on the most important parts of a paragraph, as well as a tool for your own future reference: what will future you want to remember about this specific paragraph?
Don’t over-highlight! It will muddle your brain. By making deliberate choices about what you find most important for future reference.

Practice here: You would use this paragraph in the context of a paper that is supposed to discuss how black motherhood is devalued in the United States and its impact on children:

Race and class discrimination in these cases will continue to be ignored unless special efforts are made to expose this problem.209 By focusing on historical race and class discrimination and the present hardships and barriers that poor, minority women are challenged by, the racial and class bias that underlies the criminal prosecution of pregnant users can be uncovered, discussed, and hopefully remedied.210 Framing the constitutional issue at stake as a violation of reproductive liberty also aids in confronting the devaluation of black motherhood.211 The need for action in this situation is especially urgent following the United States Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari on Cornelia Whitner’s appeal. This denial essentially upholds South Carolina’s criminal prosecution of pregnant drug users and allows other states to follow suit with the same devastating impact.212 Allowing these prosecutions to continue will only further degrade Black motherhood and result in throwing more children into an already overburdened child welfare system. Is this in the best interest of the child?

READING FOR COMPREHENSION & CONNECTION

Students often struggle to read slowly or carefully enough to make the connections we hope they will make between texts. This workshops is designed to help them read more deeply and begin to make the connections necessary for effective reading, writing, and class discussion in the DSEM — and in other classes.

Students will have a better sense of how to get more information out of their readings, make connections between readings, and remember more of that information so they can contribute to class discussions and write more effective papers. The instructor will also get a better sense of how well students read and where more time needs to be spent to help them trace connections.

This assignment can lead directly into a draft of paper #1 or paper #2. If students enjoy it, a larger 4-person panel presentation in “character” can help them prepare for revision of paper #3.

As homework, ask students to write one paragraph in which they place the reading for today in conversation with a prior reading in the class — you can specify the reading or offer 2 or 3 alternatives. [See assignment below].
Begin the session with a brief discussion of the ways ideas circulate in conversation with others, and the importance of seeing assigned readings as part of the overall conversation of the class rather than isolated nuggets of fact or opinion. Then explain the workshop. [10 minutes]
In groups of four [see logistics below], ask students to write a brief dialogue between two of the authors you have read this semester with two students working on each author (character). They should imagine the characters in a cafe (or bar) arguing about the topic at hand and focus on the main argument each would make and how the other would respond. Each author/character should speak in the voice of the text you read and express the opinions expressed in the text; however, the students can decide what aspect of the topic they discuss. [35-40 minutes]
When they finish drafting, one student from each pair should be elected “actor” and the two should rehearse the conversation/argument with the other team members providing stage directions and making revisions to the text as appropriate. Encourage them to be as dramatic as they like as long as they remain in the voice of the author. [10 minutes]
Allow time at the end [about 15-20 minutes] for each group to act out their dialogue in front of the class. If there is time, invite classmates to identify who is speaking in each case and to assess the accuracy of the argument.
Take five minutes at the end of class for students to write a brief reflection on what they learned about reading and making connections and what strategies they might use in the future. You can collect this and the dialogue, for not.

Select one image, example, case study, or quotation from the reading and ask students to explain how the author uses it to support the larger argument of the piece. The class conversation could then be the “author” explaining it to a curious student (using his or her own words and creative questions from the “student”).

Alternatively, select an image, example, case study, or quotation and ask students to consider how two of the authors they have studied would interpret it (this can also work if two authors use the same image, example, etc). The conversation then takes the form of the authors (“characters”) discussing the image/example/etc and offering interpretations.

Homework assignment: Write a paragraph in preparation for class in which you place the reading for today in conversation with a prior reading in the class [ specify one or several possibilities ]. That means, first that you should identify the argument being made in the assigned reading, and then think about another reading making a related argument on this topic. Your task is to consider the interaction between this argument and the other one you have identified. Do they agree or disagree? Are they making similar arguments but in different ways? How do they support the argument?
In workshop get into groups of four
In each group, 2 students will take on the role of the author of the homework reading, and 2 others will take on the role of the additional text.

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING SUMMARIES

Wendy Kolmar, Drew University 2016.

Also use chapter 2 of They Say/I Say

See also “ Working with First Drafts “

Sequence: Points in your summary should be in order of their important than the order in which they appear in the article. Verbs like “starts,” “concludes,” “continues” are signals that you’re following the order of the article.
Avoid Description. Don’t say what the article is “about,” describing it’s content. Instead, summarize the article’s argument is. “In this essay, Judith Lorber argues that . . . .”
Pay attention to paragraph structure . how are ideas connected? How do we get from one idea to the next?
Author. Attach ideas to their source and author. The author’s name and the title of the text should appear in the summary. e sure we can tell throughout the paragraph that you are still talking about the author’s argument. In your paper, you’ll want to signal when you switch back to your own ideas.
Word Choice. Use the language of the article or essay, especially for key words and terms. “claiming an education” “social construction” “oppression.” Be careful that in substituting a word of your own, you aren’t distorting the meaning of a term.
Specificity. Give enough detail about the argument that we can tell them apart and can tell what are the salient components of each argument?
Your Opinion. Your opinion should not be in the summary but it absolutely belongs in this paper. It may begin or end the paragraph which has your summary in it, because you will tell your reader how the text your summarizing contributed to your overall thinking about gender.

Title of article or any short work is in quotation marks: “There is no Hierarchy of Oppression”

Title of Full Length Work is italicized or underlined; e.g: The Color Purple

In general, we write about what’s happening in any text in the present tense (e.g: “argues”) except perhaps when something is in the past in a novel.

FIRST DRAFT WRITING WORKSHOP

The goal of this workshop is to give students several different kinds of feedback from different readers to use as they work on a revision of the over the weekend.

For each of these three exercises you will trade papers with a different person. After you complete each review, take time to discuss what you found with your reader. All comments should be written on the draft, so you have three people’s comments collected on one draft.

Opening Paragraph & Paper Structure. Trade essays with your partner. Read the first paragraph of the essay ONLY. List the three or four points you expect the essay to develop based on the first paragraph. If you can, number these points in the order in which the paragraph suggests they will appear in the paper. i.e. How does the first paragraph predict the paper’s structure?
Summary – Before trading papers each person should mark the places in the paper where they feel they used summary. Trade papers and read each other’s summaries using the criteria on the back of this sheet and the guidance in Chapter 2 of They Say/I Say. Make specific suggestions by referencing the list on the back; write the numbers of the issues you think the writer needs to work on next to the relevant paragraph.
Reader Response — Reader reads the paper and puts an X in the margin every place they find it rough, hard to understand, lacking a connection – every place your reading process is interrupted or you have to pause. When you finish, discuss with each other one or two of the major spots you found and explain to each other what the issue is with the sentence or paragraph.

HOW TO USE THIS FEEDBACK IN REVISION.

If your reader has been unable to deduce from your first paragraph what your paper will cover and how it will be structured, you need to revise the first paragraph to do a better job of introducing and setting up your discussion.
Use your reader’s feedback to make revisions to your summary following the guidance on the back as indicated by your reader.
Look at each spot your reader has marked. What do you think caused your reader to pause? Is the sentence unclear? Is a transition missing? Is there a word misused or a grammatical problem with the sentence?

