synthesis writing activities

Getting Started with Synthesis Writing

So much of our time in high school writing is spent focusing on analysis, that sometimes we forget about the power of synthesis . Synthesis: the act of bringing ideas, texts, and sources TOGETHER. This is a powerful skill for students to learn, especially in a digital age where misinformation spreads like wildfire. Building an argument from a variety of sources and knowing the credibility of each is an increasingly vital skill for our students to learn.

START EARLY

The skill of synthesis takes time to grow, so threading opportunities for this type of writing across a vertically aligned curriculum is a worthy undertaking for any English department. When starting with beginners, helping students understand the difference between synthesis and analysis is critical. It’s helpful to use metaphors like this:

Analysis is like examining an individual piece of a jigsaw puzzle for its colors, angles, and shapes; synthesis is the act of putting all of these pieces together

Analysis is looking at the individual parts of a photograph: the people, the landscape, the objects; synthesis is examining the photograph as a whole and how each of these parts works together

Analysis is looking at a list of symptoms in a sick patient; synthesis is making a diagnosis on how those symptoms connect to one another and the medical history of the patient

Sentence frames are also especially helpful in the beginning, as they help move students in the right direction. The early mistakes in synthesis manifest as students merely summarize all of the sources in question, rather than discuss how they work together.

When considering _____________, (Source A) suggest that ______________ while (Source B) shift the focus to ________________________.

(Source A) insists that ______________, and this is confirmed again when (Source B) says ________________.

In (Source A) it is made clear that ______________. (Source B) echoes these ideas, saying ___________________.

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 sources and to write a single body paragraph answering our EQ (essential question) based on the sources that they read.

Writing synthesis is also can be greatly aided by both informal and formal discussion practices like fishbowl and Socratic seminar . As long as students are encouraged to bring multiple sources to the table and discuss their relationship with one another, students are getting great practice before sitting down to write. Here are just a few of my favorite topics to read about and discuss:

To what extent can cultural lines be crossed in costume?

Is it ever okay to fail?

Does a #hashtag create real social change?

Does greed or generosity define the holiday season? I

Are creativity and imagination still important?

What is happiness and is it important?

Is true love fantasy or destiny?

A simple evidence tracker like this helps students sort out their sources, references, and ideas:

A clean, clear table can be used to help students sort the evidence as they read through multiple sources. Take a closer look h e re !

KEEP PRACTICING

Synthesis is a writing skill that takes repeated practice. Students will need help moving from summarizing their sources to truly synthesizing them. One of the best ways to do this is through consistent use of the same rubric and whole class feedback. The images below show two examples of student work: one that struggled to actually synthesize and another that did a good job. The highlighted portions directly identify the areas of success and struggle and are used to TEACH revision, rather than just ask for it.

How has synthesis writing been going for you in your classes? I’d love to connect with you more about this critically important skill and see what your best ideas and lessons are!

Further Reading:

Three Rhetorical Analysis Activities for Back to School

3 Meaningful Ways to Get Students to Write About Reading

Using Mentor Texts to Teach Writing

SPOTLIGHT RESOURCE:

One of the conversations that gets my students riled up, discussing and synthesizing every year is this: Does a hashtag create real social change? With a list of over 10 different sources, students read, watch, and chart the evidence for their potential claims and then we come together at the table for a riveting Socratic seminar discussing the question and its many answers. Check it out here !

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Amanda is the author of Mud and Ink Teaching   and a collaborative blogger on Teachwriting.org . 

A high school English teacher of every level from ESL to AP Language, Amanda has made it her life’s work to encourage students and teachers to join her on an adventurous teaching and learning journey. Amanda is a full-time teacher author after spending thirteen years in the classroom. She writes curriculum for the high school level, coaches teachers 1:1 , and travels with her family whenever possible. Amanda’s obsessed with poetry, argumentation, and showing students the power of taking chances in their writing. She is also the co-host of the podcast Brave New Teaching .

Visit Amanda on Instagram ,  Facebook , or Twitter  for English teacher inspiration and powerful community.

Check Out the New Website Shop!

Novels & Picture Books

Anchor Charts

• Comprehension

3 Tips for Teaching Synthesis

By Mary Montero

Share This Post:

• Facebook Share
• Twitter Share
• Pinterest Share
• Email Share

During a planning session one day, I was reviewing the standards for my upcoming unit. I read one of the standards to a teacher next to me: “How exactly do we teach students to ‘synthesize information to create a new understanding’?” I knew what the word synthesize meant, but I needed an authentic, easy-to-understand way to convey its meaning to my students. Here are my best three tips for teaching synthesis to your upper elementary students.

What exactly is synthesis and why do we teach it? 

Synthesizing is the process of combining sources to create a shared meaning. It’s a fancy word for something you actually do quite often. When a big news story comes out you might read about it in an article, hear about it from a friend, and watch a story about it on the news. You then combine different sources of information to create meaning. That is synthesizing information.

This can be a challenging skill for students. Synthesizing or combining sources requires students to compare and contrast, make connections across texts and genres, have stellar reading comprehension, take notes and pick out key details, and more. However, challenging doesn’t have to mean impossible! With plenty of practice, students can master combining sources and synthesizing the information within them.

Nonfiction Synthesizing and Combining Multiple Sources

If you’re looking to take the next step in nonfiction reading… THIS is the set of resources that you need! Students will build important  critical thinking  skills by combining and analyzing information from  multiple texts on the same topic . Ultimately, students will be able to  integrate information from two or more texts on the same topic in order to write or speak about the subject knowledgeably.

Here are my favorite ways to help students master synthesizing.

#1 create a synthesis statement.

If your students are new to synthesis, consider starting small. Find two sources about a topic. Sources can be articles, videos, pictures, or diagrams. Make sure you find a super high-interest topic for this one! For example, students could watch a video about how candy corn is made and then read about the history of candy corn. After viewing both sources, they will craft a synthesis. To help students, you can provide them one of the following sentence frames:

• I learned that….
• The information helped me learn that…
• After reading, I understand…

At this point, I encourage them to highlight information they learned from ONE source in one color and the other source in a different color.

#2 Create a Synthesis from Multiple, Varied Sources

Once students understand the basics of synthesis, you can push and challenge their knowledge further. One way to do this is through several sources on a similar topic. Students will combine the information from several sources to create one new meaning. This is a more challenging task for students, so don’t worry if your students don’t master it the first time.

To make practicing combining sources easier, I created several nonfiction synthesis activities for students . In this resource, students are given 5 high-quality sources to read and make a synthesis from. Sources vary from social media posts, quotes, diagrams, encyclopedia entries, timelines, newspaper articles, etc. This resource also includes guided questions and tasks to help students with their synthesis.

This resource is planned to help guide your students through the process of synthesis. Each synthesis activity focuses on a different topic: bridges, education rights, photosynthesis, and the Titanic. You can have access to all of these topics through Nonfiction Synthesizing and Combining Multiple Sources bundle.

#3 Research a Topic

A very common way to practice synthesis in school is through research projects. Naturally, research projects require students to view many sources and combine the information they learn to answer a research question. The great part about research is that it can be as involved or as simple as you want it to be. For beginner students, you may want to give them a research question. For students with more research practice, they can create their own.

Before diving into research, be sure to explain to students where they can find a variety of (good) sources. Define what a “good” source is (though this is covered extensively in the Nonfiction Synthesizing and Combining Multiple Sources bundle !). After students have collected their research, they will then draft a paragraph or essay. Their topic sentence and writing will be created from their synthesis of their sources!