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING SUMMARIES (ALSO USE CHAPTER 2 OF THEY SAY/I SAY )

Using skeleton outlines for revision.

A Handout and workshop designed by Hannah Kohn , (Drew University 2016)

A skeleton outline is a helpful tool to use when evaluating the structure of your paper. Using a draft you have already written, insert information into the paragraph sections below. You may add / subtract paragraph sections as necessary.

Introduction

Thesis statement:

Paragraph one:

Topic sentence:
Main point of paragraph:
Evidence Used:

Paragraph two:

Paragraph three:

Paragraph four:

Conclusion:

Now that you have filled out the paragraph sections, reflect on the following:

What is the function of each paragraph? What is each paragraph doing in your essay?
Does each paragraph introduce one new point? If not, can you separate your paragraph into two or more paragraphs in order to highlight a single unit of thought in each?
Do you have a topic sentence adequately introducing the point you are about to make in each paragraph?
Do you have evidence to back up each point you make?
Is the order of your paragraphs logical? Could you rearrange them to make your argument stronger?
What will you do to improve your paper for the final submission? If this is a second draft, what did you do to improve this from your first draft?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Perspect Med Educ
v.11(5); 2022 Oct

The story behind the synthesis: writing an effective introduction to your scoping review

Lorelei lingard.

1 Centre for Education Research & Innovation, and Department of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry and Faculty of Education, Western University, London, Canada

Heather Colquhoun

2 Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

In a recent writing workshop, a participant was applying the “mapping the gap” heuristic in the introduction of his paper. Mapping the gap is a strategy for writing a succinct, compelling literature review in a paper’s Introduction: the writer briefly and selectively summarizes what’s known in order to outline the white space—the gap—that the research fills [ 1 ]. But this writer had done a scoping review, and he was struggling to make the heuristic fit. “ How do I summarize what is already known, ” he said, “ without giving away what my scoping review found? The gap is one of my results, isn’t it ?”

Good question. And for anyone writing or giving feedback on scoping reviews, a rather pressing one. This form of knowledge synthesis is proliferating in health research generally and health professions education (HPE) research specifically, and a recent review suggests that published scoping review manuscripts in HPE often lack a strong introductory rationale for the work [ 2 ]. This may be in part because guidance for writers regarding this section of a scoping review is sorely lacking. The problem isn’t a lack of frameworks or guidelines for conducting and reporting scoping reviews: these are available in abundance, with ongoing updates and refinements [ 3 , 4 ]. But in all cases the emphasis is predominantly on methods: the idea of the scoping review as a story to be told is missing.

Two main sources of scoping review guidance illustrate this point. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for designing scoping reviews [ 4 ] give more attention to title than introduction: the advice is mainly that the latter “should be comprehensive and should cover the main elements of the topic, important definitions, and the existing knowledge in the field” (11.3.4). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [ 5 ] focuses significantly more attention on Methods and Results than on Introductory framing. Writers find only two items to guide them: we are to “describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known… and explain why the review questions/objectives lend themselves to a scoping review approach”; and we should provide “an explicit statement of the questions and objectives being addressed with reference to their key elements (e.g., population or participants, concepts, and context)” ( p 469). However, as my workshop participant pointed out, the devil is in the details. Where’s the line between describing a rationale in “context of what is already known” and giving away your results, or even negating the value of doing a scoping review in the first place? How much, and which, literature needs to be introduced to establish the “key elements… population or participants, concepts, and context” for the review questions and objectives? In a nutshell, how does the author set up the story of a scoping review? To date, the scoping review guidance literature privileges study—and ignores story. But every good manuscript needs both.

In this Writer’s Craft, we offer writers advice for crafting a clear, compelling story in the Introduction of their scoping review paper. This advice is relevant for any scoping review, thus our illustrations come from a variety of fields.

Articulate the problem/gap/hook

Scoping reviews are a synthesis of knowledge. Therefore, the introduction’s main purpose is to offer an argument for why we need a synthesis of the knowledge on a particular concept. The Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic [ 6 ] can help efficiently lay out this argument.

Let’s begin with the Gap, as it is the same for every scoping review: the lack of synthesis of existing literature. This should be signaled clearly with language such as “Amid such debates, the scholarly community lacks a large-scale, systematic overview of the [arts & humanities] literature” [ 7 ] ( p 1213) or “there is little evidence on how the Bangladeshi community gain access to diabetes-related information and services” [ 8 ] ( p 157), or “one area of medical education research that has not yet been systematically examined is family medicine” [ 9 ]( p 1). It is possible to leave the Gap unstated; readers will be able to infer it as it is similar across scoping reviews. However, making it explicit offers the opportunity to characterize it precisely as Maggio et al. [ 2 ] do in their scoping review of HPE scoping reviews ( p 690):

the extant research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted, if they are funded, or why medical educators decide to undertake this type of knowledge synthesis in the first place. This lack of direct insight makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to take evidence-informed steps to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews in medical education.

Explicitly naming and characterizing the gap is particularly important in a scoping review of scoping reviews, to convince the reader that, amid a sea of reviews, we need another. As scoping reviews proliferate, so too will scoping reviews of scoping reviews, making a strongly characterized gap an essential ingredient of these stories.

While the Gap for a scoping review is invariably some lack of synthesis, this in itself does not justify doing a scoping review. Lots of literature remains unsynthesized; why does it matter in this case? Writers must articulate the Problem that arises because of the lack of synthesis. It is not sufficient to say, for instance, that “Hundreds of knowledge translation (KT) theories exist across a broad range of paradigms including organizational theory, learning theory, and social cognitive theory, but they have yet to be synthesized”. You must make explicit the problem created by an abundance of unsynthesized theoretical KT literature: something like, “Scholars struggle to use KT theory effectively, faced with hundreds of possibilities and no synthesis to guide them”. Look at published scoping reviews to see how other authors express the problem: it might be that the field lacks conceptual consensus, or practices are inconsistent, or controversies remain unresolved, or understanding is inhibited by implicit blind spots, or research is proceeding without programmatic direction. For example, Van Schalkwyk et al. [ 10 ] conducted their scoping review of transformative learning as pedagogy because they realized that “understanding of the construct differed amongst us and lacked a clear theoretically grounded comprehension” ( p 538); Sebok-Syer et al. [ 11 ] argued that a scoping review was needed around measuring interdependence because “variability in both terminology and approaches among researchers may contribute to assessment challenges” ( p 1124); and Young et al. [ 12 ] declared that, although it has been much studied, “little consensus exists regarding the definition of clinical reasoning” ( p 2). Reading critically can help expand your repertoire of phrases for this key part of your Introduction.

The Hook is the ‘so what’ of your scoping review—the statement of why it matters to solve the Problem you’ve identified. The Hook can be expressed either in terms of possibility (e.g., “With a synthesis, we will be able to …”) or caution (e.g., “Without a synthesis, we risk …”). A good scoping review Hook focuses on what the results of the review will be used for, and writers should aim for specific examples of value. Saying that your review will “be useful to a broad audience of educators” is too vague. Be more precise and persuasive. Howell et al. [ 13 ] express “ an urgent need for a guiding taxonomy of core PRO domains and dimensions in cancer” ( p 77); Gottlieb et al. [ 14 ] argue that “ Given the profound impact of burnout on medicine, understanding imposter syndrome within the context of physicians and physicians in training is critical ”( p 117); Maggio et al. [ 2 ] set out to “ identify areas for improvement in the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews in medical education, thereby helping to ensure that those produced are relevant to and practical” ( p 690); and Young et al. [ 12 ] assert that “a careful mapping of the concept of clinical reasoning across professions is necessary to support both profession-specific and interprofessional learning, assessment, and research” ( p 2). A negative hook, with its articulation of problems or negative impacts associated with not having synthesized the literature, may be particularly effective. If we convert Young et al.’s hook to negative, we get something like “without this careful mapping, learning, assessment and research cannot advance coherently ”. Which do you find more compelling?

Structure the story

The Problem, Gap and Hook are important, but they are only three of the sentences in your Introduction. What goes in the other sentences, and how should you organize them?

According to scoping review guidelines [ 4 , 5 ], the introductory literature review of your paper must do three things: 1) provide relevant details about the “population or participants, concepts, and context” (PCC); 2) establish that there is sufficient literature to warrant a review; and 3) acknowledge any pre-existing reviews and distinguish them from yours. Let’s walk through each of these, unpacking Young et al.’s three-paragraph scoping review introduction as a primary illustration and using additional examples to help you build your Introduction repertoire (Fig. 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 40037_2022_719_Fig1_HTML.jpg

An effective scoping review Introduction, from Young et al. [ 12 ]

Use the PCC framework

According to Peters et al. [ 15 ], “use of the PCC mnemonic clearly identifies the focus and context of a review” (p2122). We like to think of it as orienting the reader to the setting and main characters of your story. Young et al. establish the PCC in their first paragraph: they describe the population/participants (health professionals), the main concept (clinical reasoning), and the context (health professions education, including both policy frameworks and teaching/assessment activities). Many scoping review introductions take multiple paragraphs to establish the PCC, starting more generally and then narrowing. This inverted triangle is common in scoping review introductions: for example, O’Brien et al.’s [ 16 ] two-paragraph introduction which begins with a paragraph describing the broader context of HIV, followed by a paragraph narrowing in on the concept of rehabilitation in HIV. An inverted triangle introduction doesn’t need to be long: in three paragraphs Maggio et al.’s [ 2 ] introduction sketches the rise of scoping reviews in medical education, narrows to scoping review methods and then narrows further to methodological and reporting concerns. By contrast, Alam et al.’s [ 8 ] scoping review opens with a protracted inverted triangle which traverses concepts of diabetes, health access, and minority groups before finally coming to its focus in the 10th paragraph of the literature review: British Bangladeshi’s access to diabetes-related healthcare information and services. Particularly if your paper is a conventional length for a health research journal (3000–4000 words), this is a long wait for the appearance of the main character of your scoping review story. Aim for a 3–4 paragraph introduction, use the inverted triangle structure as an organizing logic, and choose stress positions for key sentences (like Young et al.’s problem sentence that concludes the second paragraph).

Establish that the literature can support a scoping review

There is no magic number of studies that constitutes a threshold for scoping, so the writer must convince the reader that the literature is sufficient. In their second introductory paragraph, Young et al. make this argument. The first sentence notes the “variety” of ways the concept has been discussed; the third sentence characterizes the literature as “large” with an “early” emphasis on “cognitive processes”; the fourth notes that the concept has been approached as both “process” and “outcome”, that it has been variously framed and “interpreted for multiple audiences”. Notice that the detailed content of the literature is not given away: the map is sketched only enough to show its “broad and substantive” contours and set up the problem of “little consensus … regarding the definition of clinical reasoning”. The Young et al. example establishes that there is an abundance of literature for scoping. But that’s not always the case. If you’ve scoped a limited literature, your argument must acknowledge that the literature is limited while explaining why it is still worthwhile to review. For example, O’Brien et al.’s [ 16 ] introduction acknowledges that there is only a “small amount of evidence” and that “relatively little research focuses on rehabilitation in HIV care” ( p 449). Explaining that “this field is still emerging”, they position the review as “an initial step” aimed at “understanding the research priorities” ( p 449). And, reflecting the limited literature, they also employ key informant consultation to help identify key research priorities and gaps in the field.

Acknowledge previous reviews

If yours is the first review of the concept with reference to the particular context and participants you’ve outlined, you can simply say so, as Shorey et al. [ 17 ] do with their assertion that “there are no existing reviews that have consolidated evidence from studies across all medical faculties” ( p 767). However, if the literature has already been reviewed, your effort to justify the need for your review needs a bit more attention. Young et al.’s third introductory paragraph recognizes the existence of other reviews and conceptual analyses of clinical reasoning, points out their “limited” focus on medicine, and argues for the need for a synthesis of “literature across Health Professions”. This justification is followed by a positive Hook that labels what’s distinctive about their review: “a careful mapping of the concept of clinical reasoning across professions is necessary to support both profession-specific and interprofessional learning, assessment, and research.”

How you handle previous reviews in your introduction is particularly important in scoping reviews of scoping reviews. The third paragraph of Maggio et al.’s [ 2 ] Introduction makes space for their review by pointing explicitly to “the rise” in scoping reviews in medical education, acknowledging the presence and value of “discipline-specific and cross-disciplinary scoping reviews of scoping reviews”, and arguing that existing reviews are either “several years old” or “focused solely” on one discipline ( p 690). By asserting that “the multi-disciplinary nature of medical education research” suggests “differences [that] warranted further exploration” ( p 690), they claim a unique space for their own work amid what the reader may see as a crowded synthesis landscape. Similarly, Howell et al. [ 13 ] acknowledge that “our work built on earlier studies, but unlike earlier reviews we used formal methods to gain consensus on core PRO domains and related subdimensions” ( p 77), and Chan et al. [ 18 ] recognize that “there have been some reviews about the use of social media for education” but explain that “none have sought to fully encompass the breadth of how these technologies have affected the full spectrum of education” ( p 21). As these examples show, the acknowledgement of existing reviews must be accompanied by a clear statement of what your review adds, which should be tied to the problem you’ve outlined.

Create alignment

The final ingredient of an effective introduction is alignment among the “rationale”, “research question”, and “objectives” of the review [ 3 ]. These terms are used variably in scoping reviews, reporting guidelines, and reviews of scoping reviews. For our purposes, we use “rationale” to mean why we’ve done a scoping review—what problem does it address? (This is also sometimes referred to as “purpose” in published scoping reviews.) We use “research question” to mean the specific question guiding the search, and we use “objectives” synonymously with “sub-questions” to represent specific foci of inquiry.

Let’s analyze an example where alignment is achieved. Versteeg et al. [ 19 ] briefly summarize the literature and land on this statement of the problem: “Overall, the broad range of terms associated with spaced learning, the multiple definitions and variety of applications used in HPE can hinder the operationalisation of spaced learning” ( p 206). With this problem in mind, their rationale is “to investigate how spaced learning is defined and applied across HPE contexts”, which they phrase as an overarching question: “How is spaced learning defined and applied in HPE?” ( p 206). They then articulate “specific research questions: (RQ1A) Which concepts are used to define spaced learning and associated terms? (RQ1B) To what extent do these terms show conceptual overlap? (RQ2) Which theoretical frameworks are used to frame spaced learning? (RQ3) Which spacing formats are utilised in spaced learning research?” ( p 206) This example is well-aligned: “definition and application of spaced learning” remains consistently in focus, and refinements such as “conceptual overlap” and “theoretical frameworks” are further and logical specifications of the overall focus. This example illustrates Levac et al.’s [ 3 ] advice to balance broad research questions with clearly articulated scope of the inquiry and link the rationale to the research questions.