Related Skills

Synthesis can be a tough skill, but with enough practice, your students will begin to show mastery. If you want more tips on helping your students become successful synthesizers, check out these blog posts on comparing passages , writing summaries for texts , or analyzing firsthand and secondhand accounts (all skills needed for synthesizing! ).

Mary Montero

I’m so glad you are here. I’m a current gifted and talented teacher in a small town in Colorado, and I’ve been in education since 2009. My passion (other than my family and cookies) is for making teachers’ lives easier and classrooms more engaging.

You might also like…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

©2023 Teaching With a Mountain View . All Rights Reserved | Designed by Ashley Hughes

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Lost your password?

Review Cart

No products in the cart.

AP ® Lang teachers: looking to help your students improve their rhetorical analysis essays?

Coach Hall Writes

clear, concise rhetorical analysis instruction.

How to Teach Synthesis

December 23, 2022 by Beth Hall

Wondering how to teach synthesis essay writing? This blog post contains some examples of synthesis activities that help make writing a synthesis essay more approachable for students.

Synthesis Dinner Party

The synthesis dinner party is a popular synthesis activity among AP ® Lang teachers. It is a great way to introduce students to the idea of having a “conversation of sources.”

Note: The “dinner party” concept came from Kenneth Burke in The Philosophy of Literary Form in 1941.

To prep, you’ll want to make a graphic organizer for your students. I usually make one on Google Slides. I use a rectangle for the “table.” Then I write the prompt in the form of a question in that box. Next, I add squares as seats around the table. If there are 6 sources, I add 6 squares: one at each end of the rectangle and two on each side. Honestly, this does not have to be fancy, but you can add fun graphics if you wish.

First, have your students read the sources independently or as a class. In order to do the synthesis dinner party well, students need to be familiar with the sources first.

Next, explain the premise of a dinner party. While students might not have attended a formal dinner party, they may have some frame of reference for seating at a family gathering or even the high school lunch table.

Explain to students that the sources will be the guests of a dinner party, and they are in charge of making a seating chart. They want to make sure that they seat sources in a way that will lead to “good” or “civil” conversation.

If it is the first time my students have done this activity, I usually draw the seating chart on my white board or display the slides on the TV in my classroom. Then, I’ll tell the students that I want them to fill in the seats at the opposite ends of the table first. I want them to put sources that contradict each other or would not get along in those seats. At this point, I like to ask “why would I put contrasting sources in those spots?” Students then answer that it is because those are the farthest apart.

Depending on the group of students, this may be an opportune time to mention that one of these sources could possibly be used as a counterargument for the other.

The first time students do this activity, it is helpful to let them work with a partner or small group to decide which sources belong on the ends. Then I have groups share out their decision and explain their reasoning.

There is more than one “right” answer. It’s all about being able to defend your reasoning, which means students can practice making claims as they determine their seating chart.

After seating the sources at the end of the table, students can then fill in the other seats. This requires students to think about commonalities between the source’s main ideas or positions. Sources that are seated next to one another may pair well in a paragraph when students write the essay.

Sometimes students may be unsure where to place neutral sources, but the good news is that if the source is neutral, it can pretty much be placed anywhere, so it may help to “seat” them last.

Extension Activity

In addition to having students verbally share their reasoning behind their placement of the “end of the table” sources, I like to have students write a brief paragraph after they have finalized their seating chart. In the paragraph, I ask them to explain their rationale for seating the sources where they did. For example, students might explain what the sources have in common or why a particular source needs to be seated away from another source. As previously stated, this is a simple way to have students practice writing a claim, but it also helps them articulate their line of reasoning for their seating chart.

While I don’t do the dinner party too often, this is a great synthesis activity for students who are unfamiliar with how to synthesize sources.

Synthesis Sources T-Chart

Making a t-chart is simple, but it is also one of my favorite tips for how to teach synthesis. This is a practical synthesis activity students can do on their own on exam day if they’d like to organize their thoughts.

I did this activity recently with my students. Our prompt was “Should kindergarten be transformed into a more academic environment?” After students have read the sources, have them make a t-chart. For our prompt, one side of the t-chart said “reasons kindergarten should be more academic,” and the other side said “reasons why kindergarten should not be more academic.”

Have students work with a partner or small group to add entries to their t-chart. They do not need equal entries on both sides of the t-chart.

It helps if students write the source(s) that correspond with each reason. This will help them if they write the synthesis essay in a future lesson.

Next, ask for volunteers to share out their reasons and make a collaborative t-chart as a class. Encourage students to add to their t-charts as needed.

Making a t-chart can help students identify potential main ideas for their essay. It also helps them realize which sources relate to each other or contradict each other.

Sticky Note Continuum

I like to do this synthesis activity after the t-chart activity. For the “sticky note continuum,” you’ll need sticky notes and a dry erase board or large piece of paper. Personally, I like to use these lined sticky notes.

To prep, draw a continuum on the board or on your paper. If desired, write the prompt in the form of a question above the continuum.

This is a photo of the synthesis sticky note continuum.

Have students work independently, with a partner, or as a small group to write a claim in response to the prompt. If needed, provide students with a sentence frame. I like to have students write their claim on a regular piece of paper first before writing it on a sticky note.

Allowing students to collaborate during this synthesis activity allows them to learn from each other. Have them to focus on the word choice and syntax of their claim.

Once students have written their claim, have them rewrite it on a sticky note. Next, they place it on the continuum where they think it belongs.

Want more tips for teaching AP ® Lang? Check out this blog post.

Looking for more tips for how to teach synthesis? Be sure to sign up for my teacher email list. When you do, you’ll receive my 5 tips for teaching rhetorical analysis. Don’t worry. I send synthesis teaching tips too.

Disclaimer: As an Amazon Affiliate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

AP® Lang Teachers

Looking to help your students improve their rhetorical analysis essays?

January 8, 2023 at 9:04 pm

Are the sources for the kindergarten prompt posted anywhere? Thanks!

June 30, 2023 at 10:01 pm

The kindergarten prompt is in AP Classroom. I also add this article from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/the-joyful-illiterate-kindergartners-of-finland/408325/

Latest on Instagram

Shop My TPT Store

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff

Writing Across the Curriculum

• Research & Assessment
• Writing Plans
• WEC Liaisons
• Academic Units
• Engage with WEC
• Teaching Resources
• Teaching Consultations
• Faculty Writing Resources

Writing with Sources: Early-Semester Activities to Promote Synthesis

While students in nearly every upper-division course will be asked to analyze and synthesize information, the meaning of these terms changes with instructional contexts. They may analyze scholarly arguments to make an assertion about the state of knowledge or create a new research question. Students may also analyze results from experimental tests to draw accurate conclusions from measurement, while in another course, they may be tasked with analyzing multiple policies or practices and then designing their own. Given the range of ways synthesis can work in writing, this blog post focuses on strategies for creating explicit description of what synthesis means, and offers some early semester assignments to help prepare students for this complex work. In this post, construction metaphors (“building” or “making” language) provide a helpful vocabulary for writing assignments that promote synthesis.

Preparing the ground

Synthesis assignments fall broadly in two groups: explanatory synthesis, where multiple sources are used to create a comprehensive description, and argumentative synthesis, where students are asked to advance a claim based on reasons and evidence. Clarifying your assignment's purpose and audience can help focus students on their writing task. Consider what you notice about writing in your field that succeeds in creating synthesis.