Alignment seems straightforward when it is done well, but it can be tricky. Maggio et al. [ 2 ] noted room for improvement in the alignment between rationales and research questions in almost 65% of HPE scoping reviews. Echoing Levac et al. [ 3 ], they suspected that one reason for this misalignment is “rationales that are applicable broadly to a variety of knowledge synthesis methodologies and not necessarily specific to scoping reviews” ( p 695). One strategy for testing your own alignment is to explain why you selected scoping review methodology: as Maggio et al. suggest, tell the reader “what factors influenced [the] decision to undertake a scoping review (e.g., the nature of the literature, the intricacies of the topic, the expertise of their research team, and/or their personal needs such as a graduate student familiarising herself with a topic)” ( p 695). Another reason for misalignment is a research question that is too generic and not balanced by clearly articulated objectives that delimit the scope of the inquiry. For example, a generic question like “what is known about medical tourism” cannot support a strong search strategy: the scope needs to be tightened (e.g., medical tourism by Canadians for surgical procedures) in order to focus the work. Finally, even when you try to “balance” a broad question with focused objectives or sub-questions as Levac et al. have advised, be careful that your sub-questions still align with the rationale. If they feel more like detours than logical specifications of the overall focus, then you have a misalignment. For example, a sub-question about the ethics of medical tourism by Canadians for surgical procedures might feel misaligned if the rationale for the scoping review does not have any ethical flavour. Remember: alignment (or its lack) is judged by how well the rationale, question and sub-questions fit the overall story you’re laying out in the introduction—how coherently do they follow from your Problem, Gap and Hook?

A final note on alignment as it relates to the consultation exercise. The consultation is a unique strength of the scoping review. However, differing points of view have been expressed on its optional [ 20 ] or essential [ 3 ] nature, and it does not appear in the PRISMA-ScR [ 5 ] reporting guideline which can leave writers unsure about its role. As you frame the story for a review that included consultation, readers should see this step as aligned and necessary. For instance, you may anticipate a limited literature for scoping and thus seek insights from stakeholder consultation as primary data [ 15 ]. You may have scoped an ample literature but identified missing perspectives or voices that you explored using consultation [ 7 ]. Or you may use stakeholders to contextualize review findings in order to fully address the question being asked, as in Maggio et al.’s [ 2 ] consultation with “seven stakeholders to understand if and in what ways our findings resonated with their experiences conducting scoping reviews” ( p 691). The consultation exercise will be described in your methods, but the introduction should set the reader up to expect it. For example, O’Brien et al.’s [ 16 ] rationale is to “advance policy and practice for people living with HIV” ( p 449), which aligns well with their decision to consult with people with HIV to contextualize the literature and create a patient partner-informed research agenda.

Every scoping review manuscript needs a story to frame the study. This Writer’s Craft offers strategies for telling this story in your introduction (Tab. 1 ). Use the Problem/Gap/Hook heuristic to establish why we need a synthesis in the first place. Structure the story so that it introduces setting and main characters, establishes that there is sufficient literature for a review, and acknowledges pre-existing reviews. Align the rationale for the work, the research question and the specific sub-questions or objectives—there should be no jarring detours from the storyline. Finally, keep it short: three or four paragraphs should suffice. Your introduction doesn’t need to detail the specifics; it should just sketch the curvature. And don’t worry about ‘giving away’ your results; your introduction is the story, not the synthesis.

The story behind the synthesis: Strategies for an effective scoping review Introduction

1.	Characterize the gap: it is always a lack of synthesis, but of what sort?
2.	Say why the lack of synthesis matters—what problem does it create?
3.	Specify the value of a synthesis: what does it make possible? What does its absence threaten?
4.	Introduce setting & main characters via PCC framework, but beware extended inverted triangle
5.	Sketch the contours of existing literature to establish sufficient material to review
6.	Acknowledge previous reviews and distinguish this one from them
7.	Check alignment among rationale, research question and sub-questions
8.	Prepare the reader for the relevance of a consultation exercise

Acknowledgements

We thank K. O’Brien for review and feedback on a draft of this manuscript.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

The Synthesis of Writing Workshop and Hypermedia-Authoring: Grades 1-4

2001, Early Childhood Research Practice

Related Papers

Michael Mott

Educational Technology Research and Development

Gary Morrison

Gert Rijlaarsdam

Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting

Mark Chignell

In this paper we propose that hypertext writing at school could have beneficial effects on the acquisition of content knowledge and the acquisition of writing skills compared to linear writing. We view the effects of hypertext writing on writing skills from the perspective of "shared" cognitive activities in writing linear texts and hypertexts. In a pilot study we examined the

Language and Communication Review

Anil Pathak

It might be said that the world of communication pedagogy was caught unawares in the wake of the rapid expansion of communication technology. One reason for this was the rapid rate of change in the technology itself. The PC was introduced less than twenty years ago and within this short span of time we have moved from huge, cumbersome machines with several limitations to hand-held speed demons with user-friendly graphic interfaces. More significantly, the Internet and the World Wide Web have opened a new era in interpersonal communication. They have brought along numerous possibilities such as e-mail, on-line conferences, on-line publishing and on-line discussion forums. I think that these phenomena have posed several questions for the writing classrooms. Does the on-line communication change the structure of writing? Has writing become somewhat like talking? If the conventional writing strategies presume a time gap, shouldn't the instantaneous, paperless communication, be radically different from letter or memo writing?

Proceeding of the ACM conference on Hypertext - HYPERTEXT '87

Michael Joyce

Kyle Higgins

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy

Richard Beach

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Aleksandra Gnach

Educational Technology & Society

Chintan Vaghela

Peter Thomas

Jeanine Meyer

Atmazaki Atma , Lusia Wini

Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Monica Landoni

Mariëlle Leijten

International Journal of English Studies

International Journal of English Studies (IJES)

ACM SIGCUE Outlook

Peggy Buffington

Broadband European Networks and Multimedia Services

A. Tsalgatidou

Kenneth Davis

Shin-Mei Kao

Integrating Information and Communication Technologies in English for Specific Purposes

Mercedes Díez-Prados

Fuqiang Zhuo

Andrew Klobucar

Edutainment : Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan dan Kependidikan

Agci Hikmawati

IEEE Multimedia

David A . Lowe

The Reading Teacher

Julia Kara-soteriou , Laurie Henry , Lisa Zawilinski

Digital Storytelling as Tool to Promote Writing and Creativity in Kids’ Courses

Barbara Galván

Visions/revisions: moving forward with media …

Alfonso Gutiérrez Martín

Hannah Dostal

IJAR Indexing

E-Learning and Digital Media

Anna Evmenova

British Journal of Educational Technology

Katy Campbell

Process Writing: Writing Workshop 2

Writing Workshop was first developed by Graves (1983) and structured the teaching of writing into five categories: (1) brainstorming, (2) drafting, (3) revising, (4) editing, and (5) publishing. Graves defined six key points inherent to the curriculum: (1) organize the classroom for writing by conducting group meetings; (2) inundate children with literature; (3) take the time to write while the children write in order to set the tone for a positive writing atmosphere; (4) conduct conferences with children at various stages of the writing process to empower the learner with skills to revise for meaning and edit for mechanics; (5) keep the mechanics of writing (usage, punctuation, and handwriting) separate from the construction of the content of writing; and (6) observe, assess, and record how your students develop as writers, through journaling and creation of record-keeping portfolios (collections of students' works). Graves (1983) derived these six parts to clarify the enacting of the process-oriented writing curriculum in his Writing Workshop curriculum model.