• Do you prefer broad connections to core issues in the field, or narrowly focused writing that engages key distinctions between core concepts?
• Does synthesis imply comprehensive coverage of a range of resources, or could it be achieved by using a few sources well?
• Should material come from academic and scholarly sources, or what else might be fair game?
• Does synthesis imply reviewing differing ideas impartially, or should evaluation and criticism be a part of the work?
• Should synthesis stick to the most cited and widely read resources, or include less common perspectives and sources?

As an early assignment, ask students to write brief topic proposals or topic justification assignments that identify the topic, its relevance to the course, and some preliminary thoughts on potential questions about or connections between concepts and ideas. Emphasizing the role of connections among sources is critical here; not merely accumulating resources from multiple sources but seeing and describing their interrelationships.

Gathering materials: Pre-fab or made from scratch?

Students can think and write synthetically using resources selected by their instructors or by conducting their own searches for information. In cases where the task is unfamiliar, starting with shared resources can help students focus on concepts, themes, or issues without adding the challenge of selecting relevant resources. More advanced students may prefer the opportunity to follow their specialized interests and explore a wider literature.

Early assignments with shared resources

Reading responses can be an effective early-semester assignment for engaging with course resources. Faculty can help students understand the content of their reading by offering context (answering those 5 Ws questions) for individual selections, but ask students to think about why certain readings might be offered together or in sequence. Better assignments will move beyond comparison and contrast into connections and implications.

Source grids can also help students to draw connections between readings and resources. For example, in a nursing course, students are asked to produce summaries of course readings and organize them in a table that addresses the population studied, intervention, comparison, and outcome. EBSCO offers a nice summary of PICO questions here .

Early assignments for information-seeking

When students are asked to seek their own information or research their own topics, they will need to work harder to determine the relevance of information and criteria for attention and inclusion. Many instructors already assign online tutorials from the University libraries to help students navigate disciplinary databases and develop research questions. Subject librarians and department liaisons for your college, department, or program are excellent collaborators for designing such tasks .

Information-seeking assignments can include mind maps (using what students already know to suggest search terms), summaries of reference articles , or initial reference lists . In addition, process-oriented assignments like research logs can help students to show their work by documenting their search strategies (databases, keywords, and limiters used).

Additional Resources

Reading and Writing has just published a special issue (December 2022) under the title, Synthesis Tasks: Where reading and writing meet . Read the introduction from the editors .

Further Support

See the Teaching with Writing pages or teaching resources . As many of you know, our WAC program also hosts the popular Teaching with Writing event series. Each semester, this series offers free workshops and discussions. Visit us online and follow us on Twitter @UMNWriting .

Looking to change up writing assignments or grading strategies? Talk to us! We like thinking with faculty members, instructors, and TA/GIs about any and all matters related to teaching with writing in courses across the University curriculum. Got questions about writing assignments and activities, grading writing, providing feedback, or using digital tools? Contact us to schedule a phone, email, or face-to-face teaching consultation.

• Log in to post comments
• African American & African Studies
• Agronomy and Plant Genetics
• Animal Science
• Anthropology
• Applied Economics
• Art History
• Carlson School of Management
• Chemical Engineering and Materials Science
• Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering
• College of Biological Sciences
• Communication Studies
• Computer Science & Engineering
• Construction Management
• Curriculum and Instruction
• Dental Hygiene
• Apparel Design
• Graphic Design
• Product Design
• Retail Merchandising
• Earth Sciences
• Electrical and Computer Engineering
• Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management
• Family Social Science
• Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology
• Food Science and Nutrition
• Geography, Environment and Society
• German, Nordic, Slavic & Dutch
• Health Services Management
• Horticultural Science
• Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication
• Industrial and Systems Engineering
• Information Technology Infrastructure
• Mathematics
• Mechanical Engineering
• Medical Laboratory Sciences
• Mortuary Science
• Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development
• Political Science
• School of Architecture
• School of Kinesiology
• School of Public Health
• Spanish and Portuguese Studies
• Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences
• Theatre Arts & Dance
• Youth Studies
• New Enrollments for Departments and Programs
• Legacy Program for Continuing Units
• Writing in Your Course Context
• Syllabus Matters
• Mid-Semester Feedback Strategies
• Designing Effective Writing Assignments
• Writing Assignment Checklist
• Scaffolding and Sequencing Writing Assignments
• Informal, Exploratory Writing Activities
• 5-Minute Revision Workshops
• Reflective Memos
• Conducting In-Class Writing Activities: Notes on Procedures
• Now what? Responding to Informal Writing
• Teaching Writing with Quantitative Data
• Commenting on Student Writing
• Supporting Multilingual Learners
• Teaching with Effective Models of Writing
• Peer Response Protocols and Procedures
• Using Reflective Writing to Deepen Student Learning
• Conferencing with Student Writers
• Designing Inclusive Writing Assigments
• Addressing a Range of Writing Abilities in Your Courses
• Effective Grading Strategies
• Designing and Using Rubrics
• Running a Grade-Norming Session
• Working with Teaching Assistants
• Managing the Paper Load
• Teaching Writing with Sources
• Preventing Plagiarism
• Grammar Matters
• What is ChatGPT and how does it work?
• Incorporating ChatGPT into Classes with Writing Assignments: Policies, Syllabus Statements, and Recommendations
• Restricting ChatGPT Use in Classes with Writing Assignments: Policies, Syllabus Statements, and Recommendations
• What do we mean by "writing"?
• How can I teach writing effectively in an online course?
• What are the attributes of a "writing-intensive" course at the University of Minnesota?
• How can I talk with students about the use of artificial intelligence tools in their writing?
• How can I support inclusive participation on team-based writing projects?
• How can I design and assess reflective writing assignments?
• How can I use prewritten comments to give timely and thorough feedback on student writing?
• How can I use online discussion forums to support and engage students?
• How can I use and integrate the university libraries and academic librarians to support writing in my courses?
• How can I support students during the writing process?
• How can I use writing to help students develop self-regulated learning habits?
• Submit your own question
• Short Course: Teaching with Writing Online
• Five-Day Faculty Seminar
• Past Summer Hunker Participants
• Resources for Scholarly Writers
• Consultation Request
• Faculty Writing Groups
• Further Writing Resources

How to Teach Synthesis Thinking in High School English

• Instructional and Assessment Strategies , Reading Instruction , Writing Instruction

Over the course of a school year, one of my goals is to move my sophomores toward synthesis thinking. CCSS.ELA.R.7 and R.9 require synthesis thinking. Bloom’s Taxonomy also moves students toward synthesis as a means of achieving creation. As we enter second semester, it’s about time for my students to begin making the move from analysis to synthesis. Here’s how I know students are ready to make the move:

• First, their writing is well organized. Students can structure a paragraph with very little scaffolding .
• Second, their writing is logical. Students provide appropriate background information and context.
• Third, their writing embeds and cites evidence smoothly. Students select evidence that supports their claims, embed evidence smoothly, and cite it correctly.
• Fourth, their writing is insightful and relevant. Students follow evidence with analysis that demonstrates the significance of the main idea.

Now, I have an awesome English I team that helps students focus on these four aspects of writing. This means that when students come to me as sophomores, they have a strong foundation in analytical thought. After a semester, we’re usually ready to move into synthesis thinking. And that’s what we’re talking about today.

This post this post may contain affiliate links .  Please read the  Terms of Use .

Choose Texts Thematically

In preparing to introduce students to synthesis thinking, it’s important to carefully select texts that touch on complementary subjects or topics. Here are some ideas for choosing texts that lend themselves to synthesis:

First, look for a shared symbol .

• For example, the poems “To Kill a Deer” by Carol Frost, “Deer Hunt” by Judson Jerome, and “Traveling through the Dark” by William Stafford all feature a common symbol. Because the deer symbol is concrete (and because I have a lot of students that look forward to hunting season), this text collection is a great place to begin.
• In addition to hunting, my students love basketball, so this collection of texts about basketball is a good opportunity for students to practice synthesizing, focusing on a shared symbol, setting, and love. The texts “Slam, Dunk, & Hook” by Yusef Komunyakaa, “Home Court” by Jose Olivarez, and “Privileged” by Kyle Korver allow students to practice synthesizing across genres and mediums.

Secondly, look for a similar subject or theme .

• First, poems about love are so common that they make a great place to start. Among my favorite love poems are “Old Love” by Pat Mora (read it here ), “Senior Discount” by Ali Liebegott (read it here ), and “Long Distance II” by Tony Harrison (read it here ). Of course, Shakespeare’s sonnets are also a great choice! All my favorite love poems are in this synthesis bundle !
• Additionally, “ T.S.A .” by Amit Majmudar and “ Gate A-4 ” by Naomi Shihab Nye share similar settings while providing commentary on racism, stereotyping, and racial profiling. These are texts that really cause my students to engage in powerful discussion. Check out my resources for teaching these two texts.
• Similarly, “To Live is an Act of Courage” by Jennifer Michael Hecht, “Courage” by Anne Sexton, and “Invictus” by William Ernest Henley all focus on courage. While these texts are wildly different, their shared themes make them ideal texts for synthesis. Plus, with this text collection , students can also practice synthesizing across genres and mediums.

Thirdly, look for a shared historical or cultural perspective.

• For example, “Complaint of El Río Grande” by Richard Blanco (read it here ) and “Zapotec Crossers (or, Haiku I Write Post-PTSD Nightmares)” by Alan Pelanez (read it here ) share a similar historical context and symbol. These are tough, moving poems; nevertheless, they provide students with a rich subject for synthesis.
• Additionally, one of my favorite happy accidents in British literature is the naming of Cathy Moreland in Northanger Abbey and Cathy Earnshaw in Wuthering Heights . Reading excerpts from these passages alongside one another is a great way to synthesize within an historical period.
• Finally, “Sympathy” by Paul Laurence Dunbar (read it here ) and “Caged Bird” by Maya Angelou (read it here ) share a common symbol and cultural perspective. While these poems were written lifetimes apart, they also make clear how heavily racism and white supremacy affect the US.

Fourthly, consider an in-depth author study to track an idea and its development across multiple texts.

• For example, Emily Dickinson’s poetry is full of her ideas about life and death. My favorite Dickinson poems are included in this 3-resource bundle . Like Dickinson, Edwin Arlington Robinson’s characters explore pain in all its forms. My students are always engaged in our classroom study of his most-famous works .
• Similarly, Gerard Manley Hopkins explores complementary ideas in his poems “ God’s Grandeur ” and “ Spring and Fall: to a Young Child .” Reading these poems side by side offers students the opportunity to synthesize ideas about nature, divinity, and humanity. Like Hopkins, William Cullen Bryant often explores the nature of the universe in his poetry.
• Additionally, Ralph Waldo Emerson is famous for fleshing out the theories of Transcendentalism across his life and in his literature. Reading excerpts from “ Nature ” and “ Self-Reliance ” helps students see an author working through the same thought processes they are working on.

Explicitly Introduce Synthesis

“Synthesis” is a tier-two vocabulary term. In different contents, the definition may vary. However, at its core, synthesis is always about creation regardless of content area. Students draw on a variety of sources and ideas to arrive at a new understanding.

To help students approach synthesis, I begin with some inquiry-based learning.

• First, I tell students we’re preparing to make the move from analytical writing to synthesis writing.
• Removing the labels, I show students this image that I found on Pinterest. Then, I ask students to think-pair-share to decide which image represents analysis and which represents synthesis.
• Next, I explicitly define the term “synthesis” before referencing the texts we have been reading. I model synthesis thinking with information from the texts we have been reading, often providing students with an example main idea or theme statement that I could only develop having read multiple texts.
• Depending on the amount of time we have, I might also show students an example of synthesis writing.

Develop Synthesis-Style Prompts

When approaching synthesis writing, students often want to compare and contrast texts. While compare/contrast may be a great way to begin analysis, synthesis resists purely binary thinking. For teachers, this means designing prompts that do not lend themselves purely to compare/contrast-style thinking. Here are some stems to help design synthesis-style writing prompts:

• What is the relationship between x and y?
• How would the authors/characters/speakers define x?
• Based on the texts, what would be the best approach for x?
• What solutions would you offer to the author/character/speakers?
• Having read the texts, what does successful x look like? What does failure look like?

Practice and Refine with Feedback

Because synthesis requires a different lens, students do not magically arrive at synthesis thinking or writing on the first try. Instead, synthesis, like most skills, requires cycles of practice and feedback.

It’s also important to note that synthesis and analysis are closely related. They complement one another. Before students can successfully synthesizes across texts, they must also be able to analyze texts. Analysis feeds synthesis, and synthesis leads to new analysis.

Working across different media is another great way to practice synthesis and analysis. CCSS.ELA.RL.7 explicitly challenges students to work across media and formats. Of course, teachers often practice this with film representations of literary works, but artwork can also be a great tool to help students synthesize.

Here are some options for visualizing synthesis:

• Artwork is a great opportunity for synthesis thinking. I’ve worked hard to compile famous pieces of artwork to accompany some of Shakespeare’s most-famous plays. Check out these resources for Visualizing Shakespeare !
• Secondly, “ Mercy ” by Rudy Francisco and “ Allowables ” by Nikki Giovanni share a similar subject and symbol. The context of these poems is so relevant, and the commentary on racism is so powerful. I cannot recommend these poems enough. Reading these poems alongside informational texts, news clippings, or artwork can help students appreciate the systemic nature of institutionalized racism. Check out my resources for helping students read and synthesize these texts.
• Similarly, “lady liberty” by Tato Laviera, “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus, and “Three Liberties: Past, Present, Yet to Come” by Julia Alvarez all focus on the Statue of Liberty. Reading these texts alongside propaganda about immigration is a good way to help students synthesize across mediums. With this text collection , students work on synthesizing abstract ideas about freedom.

How do you help your students work on synthesis thinking? Let us know in the comments!

Read these posts next...

Teacher in September: 5 Inspiring and Unique Ideas

5 Fun Back-to-School Journal Prompts to Strengthen Community

12 Fun, Effortless Back-to-School Freebies for Any Age

15 Fun TED Talks for Supercharging Speaking and Listening

Let's Stay in Touch

Join Moore English

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

Online Guide to Writing and Research

Thinking strategies and writing patterns, explore more of umgc.

• Online Guide to Writing

Critical Strategies and Writing

One of the basic academic writing activities is researching your topic and what others have said about it. Your goal should be to draw thoughts, observations, and claims about your topic from your research. We call this process of drawing from multiple sources “ synthesis .” Click on the accordion items below for more information.

Definition, Use, and Sample Synthesis

Synthesis defined.

Synthesis Emerges from Analysis

Synthesis emerges from analytical activities we discussed on the previous page: comparative analysis and analysis for cause and effect . For example, to communicate where scholars agree and where they disagree, one must analyze their work for similarities and differences. Also crucial for understanding scholarly discourse is understanding how a particular work of scholarship shapes the scholarship of others, causing them to head in new directions.

When Should Synthesis Be Used?

When to Use Synthesis

Many college assignments require synthesis. A literature review, for example, requires that you make explanatory claims regarding a body of research. These should go beyond summary (mere description) to provide helpful characterizations that aid in understanding. Literature reviews can stand on their own, but often they are a part of a research paper, and research papers are where you will probably use synthesis most often.