While Graves (1983) generally discussed the transformation of an entire classroom into a Writing Workshop, Calkins (1983) provided the practitioner, in Lessons from a Child, with the perspective of the individual child's experience as a developing writer in a Writing Workshop environment. Two main points were emphasized by Calkins within the Writing Workshop curriculum model: (1) after a period of time in a Writing Workshop, the student internalizes methods such as revision, as well as processes inherent in the other writing stages; and (2) conferencing, or the method of communication between teacher and child during Writing Workshop, can occur at any Writing Workshop stage and, more importantly, can be effectively accomplished via peer conferencing. Thus, Calkins and Harwayne (1991) and Atwell (1998) extended the concept of Writing Workshop to include a student-centered approach via peer conferencing, as opposed to a solely teacher-directed approach, for the organization and practice of writing in the classroom (Strech, 1994).

Rationale for Hypermedia Writing Instruction 3

Research from the late 1980s to present conducted on hypermedia writing curriculum revealed that writing instruction was facilitated in the following ways: (1) student cultural learning styles needs were met, (2) narrative and episodic story structure was enhanced, and (3) motivation to write was increased. Smith (1992) engaged Navajo elementary boarding school children (grades 3-6) in the implementation of the hypermedia authoring software Linkway, which supported the integration of text, audio, video, and graphics for IBM-compatible computers, similar to HyperStudio (Wagner, 1998) for Macintosh and IBM operating environments. The children were led through the creation of stories and were encouraged to integrate familiar images in picture form into their documents. Results of the study indicated three benefits of hypermedia writing: (1) different cultural learning styles were met, (2) a student's lack of background experience was addressed in a meaningful way through the use of multimedia images, and (3) motivation was increased as evidenced by the children's fascination with the hypermedia writing environment. Daiute and Morse (1994) conducted an in-depth case study of eight children (grades 3-4) identified as reluctant writers. The study utilized Personal Media Studio, a multimedia writing program. Results of extensive narrative data indicated that, for both high-ability and low-ability participants, the learning of written language can be enhanced by multimedia environments. Students were highly motivated, particularly when they integrated pictures and sounds into their stories.

McLellan (1992), in case study research of a hypermedia writing curriculum, investigated how elementary students (grade 5) would excel in narrative writing in the HyperCard environment. Students developed their own stories and manipulated the nonlinear hypertextual features of the software. The level of details were strengthened in both narrative and episodic story structures, and McLellan noted that the children quickly adapted to the hypermedia environment.

Swan and Meskill (1996) found hypermedia to be a potentially suitable environment for literacy learning that included support for (1) independent learning, (2) cooperative learning, (3) nonlinear representations of knowledge, (4) a wide array of learning styles, and (5) enabling teachers to evaluate their own ideas of the role of text in the teaching of writing and reading. According to Ayersman (1996), constructivist theory supports the use of student-created hypermedia documents containing presentations with any combination of text, hypertext, graphics, audio, and video. Hypermedia attributes (text, hypertext, graphics, audio, and video) were identified as features conducive to the teaching of writing by examining the combination of writing with hypermedia elements (Takayoshi, 1996; Ayersman, 1996). Hypermedia documents contain hypertext, which was defined by Palumbo and Prater (1993) as dynamic text that allows the writer to connect text to another hyperdocument which in turn could also be connected or linked to other hyperdocuments. Thus, hypertext was thought to support learner-created, nonlinear formats as well as linear formats. Nonlinear hypertext is text not sequenced in the usual straight line consisting of a beginning, middle, and end. It was considered to be advantageous because it mirrored the associative manner in which people think (Takayoshi, 1996).

Additional reasons for hypermedia enhancing and supporting writing instruction were conveyed by Yang (1996), who stated that hypermedia writing environments can support a variety of cognitive processes conducive to the learning of writing by facilitating the processes of organizing, selecting, and connecting. These three processes identified by Yang were thought to enhance what Charney (1994) referred to as "idea manipulation" or discourse synthesis in writing (p. 239). Palumbo and Prater (1993) defined discourse synthesis as the hybrid act of reading and writing that occurs as information from a variety of sources is organized with hypertext.

Finally, the multimedia features inherent in hypermedia learning environments were identified by Daiute and Morse (1994) as conducive to the enhancement of young children's writing. Daiute and Morse also found that student manipulation of sounds and images in the form of concrete cultural symbols may aid in the learning of text. They further rationalized that:

Since some of the functions of written language, like providing information and means of expression, can be served by other symbols systems, it is worth exploring children's use of a variety of symbol systems and relationships between visual systems, aural systems, and text. (p. 221)

The fertile ground that hypermedia composing can support dictated that the writing/hypermedia program use a flexible, simple, yet powerful software environment.

HyperStudio 3.0 Hypermedia-Authoring Environment

HyperStudio offers a child-friendly, icon-driven, hypermedia-authoring environment. Children can create hypermedia (text, audio, video, and graphics) "pages" that can be simply programmed to allow the reader to travel from one chunk of information to another through the creation of nodes. A node is a piece of hypermedia programming that dictates the direction the reader of the document can move within a screen. This mode of travel, "hypertravel," allows the author to create linear or nonlinear travel within a document. The researcher/instructor of the current study used the Writing Workshop process to guide children through the curriculum. The mini-lesson (Atwell, 1998) served as a primary instructional method through which the children were guided through the writing process.

Mini-Lessons

For writing on paper, and learning and writing on HyperStudio, children took part in a series of mini-lessons (Atwell, 1998) designed to scaffold writing and computer skills through student-directed inquiry (Barrows, as cited in Checkley, 1997). During the initial stages (brainstorming and drafting) of creating stories in HyperStudio, students were assigned the task of using all tools in the HyperStudio Tool area to design their title card (a card being equivalent to a page in a book). Students then experimented with the Tool Box 4 by manipulating tools with the mouse and keyboard as they designed their cards. While no "right" answer existed for this problem-solving exercise, children discovered, as they created, the sophisticated functions of the tools as they needed them.

Each work session concluded with a summary meeting where teachers asked the children about their experimentation and creation on HyperStudio or paper. Teachers transcribed children's answers onto chart paper mounted on the wall. Taking dictation on chart paper served to focus the collective understandings of the children and disseminate knowledge learned by individuals to the group. Following the summary meeting, children engaged in reflective writing before making the transition to their next class. Children navigated the six stages of writing using both paper and pencil and HyperStudio in different combinations of transitions. Transitions called for children to either work on paper and make the transition to a computer, work entirely on the computer, or work entirely on paper.