The purpose of a research paper is to derive meaning from a body of information collected through research. It is your job, as the writer, to communicate that meaning to your readers. Doing this requires that you develop an informed and educated opinion of what your research suggests about your subject. Communicating this opinion requires synthesis.

Sample Synthesis

In 1655, an embassy of Dutch Jews led by Rabbi Menassah ben Israel traveled to London to meet with the Commonwealth’s new Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell. The informal “Readmission” of Jews—who had been expelled from England by royal edict in 1290—resulting from the Whitehall conference was once hailed as a high point in the history of toleration. Yet in recent years, scholars have increasingly challenged the progressive nature of this event, both in its substance and its motivation (Kaplan 2007; Katznelson 2010; Walsham 2006) . “Toleration” in this case, as in many others, did not entail religious freedom or civic equality; Jews in England were granted legal residency and permitted to worship privately, but citizenship, public worship, and the printing of anything that “opposeth the Christian religion” remained off the cards. As for its motivation, Edward Whalley’s twofold argument was representative: the Jews “will bring in much wealth into this Commonwealth: and where wee both pray for theyre conversion and beleeve it shal be, I knowe not why wee shold deny the means” (Marshall 2006, 381–82) 

(Bejan, 2015, p. 1103).

The author of the above passage, Teresa Bejan, has synthesized the work of a number of other scholars (Kaplan, Katznelson, Walsham, and Marshall) to situate her argument.  Note how not all of these scholars are directly quoted, but they are cited because their work forms the basis of Bejan's work.

Key Takeaways

• Synthesizing allows you to carry an argument or stance you adopt within a paper in your own words, based on conclusions you have come to about the topic.
• Synthesizing contributes to confidence about your stance and topic.

Mailing Address: 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783 This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . © 2022 UMGC. All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of information located at external sites.

Table of Contents: Online Guide to Writing

Chapter 1: College Writing

How Does College Writing Differ from Workplace Writing?

What Is College Writing?

Why So Much Emphasis on Writing?

Chapter 2: The Writing Process

Doing Exploratory Research

Getting from Notes to Your Draft

Introduction

Prewriting - Techniques to Get Started - Mining Your Intuition

Prewriting: Targeting Your Audience

Prewriting: Techniques to Get Started

Prewriting: Understanding Your Assignment

Rewriting: Being Your Own Critic

Rewriting: Creating a Revision Strategy

Rewriting: Getting Feedback

Rewriting: The Final Draft

Techniques to Get Started - Outlining

Techniques to Get Started - Using Systematic Techniques

Thesis Statement and Controlling Idea

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Freewriting

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Summarizing Your Ideas

Writing: Outlining What You Will Write

Chapter 3: Thinking Strategies

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone: Style Through Vocabulary and Diction

Critical Strategies and Writing: Analysis

Critical Strategies and Writing: Evaluation

Critical Strategies and Writing: Persuasion

Critical Strategies and Writing: Synthesis

Developing a Paper Using Strategies

Kinds of Assignments You Will Write

Patterns for Presenting Information

Patterns for Presenting Information: Critiques

Patterns for Presenting Information: Discussing Raw Data

Patterns for Presenting Information: General-to-Specific Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Specific-to-General Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Summaries and Abstracts

Supporting with Research and Examples

Writing Essay Examinations

Writing Essay Examinations: Make Your Answer Relevant and Complete

Writing Essay Examinations: Organize Thinking Before Writing

Writing Essay Examinations: Read and Understand the Question

Chapter 4: The Research Process

Planning and Writing a Research Paper

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Ask a Research Question

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Cite Sources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Collect Evidence

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Decide Your Point of View, or Role, for Your Research

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Draw Conclusions

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Find a Topic and Get an Overview

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Manage Your Resources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Outline

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Survey the Literature

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Work Your Sources into Your Research Writing

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Human Resources

Research Resources: What Are Research Resources?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Electronic Resources

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Print Resources

Structuring the Research Paper: Formal Research Structure

Structuring the Research Paper: Informal Research Structure

The Nature of Research

The Research Assignment: How Should Research Sources Be Evaluated?

The Research Assignment: When Is Research Needed?

The Research Assignment: Why Perform Research?

Chapter 5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

Giving Credit to Sources

Giving Credit to Sources: Copyright Laws

Giving Credit to Sources: Documentation

Giving Credit to Sources: Style Guides

Integrating Sources

Practicing Academic Integrity

Practicing Academic Integrity: Keeping Accurate Records

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Paraphrasing Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Quoting Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Summarizing Your Sources

Types of Documentation

Types of Documentation: Bibliographies and Source Lists

Types of Documentation: Citing World Wide Web Sources

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - APA Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - CSE/CBE Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - Chicago Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - MLA Style

Types of Documentation: Note Citations

Chapter 6: Using Library Resources

Finding Library Resources

Chapter 7: Assessing Your Writing

How Is Writing Graded?

How Is Writing Graded?: A General Assessment Tool

The Draft Stage

The Draft Stage: The First Draft

The Draft Stage: The Revision Process and the Final Draft

The Draft Stage: Using Feedback

The Research Stage

Using Assessment to Improve Your Writing

Chapter 8: Other Frequently Assigned Papers

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Article and Book Reviews

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Reaction Papers

Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Adapting the Argument Structure

Writing Arguments: Purposes of Argument

Writing Arguments: References to Consult for Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Anticipate Active Opposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Determine Your Organization

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Develop Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Introduce Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - State Your Thesis or Proposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Write Your Conclusion

Writing Arguments: Types of Argument

Appendix A: Books to Help Improve Your Writing

Dictionaries

General Style Manuals

Researching on the Internet

Special Style Manuals

Writing Handbooks

Appendix B: Collaborative Writing and Peer Reviewing

Collaborative Writing: Assignments to Accompany the Group Project

Collaborative Writing: Informal Progress Report

Collaborative Writing: Issues to Resolve

Collaborative Writing: Methodology

Collaborative Writing: Peer Evaluation

Collaborative Writing: Tasks of Collaborative Writing Group Members

Collaborative Writing: Writing Plan

General Introduction

Peer Reviewing

Appendix C: Developing an Improvement Plan

Working with Your Instructor’s Comments and Grades

Appendix D: Writing Plan and Project Schedule

Devising a Writing Project Plan and Schedule

Reviewing Your Plan with Others

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

Module 8: Analysis and Synthesis

Synthesis in practice, learning objectives.

• Demonstrate strategies for synthesis

Professors frequently expect you to interpret, make inferences, and otherwise synthesize—bring ideas together to make something new or find a new way of looking at something old. (It might help to think of synthesis as the opposite of analysis. To synthesize is to combine; to analyze is to break down.)

Getting Better at Synthesis

To get an A on essays and papers in many courses, such as literature and history, what you write in reaction to the work of others should use synthesis to create new meaning or to show a deeper understanding of what you learned.

To do so, it helps to look for connections and patterns. One way to synthesize when writing an argument essay, paper, or other project is to look for themes among your sources. So try categorizing ideas by topic rather than by source—making associations across and between sources.

Synthesis can seem difficult, particularly if you are used to analyzing others’ points but not used to making your own. Like most things, however, it gets easier with practice. So don’t be hard on yourself if it seems difficult at first.

EXAMPLE:  Synthesis in an Argument

In the movie, a successful young screenwriter named Gil is visiting Paris with his girlfriend and her parents, who are more politically conservative than he is. Inexplicably, every midnight he time-travels back to the 1920’s Paris, a time period he’s always found fascinating, especially because of the writers and painters—Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Picasso—with whom he’s now on a first-name basis. Gil is enchanted and always wants to stay in this fantastical past. But every morning, he’s back in the real present—feeling out of sync with his girlfriend and her parents.

For your essay, you’ve tried to come up with a narrower topic, but so far nothing seems right. Suddenly, you start paying more attention to the girlfriend’s parents’ dialogue about politics, which amount to such phrases as “we have to go back to…,” “it was a better time,” “Americans used to be able to…” and “the way it used to be.”

And then it clicks with you that the girlfriend’s parents are like Gil—longing for a different time, whether real or imagined. That kind of idea generation, where you find the connection and theme across related elements of the movie, is synthesis.

You decide to write your essay to answer the research question: How is the motivation of Gil’s girlfriend’s parents similar to Gil’s? Your thesis becomes “Despite seeming to be very different, Gil and his girlfriend’s parents are similarly motivated, and Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris’s message about nostalgia can be applied to all of them.”

Of course, you’ll have to try to convince your readers that your thesis is valid, and you may or not be successful,—but that’s true with all theses. And your professor will be glad to see the synthesis.

Synthesizing From Multiple Sources

Below are some questions that highlight ways in which the act of synthesizing brings together ideas and generates new knowledge.

How do the sources speak to your specific argument or research question?

Your argument or research question is the main unifying element in your project.  Keep this in the forefront of your mind when you write about your sources.  Explain how, specifically, each source supports your central claim/s or suggests possible answers to your question.  For example:  Does the source provide essential background information or a definitional foundation for your argument or inquiry? Does it present numerical data that supports one of your points or helps you answer a question you have posed?  Does it present a theory that might be applied to some aspect of your project?  Does it present a recognized expert’s insights on your topic?

How do the sources speak to each other? 

Sometimes you will find explicit dialogue between sources (for example, Source A refutes Source B by name), and sometimes you will need to bring your sources into dialogue (for example, Source A does not mention Source B, but you observe that the two are advancing similar or dissimilar arguments).  Attending to  interrelationships among sources  is at the heart of the task of synthesis.

Figure 1 . A strong argument will utilize many different sources to support itself. Synthesizing by identifying interrelationships among these sources will help to strengthen your paper.

Begin by asking: What are the points of agreement?  Where are there disagreements?

But be aware that you are unlikely to find your sources in pure positions of “for” vs. “against.”  You are more likely to find agreement in some areas and disagreement in other areas.  You may also find agreement but for different reasons—such as different underlying values and priorities, or different methods of inquiry.

Where are there, or aren’t there, information gaps?

Where is the available information unreliable (for example, it might be difficult to trace back to primary sources), or limited, (for example, based on just a few case studies, or on just one geographical area), or difficult for non-specialists to access (for example, written in specialist language, or tucked away in a physical archive)?

Does your inquiry contain sub-questions that may not at present be answerable, or that may not be answerable without additional primary research—for example, laboratory studies, direct observation, interviews with witnesses or participants, etc.?

Or, alternatively, is there a great deal of reliable, accessible information that addresses your question or speaks to your argument or inquiry?

In considering these questions, you are engaged in synthesis: you are conducting an overview assessment of the field of available information and in this way generating composite knowledge.

Remember, synthesis is about pulling together information from a range of sources in order to answer a question or construct an argument. It is something you will be called upon to do in a wide variety of academic, professional, and personal contexts. Being able to dive into an ocean of information and surface with meaningful conclusions is an essential skill.

Synthesis in Literature Reviews

One place synthesis is usually required is in literature reviews for honors’ theses, master’s theses, and Ph.D. dissertations. In all those cases, literature reviews are intended to contribute more than annotated bibliographies do and to be arguments for the research conducted for the theses or dissertations. If you are writing an honors thesis, master’s thesis, or Ph.D. dissertation, you will find more help with  Susan Imel’s Writing a Literature Review .

Showing Synthesis

Some ways to demonstrate synthesis in your writing is to compare and contrast multiple sources. Below are some examples of sentence structures that demonstrate synthesis:

Synthesis that indicates agreement/support:

• Source A asserts that… Source B agrees when he or she states…
• According to both A & B…
• The combined conclusions of sources B & C seem to indicate that…
• The evidence shows that…
• Source B is correct that…
• Source C makes a convincing case when she argues…
• I agree with Source A’s conclusion that…

Synthesis that indicates disagreement/conflict:

• Source A asserts that…Yet Source B offers a different perspective by…
• Source C & B would likely disagree regarding…
• My view, however, contrary to what Source A has argued, is…
• I argue that X & Y are the best solution, though Source B offers a different option.
• In contrast, I would like to offer some objections to the opinions expressed by source C…
• While source A makes an intriguing argument, I would disagree…

What the above examples indicate is that synthesis is the careful weaving in of outside opinions in order to show your reader the many ideas and arguments on your topic and further assert your own. Notice, too, that the above examples are also  signal phrases : language that introduces outside source material to be either quoted or paraphrased, i.e., “contrary to what Source A has argued, source B maintains ___________ .”

Try It: Balancing Sources and Synthesis

Here’s a technique to quickly assess whether there is enough of your original thought in your essay or paper, as opposed to information from your sources: Highlight what you have included as quotes, paraphrases, and summaries from your sources. Next, highlight in another color what you have written yourself. Then take a look at the pages and decide whether there is enough of your own thinking in them.

For the mocked-up pages below, assume that the yellow-highlighted lines were written by the writer and the pink-highlighted lines are quotes, paraphrases, and summaries she pulled from her sources.

Which page most demonstrates the writer’s own ideas?

Source: Joy McGregor. “A Visual Approach: Teaching Synthesis,” School Library Monthly, Volume XXVII, Number 8/May-June 2011.

Answer: The Middle Sample.

The yellow-highlighted sections in the middle sample shows more contributions from the author than from quotes, paraphrases, and summaries of other sources.

signal phrase : a phrase that introduces outside sources material that will be quoted or paraphrased

• Synthesizing Your Research Findings. Authored by : Christine Photinos. Project : Composing Ourselves and Our World . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Synthesizing. Authored by : Melanie Gagich. Located at : https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/introduction-to-writing/chapter/8-1-synthesizing/ . Project : Introduction to Writing in College. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Synthesis of Your Own Ideas . Provided by : Ohio State University Libraries . Located at : https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/choosingsources/chapter/synthesis/ . Project : Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research by Teaching & Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of a stack of books. Authored by : Ulrike Leone. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/photos/books-book-stack-isolated-1931195/ . License : Other . License Terms : https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

• RMIT Australia
• RMIT Europe
• RMIT Vietnam
• RMIT Global
• RMIT Online
• Alumni & Giving

• What will I do?
• What will I need?
• Who will help me?
• About the institution
• New to university?
• Studying efficiently
• Time management
• Mind mapping
• Note-taking
• Reading skills
• Argument analysis
• Preparing for assessment
• Critical thinking and argument analysis
• Online learning skills
• Starting my first assignment
• Researching your assignment
• What is referencing?
• Understanding citations
• When referencing isn't needed
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Synthesising
• Integrating ideas with reporting words
• Referencing with Easy Cite
• Getting help with referencing
• Acting with academic integrity
• Artificial intelligence tools
• Understanding your audience
• Writing for coursework
• Literature review
• Academic style
• Writing for the workplace
• Spelling tips
• Writing paragraphs
• Writing sentences
• Academic word lists
• Annotated bibliographies
• Artist statement
• Case studies
• Creating effective poster presentations
• Essays, Reports, Reflective Writing
• Law assessments
• Oral presentations
• Reflective writing
• Art and design
• Critical thinking
• Maths and statistics
• Sustainability
• Educators' guide
• Learning Lab content in context
• Latest updates
• Students Alumni & Giving Staff Library

Learning Lab

Getting started at uni, study skills, referencing.