Children were provided with several days of writing and HyperStudio open-ended exercises. Writing stages and methods for manipulating the numerous functions and tools available in HyperStudio were discussed with the whole group, small groups, and individuals. Sessions consisted of a variety of problem-solving exercises. For writing, children were guided through Writing Workshop stages and asked to reflect on what worked well and what could have worked better.

In sessions for learning HyperStudio, the whole group as well as small groups participated in brief discussions of tool use, function examples, and interesting features via a television screen connected to a computer with a television-to-monitor adapter. The television was utilized to enhance discussions and demonstrations in the same manner a blackboard is used, affording children the opportunity to receive verbal and visual instructions during meetings before proceeding to the computers.

Assumptions of the Study

Based on this history, four assumptions guided this study. First, the teaching of narrative writing provides learning opportunity for analysis and reflection (Gearhart, Herman, Baker, & Whittaker, 1992). Second, the Writing Workshop approach represents an effective method for the teaching of narrative writing (Graves, 1983; Calkins & Harwayne, 1991). Third, appropriate integration of computers into the curriculum can enhance teaching and learning (Campbell, 1996). Fourth, teaching that provides children with ill-structured problems, 5 as opposed to well-structured problems, 6 offers child-centered problem-solving opportunities that enable children to apply knowledge (Barrows as cited in Checkley, 1997).

Questions of the Study

The question for this study was previously voiced by Takayoshi (1996) concerning writing in current computer environments: What will happen to the roles and processes of writers as they engage in hypermedia and hypertextual writing in a Writing Workshop environment? Three additional questions emanate from this primary question. First, at what Writing Workshop stage (inventing/brainstorming, drafting/composing, revising/conferencing, and editing/publishing) are children most comfortable and productive in making the transition from paper to computer? Second, how do children prefer to manipulate hypermedia and linearity in their narratives? Hypermedia, as referred to here, contains information from a variety of media including text, video, sound, and graphics (Palumbo & Prater, 1993). Linearity, for HyperStudio-created narratives, represents the linking of HyperStudio cards (or pages) in linear or nonlinear order. Third, if children write a story on paper and then transcribe it onto HyperStudio, are certain hypermedia elements (video, graphics, and audio) utilized by the children to replace text where meaning would be understandably equivalent, or are hypermedia elements utilized to add to the narrative without replacing text?

Participants

Student-participants ( n =160) in this study were first- through fourth-grade children, from one elementary school in northeast-central Mississippi. The student body was predominantly African American, and students were selected for the study based upon their teachers' recognition of their literacy skill (reading, writing, and communicating) weaknesses. Permission for participants was retained by the teachers.

In addition to the two teacher-researchers, four teachers were selected based upon their agreement to teach the HyperStudio/writing curriculum. All four teachers were female (two African American and two European American). The four teachers participated in a summer technology and arts program and received HyperStudio and process-oriented writing curriculum training from the researcher. The teachers participated on a voluntary basis and signed a teacher consent form.

Action Research: Teacher as Researcher

Holistic single-case study design (Yin, 1994) was implemented in this study with the unit of analysis (Merriam, 1988) consisting of the children's experience in the curriculum. This design was selected to provide voice for unique situations such as the alternative curriculum examined here (Merriam, 1988). Additionally, this design allowed the teacher-researchers to avoid predetermined views of what data were "important" and what were "not important." This open-ended approach toward data collection was utilized to avoid teacher bias. 7 The subunits were the numerous transitions children experienced when writing on paper, paper and computer, and computer. For example, transitions from drafting to composing in HyperStudio or learning "Tools" in HyperStudio to publishing were observed because they defined the quality and organization of the experimental teaching and learning experience.

Data Collection

As participant-observers (teachers as researchers), the role of wearing two hats dictated that we employ reactive field-entry methods. Reactive field-entry methods call for the researcher to be available to children being studied, allowing the children to initiate contacts (Corsaro, as cited in Hatch, 1995). As a precaution against observer bias, when not teaching, teachers took advantage of free moments to engage in participant-observation methods of data collection. This data collection included run-and-write field notes, informal discussions, sample reflections, narratives, and child responses to questions regarding transitions from paper and pencil to HyperStudio software. These multiple sources of evidence were converged to insure the inclusion of as many perspectives as possible (Yin, 1994).

Analysis and Discussion

Roles and processes of writing.

The roles and processes of writing with the addition of HyperStudio were affected in different ways. Children expressed pride and ownership in their paper and electronic narratives after engaging in the many weeks of problem solving required to create the narratives. Merely working on a computer at any Writing Workshop stage infused excitement toward narrative writing. Child excitement and fascination with working in HyperStudio enveloped the Writing Workshop with a feverishly positive aura—perhaps, as Campbell (1996) relates, because intertextual experiences interweaving image, sound, and graphic forms mirror everyday environments. It is important to point out here, as did Kumpulainen (1994) in another study, that child excitement while using computers focused on the child's creation on the screen and not simply the computer itself, thus the effectiveness of the curriculum behind the computer use remains critically important. Many children viewed the computer as a facilitator of writing. Sarah, 8 years old, worked for an hour writing on HyperStudio and stated, "it's faster, you don't get tired, and you can erase easier." Bobby, a 6-year-old boy, commented about the benefits of writing on a computer, "it helped by giving me words and things like that." Whether real or imagined, the computer served as a comfortable and exciting environment for writing.

Transition Preferences in Creative Writing with HyperStudio

Older children preferred to avoid transitions from paper to computer, choosing instead to write in all Writing Workshop stages in HyperStudio. The drawback to this preference was that, as Takayoshi (1996) points out, discrete stages of writing so clearly demarcated on paper (brainstorming, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing) lose distinctiveness on the computer. Younger children tended to lose direction while creating their narratives in the beginning stages of Writing Workshop. For them, clearly demarcated stages of writing, so clearly evident on paper drafts, disappeared on the computer. Six-year-old Anthony, while working during the first draft stage of Writing Workshop, proudly answered the teacher's question of how his first draft was coming along, "I got to make my pictures, it was a dollhouse. I made bricks for my background. I started typing. My title was Hydraulics." Anthony, while undoubtedly engaging in worthwhile experimentation, lost focus that the five stages of process writing assuredly would have provided.

Preferences for Manipulating Hypermedia and Linearity

Initially children preferred to apply only linear formats (cards, or pages, sequenced in a linear order) to their narratives, but as they gained experience, in both HyperStudio and Writing Workshop, children tended to introduce nonlinearity (cards sequenced in nonlinear form) as embellishments to their narratives. Children expressed excitement when, in reading a HyperStudio stack (narrative made up of cards), they could travel in a nonlinear fashion. Perhaps this preference for nonlinearity derives from, as Palumbo and Prater (1993) point out, the true nature of associative thinking, which is nonlinear.

Text in Paper Versus HyperStudio Narratives

Younger children neglected to include complete texts from their paper-produced texts when they made the transition to HyperStudio, choosing instead to concentrate on using art and design tools. On the other hand, older children transcribed their complete narrative texts from paper drafts to HyperStudio drafts and chose to integrate hypermedia elements of sound, images, and design to enhance their original narratives.