• When referencing isn't needed
• Integrating ideas

Writing and assessments

• Critical reading
• Poster presentations
• Postgraduate report writing

Subject areas

For educators.

• Educators' guide

To make a strong argument, you’ll want to present evidence from a variety of different sources. Synthesising involves combining ideas from a range of sources in order to group together and present common ideas or positions on a topic. It’s a necessary part of developing a sophisticated argument, and is used in many forms of academic communication.

What is synthesising?

Unlike summarising and paraphrasing , which only use ideas from one source at a time, synthesising combines ideas from multiple sources.

Synthesising allows you to:

• develop and strengthen your arguments with a variety of evidence
• show that you have read widely on the topic
• demonstrate analytical and critical thinking skills.

How to synthesise

Use the following steps to synthesise information from different sources.

• Read materials relevant to your topic, and make brief notes on the key points in each source that are connected to your argument. This makes it easier to compare and contrast information across different sources.
• Identify common ideas or themes in your notes.
• Use reporting words and linking words to explain common ideas, making sure to cite all the sources you have used.

Synthesis example

The following example uses four fictional sources to show how you might take notes and then synthesise the ideas in a piece of writing.

Note-taking for synthesis

Read each source and take notes on the main ideas in dot point format.

Topic: English is the dominant world language

• international language for business
• used for international forums (e.g. UN)
• second language in many countries
• used in worldwide technology
• computers key factor in spread of English
• internationalisation of education
• small number of speakers worldwide
• importance of English linked to US power, i.e. 'Political'
• more people speak Chinese worldwide
• minority of speakers in world
• Chinese dominant especially in future
• English will decline in future

Writing a synthesis from notes

Look at your notes to identify similar and contradictory arguments. Group these together to develop and support your arguments, and cite your sources appropriately.

Supporting the contention that English is the dominant world language, Watson (2019) and Lui (2018) point out its importance as the medium of international communication in business, technology and other global forums. However, others argue that despite its apparent dominance, English is not the global language when the number of native speakers of other languages, for example Chinese, are considered (Dowd 2019; Hannan 2017) .

• 'Support': supporting ideas of Watson and Lui
• 'Reference': reference citations 
• 'Similiarity': synthesis of contradictory arguments 

[Support: Supporting the contention that English is the dominant world language], [reference: Watson (2019) and Lui (2018)] [Support: point out its importance as the medium of international communication in business, technology and other global forums.] [Similiarity: However, others argue that despite its apparent dominance, English is not the global language when the number of native speakers of other languages, for example Chinese, are considered] [Reference: (Dowd 2019; Hannan 2017).]

Please note : The examples on this page use the RMIT Harvard referencing style. Check your course handbook or speak to your instructor about the referencing style required in your area of study.

Still can't find what you need?

The RMIT University Library provides study support , one-on-one consultations and peer mentoring to RMIT students.

• Facebook (opens in a new window)
• Twitter (opens in a new window)
• Instagram (opens in a new window)
• Linkedin (opens in a new window)
• YouTube (opens in a new window)
• Weibo (opens in a new window)
• Copyright © 2024 RMIT University |
• Accessibility |
• Learning Lab feedback |
• Complaints |
• ABN 49 781 030 034 |
• CRICOS provider number: 00122A |
• RTO Code: 3046 |
• Open Universities Australia

Make Synthesizing Easy with These Simple Strategies

What is Synthesizing?

The rest method.

• R - read two different sources about a topic and record ideas.
• E - edit notes and combine concepts that are similar.
• S - synthesize by combining notes with what you already know about the topic.
• T - think about your new ideas and connect them to what you already know.

The ADD Method

• A - what the students already knows about the topic.
• D - what the student learned during the reading on the same topic.
• D - what the student learned during the discussion of the topic.

Venn Diagram

8 Fantastic Language Arts Apps for Elementary Students

How to use visualizing to improve reading comprehension.

How to Synthesize Written Information from Multiple Sources

Shona McCombes

Content Manager

B.A., English Literature, University of Glasgow

Shona McCombes is the content manager at Scribbr, Netherlands.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

When you write a literature review or essay, you have to go beyond just summarizing the articles you’ve read – you need to synthesize the literature to show how it all fits together (and how your own research fits in).

Synthesizing simply means combining. Instead of summarizing the main points of each source in turn, you put together the ideas and findings of multiple sources in order to make an overall point.

At the most basic level, this involves looking for similarities and differences between your sources. Your synthesis should show the reader where the sources overlap and where they diverge.

Unsynthesized Example

Franz (2008) studied undergraduate online students. He looked at 17 females and 18 males and found that none of them liked APA. According to Franz, the evidence suggested that all students are reluctant to learn citations style. Perez (2010) also studies undergraduate students. She looked at 42 females and 50 males and found that males were significantly more inclined to use citation software ( p < .05). Findings suggest that females might graduate sooner. Goldstein (2012) looked at British undergraduates. Among a sample of 50, all females, all confident in their abilities to cite and were eager to write their dissertations.

Synthesized Example

Studies of undergraduate students reveal conflicting conclusions regarding relationships between advanced scholarly study and citation efficacy. Although Franz (2008) found that no participants enjoyed learning citation style, Goldstein (2012) determined in a larger study that all participants watched felt comfortable citing sources, suggesting that variables among participant and control group populations must be examined more closely. Although Perez (2010) expanded on Franz’s original study with a larger, more diverse sample…

Step 1: Organize your sources

After collecting the relevant literature, you’ve got a lot of information to work through, and no clear idea of how it all fits together.

Before you can start writing, you need to organize your notes in a way that allows you to see the relationships between sources.

One way to begin synthesizing the literature is to put your notes into a table. Depending on your topic and the type of literature you’re dealing with, there are a couple of different ways you can organize this.

Summary table

A summary table collates the key points of each source under consistent headings. This is a good approach if your sources tend to have a similar structure – for instance, if they’re all empirical papers.

Each row in the table lists one source, and each column identifies a specific part of the source. You can decide which headings to include based on what’s most relevant to the literature you’re dealing with.

For example, you might include columns for things like aims, methods, variables, population, sample size, and conclusion.

For each study, you briefly summarize each of these aspects. You can also include columns for your own evaluation and analysis.

The summary table gives you a quick overview of the key points of each source. This allows you to group sources by relevant similarities, as well as noticing important differences or contradictions in their findings.

Synthesis matrix

A synthesis matrix is useful when your sources are more varied in their purpose and structure – for example, when you’re dealing with books and essays making various different arguments about a topic.

Each column in the table lists one source. Each row is labeled with a specific concept, topic or theme that recurs across all or most of the sources.

Then, for each source, you summarize the main points or arguments related to the theme.

The purposes of the table is to identify the common points that connect the sources, as well as identifying points where they diverge or disagree.

Step 2: Outline your structure

Now you should have a clear overview of the main connections and differences between the sources you’ve read. Next, you need to decide how you’ll group them together and the order in which you’ll discuss them.

For shorter papers, your outline can just identify the focus of each paragraph; for longer papers, you might want to divide it into sections with headings.

There are a few different approaches you can take to help you structure your synthesis.

If your sources cover a broad time period, and you found patterns in how researchers approached the topic over time, you can organize your discussion chronologically .