Understandably, younger children lacked patience when it came time to engage in the menial task of transcription, whereas older children were so infatuated with putting their narratives onto the computer that the task was not perceived as an obstacle. Thus, for younger children, guided writing on the computer for the first draft stage of Writing Workshop can serve to alleviate problems of transcription, albeit with an accompanying loss of awareness of the discrete stages of Writing Workshop.

Conclusions of the Study

This study addressed the integration of narrative writing with hypermedia software. Two learning environments exceedingly conducive to student-directed problem solving indicated that children were motivated to express themselves when text and hypermedia elements were integrated. For example, during a problem-solving challenge, 6-year-old Sammy responded, "I like creating writing because we get to go on the computers, like the time the teacher told me to do something and I did not understand and I did anything and I did it right." Sammy felt the anxiety, the challenge, and reward that the integrated curriculum afforded him.

The current study illuminated the developmental manner in which child preferences progressed from the use of concrete materials to the use of hypermedia elements. Children ages 6 through 7 preferred to use such materials as paper, crayons, scissors, watercolors, and markers through four of the five discrete narrative writing stages (brainstorming, drafting, revising, and editing). These children tended to make the transition to the hypermedia environment only upon final electronic publication of their story. On the other hand, children ages 8 through 9 demonstrated their comfort in using hypermedia elements throughout all stages of narrative writing. These findings suggest that early childhood teachers need to be sensitive to the transitions that children experience when navigating from concrete materials to hypermedia elements within the five stages of process writing. In general, these findings are important for teachers who plan on integrating process writing and hypermedia in their classrooms in a developmentally appropriate manner. Further research into curriculum that integrates literacy and hypermedia is needed to develop appropriate teaching practices:

Does the integration of process writing and hypermedia elements improve writing skill?
What definitions and emphases of literacy do early childhood teachers have for children: primarily verbal/textual or inclusive of other meaning-based symbols—pictures, sounds, video, etc.?
Do children need to learn how to express themselves in hypermedia in a world moving toward increasingly electronic forms of expression?
Who controls how teachers integrate instructional technology into their classrooms: school districts, technology trainers, school-based administrators, or teachers?

The current study, conducted by teachers, emphasized a teacher-created curriculum and instruction with a high degree of experimentalism. It is the view of the authors that teachers must experiment and evaluate their own teaching and learning environments. Campbell (1996) articulated a similar sentiment by stating that research must critically examine instructional technology uses in alternative curriculum (Campbell, 1996).

1. Hypermedia-authoring, hypermedia composing, and hypermedia writing are used interchangeably, and all refer to an integration of writing curriculum using a computer environment, that is, "hypermedia" that supports text, audio, video, and graphics.

2. Process Writing and Hypermedia-Authoring sections are adapted from Mott (1998), an unpublished dissertation.

3. The current section is based upon Mott and Hare (1999), which further investigates the relationship between the use of hypermedia software integrated with process writing.

4. See HyperStudio Version 3.0 Tools at http://www.hyperstudio.com/downloads/index.htm l.

5. Ill-structured problems allow the opportunity for multiple avenues of exploration.

6. Well-structured problems contain predetermined solutions thus inhibiting avenues of exploration.

7. The qualitative approach adopted in the current study was designed as much to raise and identify questions emanating from the experimental curriculum as it was to formally evaluate the entire experience.

Atwell, Nancie. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. ED 422 343 .

Ayersman, David J. (1996). Reviewing the research on hypermedia-based learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28 (4), 500-526. EJ 531 086 .

Calkins, Lucy McCormick. (1983). Lessons from a child: On the teaching and learning of writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ED 263 614 .

Calkins, Lucy McCormick, & Harwayne, Shelley. (1991). Living between the lines. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ED 359 550 .

Campbell, Neal. (1996). Outside Forster's machine: Re-representing technology in the age of cyberspace. In Ed Marum (Ed.), Children and books in the modern world: Contemporary perspectives on literacy. London: Falmer. ED 398 571 .

Charney, Davida. (1994). The effect of hypertext on processes of reading and writing. In Cynthia L. Selfe & Susan Hilligoss (Eds.), Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology (pp. 238-263). New York: Modern Language Association.

Checkley, Kathy. (1997, Summer). Problem-based learning: The search for solutions to life's messy problems. Curriculum Update, 1-8.

Daiute, Colette, & Morse, Frances. (1994). Access to knowledge and expression: Multimedia writing tools for students with diverse needs and strengths. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12 (3), 221-256. EJ 492 959 .

Gearhart, Maryll; Herman, Joan L.; Baker, Eva L.; & Whittaker, Andrea K. (1992). Writing portfolios at the elementary level: A study of methods for writing assessment (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 337). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for the Study of Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). ED 344 900 .

Graves, Donald H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ED 234 430 .

Hatch, J. Amos (Ed.). (1995). Qualitative research in early childhood settings. London: Praeger. ED 381 273 .

Kumpulainen, Kristiina. (1994). Collaborative writing with computers and children's talk: A cross-cultural study. Computers and Composition, 11 (3), 263-273. EJ 560 765 .

McLellan, Hilary. (1992, April). Narrative and episodic story structure in interactive stories. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Washington, DC. ED 348 012 .

Merriam, Sharan B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ED 299 914 .

Mott, Michael S. (1998). The reliability and developmental validity of the Writing What You Read rubric for hypermedia-authored narratives: Grades 2-3. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University.

Mott, Michael S., & Hare, R. Dwight. (1999, April). The reliability and validity of the Writing What You Read rubric for hypermedia-authored narratives: Grades 2 and 3. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. ED 430 007 .

Palumbo, David P., & Prater, Donald. (1993). The role of hypermedia in synthesis writing. Computers and Composition, 10 (2), 59-70. EJ 462 299 .

Smith, Kenneth J. (1992). Using multimedia with Navajo children: An effort to alleviate problems of cultural learning style, background of experience, and motivation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 8 (3), 287-294. EJ 465 125 .

Strech, Laura L. (1994). The implementation of writer's workshop: A review of the literature. Long Beach: California State University. ED 380 797 .

Swan, Karen, & Meskill, Carla. (1996). Using hypermedia in response-based literature classrooms: A critical review of commercial applications. Journal of Research on Computing Education, 29 (2), 167-195. EJ 537 989 .

Takayoshi, Pamela. (1996). The shape of electronic writing: Evaluating and assessing computer-assisted writing processes and products. Computers and Composition, 13 (2), 245-257. EJ 563 839 .

Wagner, Roger. (1998). HyperStudio Workshop 3.0 [Computer software]. Palo Alto, CA: Roger Wagner Publishing.

Yang, Shu Ching. (1996). A dynamic reading-linking-to-writing model for problem solving within a constructive hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5 (3/4), 283-302. EJ 539 758 .

Yin, Robert K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Author Information

Dr. Michael Seth Mott is currently an assistant professor of literacy at Purdue University Calumet. This article was published while Dr. Mott was coordinator and professor of early childhood education at Governors State University in University Park, Illinois, and the director of the Four-College Daycare Training Initiative, a federally funded collaboration to improve the quality of day care in the South Chicago metropolitan region. He continues to conduct research on literacy and technology in early childhood education.

Dr. Michael Seth Mott Assistant Professor of Literacy Purdue University Calumet 2200 169th Street Hammond, IN 46323 Email: [email protected]

Dr. Jeannine Klomes is professor of early childhood education at Governors State University in University Park, Illinois. She teaches undergraduate and graduate-level methods and assessment courses. She also conducts research in reading and participates in brain development research workshops in the Chicago area.

Jeannine Klomes, Ed.D. Professor, Early Childhood Education Program Governors State University One University Parkway University Park, IL 60466 Telephone: 708-534-5000 Email: [email protected]

Web Privacy Notice

COMMENTS

Why It Matters: Writing Workshop—Analysis and Synthesis
The work of analysis gives each researcher an opportunity to complicate their initial question, to compile useful information, and then to draw-or infer-some conclusions based on this new, more thorough level of understanding. While analysis is the term we use to describe the process of breaking something down, say a poem or novel, a ...
Synthesis
Basics of Synthesis. As you incorporate published writing into your own writing, you should aim for synthesis of the material. Synthesizing requires critical reading and thinking in order to compare different material, highlighting similarities, differences, and connections. When writers synthesize successfully, they present new ideas based on ...
Synthesis
When asked to synthesize sources and research, many writers start to summarize individual sources. However, this is not the same as synthesis. In a summary, you share the key points from an individual source and then move on and summarize another source. In synthesis, you need to combine the information from those multiple sources and add your ...
Guide to Synthesis Essays: How to Write a Synthesis Essay
The writing process for composing a good synthesis essay requires curiosity, research, and original thought to argue a certain point or explore an idea. Synthesis essay writing involves a great deal of intellectual work, but knowing how to compose a compelling written discussion of a topic can give you an edge in many fields, from the social sciences to engineering.
Getting Started with Synthesis Writing
START SMALL. Synthesis writing activities do not have to always take the shape of huge summative writing assignments. When teaching A Raisin in the Sun, I like to pause in the middle of the play and present my students with some information about redlining and other discriminatory laws and policies at the time.Using a choice board format, I ask students to read and watch a combination of ...
Academic Guides: Common Assignments: Synthesizing Your Sources
Local synthesis occurs at the paragraph level when writers connect individual pieces of evidence from multiple sources to support a paragraph's main idea and advance a paper's thesis statement. A common example in academic writing is a scholarly paragraph that includes a main idea, evidence from multiple sources, and analysis of those multiple sources together.
PDF Student Writing Center Resource: How to Effectively Synthesize
Synthesis is a bit like that. When synthesizing, you identify the links between or among sources in order to make your ... A Visualization of Synthesis Pretend you have a writing assignment and are required to use five sources. Each ... While the International Workshop on Definition and Classification of Cerebral Palsy in 2006
UTA Writing Center Workshop: Synthesis Essay
In this workshop, learn how to advance conversations by turning them in new directions. Consultants will offer specific advice on synthesizing arguments and structuring your papers, from introduction to conclusion. You will also get the opportunity to see selections for sample Synthesis Essays, discuss successful and ineffective elements, and practice synthesis for yourself. Register for access.
Mapping a Synthesis Essay
The successful synthesis essay will show readers how you have reasoned about the topic at hand by taking into account the sources critically and creating a work that draws conversations with the sources into your own thinking. Contributor: Derrian Goebel. University Writing & Speaking Center. Need to write a synthesis essay?
Putting It Together: Writing Workshop—Analysis and Synthesis
Putting It Together: Writing Workshop—Analysis and Synthesis. Now that you've worked through some more thorough definitions and examples of analysis, inference, and synthesis, you will be better positioned both to recognize these strategies in the work of others and to beneficially employ them in your own thinking and writing. In academic ...
Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
Synthesis and Analysis. Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. The Synthesis and Analysis group session will help you understand and utilize the key concepts of synthesis and analysis in academic writing. During this session, you will have the opportunity to practice synthesis and analysis through use of an outline for paragraph and paper development.
Synthesis Brainstorm
This asynchronous workshop contains a set of activities designed to help students synthesize the conversation between the sources they are examining in their Texts in Conversation essay. It invites them to move through a variety of different activities, including a map, a dinner table conversation scenario, and a mad-lib style exercise.
Workshops
All ENGL 1301 Writing Workshops for Spring 2024 will be held on Wednesdays in the Writing Center at noon. Workshops will be recorded and available to all who register. ... Synthesis Essay: In this workshop, learn how to advance conversations by turning them in new directions. Consultants will offer specific advice on synthesizing arguments and ...
Synthesis Writing Workshop #1.pdf
Synthesis Writing Workshop #1 Conversation Among Sources REVIEW The Steps of Synthesis: 1. Read and analyze--read each of your sources to understand the claims and evidence 2. Generalize--list potential thesis statements one could make based on the sources & choose one 3. Converse--what would each source say about your thesis statement?
LibGuides: Writing Resources: How to Synthesize and Analyze
How to Synthesize and Analyze. Integrate sources focusing on one idea into one paragraph and show how each one adds to the idea. Have a clear topic sentence that show the idea being synthesized. Utilize transitions to show how the ideas relate and how the authors complement or refute one another's ideas. Analyze and show how/why these ideas are ...
Group synthesis task in a workshop on academic writing
Group synthesis task in a workshop on academic writing. January 16, 2023 Mira Vogel 30-60 minutes, Break-out groups, Case studies, Experience - all levels, Medium-sized group, Preparation >30 min, Skills, Spaces with tables 0. This post is authored by Mariam Ghorbannejad, Learning Developer based at King's Academy.
LibGuides: Writing Resources: Synthesis and Analysis
Synthesis: the combination of ideas to. form a theory, system, larger idea, point or outcome. show commonalities or patterns. Analysis: a detailed examination. of elements, ideas, or the structure of something. can be a basis for discussion or interpretation. Synthesis and Analysis: combine and examine ideas to.
Drew Seminar Writing Resources
Synthesis - workshop; Additional resources to assign or use in workshop (see peer review questions) ... Workshops that Work 2: Drafts & Revision - this document describes a number of workshops that can be used for writing workshops of any length once students are working on a paper. Writing Fellows may also use these working with small ...
The story behind the synthesis: writing an effective introduction to
In a recent writing workshop, a participant was applying the "mapping the gap" heuristic in the introduction of his paper. Mapping the gap is a strategy for writing a succinct, compelling literature review in a paper's Introduction: the writer briefly and selectively summarizes what's known in order to outline the white space—the gap ...
(PDF) The Synthesis of Writing Workshop and Hypermedia-Authoring
Two main points were emphasized by Calkins within the Writing Workshop curriculum model: (1) after a period of time in a Writing Workshop, the student internalizes methods such as revision, as well as processes inherent in the other writing stages; and (2) conferencing, or the method of communication between teacher and child during Writing ...
PDF SpringBoard Writing Workshops
Writing Workshop 6 consists of expository workshops that allow students to explore a variety of organizational structures, such as cause-effect, compare-contrast, problem-solution, definition, and synthesis. Writing Workshop 7 includes procedural writing workshops, which give students practice
The Synthesis of Writing Workshop and Hypermedia-Authoring: Grades 1-4
A process writing and hypermedia literacy program was designed, taught, and evaluated by early childhood teachers. The program, funded through a Goals 2000 grant, took place in a public school summer camp for children (n=160) ages 6-9 in a public school in rural northeast Mississippi. Reactive-participant data collection methods were used to enable the teachers to react to the needs of the ...