That doesn’t mean you just summarize each paper in chronological order; instead, you should group articles into time periods and identify what they have in common, as well as signalling important turning points or developments in the literature.

If the literature covers various different topics, you can organize it thematically .

That means that each paragraph or section focuses on a specific theme and explains how that theme is approached in the literature.

Source Used with Permission: The Chicago School

If you’re drawing on literature from various different fields or they use a wide variety of research methods, you can organize your sources methodologically .

That means grouping together studies based on the type of research they did and discussing the findings that emerged from each method.

If your topic involves a debate between different schools of thought, you can organize it theoretically .

That means comparing the different theories that have been developed and grouping together papers based on the position or perspective they take on the topic, as well as evaluating which arguments are most convincing.

Step 3: Write paragraphs with topic sentences

What sets a synthesis apart from a summary is that it combines various sources. The easiest way to think about this is that each paragraph should discuss a few different sources, and you should be able to condense the overall point of the paragraph into one sentence.

This is called a topic sentence , and it usually appears at the start of the paragraph. The topic sentence signals what the whole paragraph is about; every sentence in the paragraph should be clearly related to it.

A topic sentence can be a simple summary of the paragraph’s content:

“Early research on [x] focused heavily on [y].”

For an effective synthesis, you can use topic sentences to link back to the previous paragraph, highlighting a point of debate or critique:

“Several scholars have pointed out the flaws in this approach.” “While recent research has attempted to address the problem, many of these studies have methodological flaws that limit their validity.”

By using topic sentences, you can ensure that your paragraphs are coherent and clearly show the connections between the articles you are discussing.

As you write your paragraphs, avoid quoting directly from sources: use your own words to explain the commonalities and differences that you found in the literature.

Don’t try to cover every single point from every single source – the key to synthesizing is to extract the most important and relevant information and combine it to give your reader an overall picture of the state of knowledge on your topic.

Step 4: Revise, edit and proofread

Like any other piece of academic writing, synthesizing literature doesn’t happen all in one go – it involves redrafting, revising, editing and proofreading your work.

Checklist for Synthesis

•   Do I introduce the paragraph with a clear, focused topic sentence?
•   Do I discuss more than one source in the paragraph?
•   Do I mention only the most relevant findings, rather than describing every part of the studies?
•   Do I discuss the similarities or differences between the sources, rather than summarizing each source in turn?
•   Do I put the findings or arguments of the sources in my own words?
•   Is the paragraph organized around a single idea?
•   Is the paragraph directly relevant to my research question or topic?
•   Is there a logical transition from this paragraph to the next one?

Further Information

How to Synthesise: a Step-by-Step Approach

Help…I”ve Been Asked to Synthesize!

Learn how to Synthesise (combine information from sources)

How to write a Psychology Essay

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Using Evidence: Synthesis

Synthesis video playlist.

Note that these videos were created while APA 6 was the style guide edition in use. There may be some examples of writing that have not been updated to APA 7 guidelines.

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 interpretations of other evidence or arguments. You can also think of synthesis as an extension of—or a more complicated form of—analysis. One main difference is that synthesis involves multiple sources, while analysis often focuses on one source.

Conceptually, it can be helpful to think about synthesis existing at both the local (or paragraph) level and the global (or 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.

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. A literature review , which can either stand alone or be a section/chapter within a capstone, is a common example of a place where global synthesis is necessary. However, in almost all academic writing, global synthesis is created by and sometimes referred to as good cohesion and flow.

Synthesis in Literature Reviews

While any types of scholarly writing can include synthesis, it is most often discussed in the context of literature reviews. Visit our literature review pages for more information about synthesis in literature reviews.

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

• Previous Page: Analysis
• Next Page: Citing Sources Properly
• 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
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

5 Fantastic Strategies for Synthesizing

by Erin | Nov 7, 2019 | Reading , Strategies

In order for a reader to be able to read and understand a text there is a great deal of work that they must do in their head. As shared in The Importance of Strategies , readers use a variety of strategic actions and strategies to process what they are reading.  Synthesizing is one of twelve strategic action we will explore in this Strategic Action Series . 

This post may contain affiliate links that earn me a small commission, at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products I personally use and love, or think my readers will find useful. Visit my disclosure statement for more information. 

Strategies Change Over Time

When young children begin reading, they may use very simple strategies like memorizing or remembering the words in a story and reciting them as they see the pictures. As they learn more about letters, words, and books, they will begin using strategies like:

• Pausing when something doesn’t make sense (self-monitoring)
• Looking at the picture, thinking about the sentence, and looking at the first letters to make sure what they have read “looks right,” “sounds right,” and “makes sense.” (cross-checking sources of information)
• Reread a word to read it correctly when they misread the word the first time. (self-correcting)

As young readers have more and more time to read and experience books, they develop their ability to use more sophisticated strategic actions as they read.

IMPORTANT REMINDER

It is important to note that readers use strategic actions simultaneously. Unfortunately, many children view them as separate actions or even as their goal of their reading. This may be the case if you’ve ever heard your child say, “This week I am inferring.”   This happens when strategies are talked about in isolation or if your child does most of their strategy work with worksheets. Even though we may attempt to strengthen a strategic action by talking about it in isolation, it is always important to remind your child that they use many strategic actions and strategies to understand what we are reading.

Here is an example shared by Fountas and Pinnell in Guided Reading (2e) 

• A child who is automatically solving words and monitoring his comprehension might realize it and pause to reread or search for more information. He might also search his background knowledge, make connections, and, by comparing present knowledge to new learning, synthesize new ideas

Even though these actions are listed in a sequence, many take place simultaneously. Our brains can work so quickly and can do such much.

Now let’s take a look at Synthesizing, a strategic action identified by Fountas and Pinnell ( Literacy Continuum , Expanded Edition, 2017).

Recent Posts

• 10 Awesome Autumn Activities and 30 Books to Match
• 5 Outstanding Ways Grandparents can Engage with their Grandkids
• 8 Ways to Celebrate Read a Book Day
• 5 Reliable Routines for Families
• Best Early Chapter Books to Hook Readers
• September 2020
• August 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• August 2019
• February 2019
• January 2019
• November 2018
• October 2018
• February 2018
• January 2018
• December 2017
• November 2017
• Adolescent Readers
• Early Reading
• High Frequency Words
• Phonemic Awareness
• Spelling Strategies
• Uncategorized
• Word Study and Spelling
• Young writers

• Skip to main content

Get 15% Off Your First Purchase with Coupon Code SJT15off!

Susan Jones Teaching

Teaching Resources

Synthesizing Activities for First and Second Grade

Susan Jones June 7, 2019 4 Comments

This post may contain affiliate ads at no cost to you. See my disclosures for more information.

When we teach students to synthesize, we let them know that they are combining what they already know with new information they learn from the text. As we do this, our thinking changes and grows! It’s important to teach students not to just repeat back what they’re learning. Instead, we want our students to realize that they’re actually processing the new information through synthesis.

I wanted to share a few activities, book recommendations and ideas to help students practice synthesizing in first and second grade.

LOOKING THROUGH BINOCULARS:

When first teaching students about synthesizing, I really emphasize that we base our thoughts off what we know at the time. As we learn more information and gain more personal experiences in life, our thinking grows and changes.

This introductory activity relates to the binoculars metaphor and has students thinking about what they see in each photo.

We start with a zoomed in portion of the photo and share what we think the photo is. What is the subject here? What is happening in this photo? Why do you think that? Then, I let students know this was only a small portion of the bigger picture. So we take a step back and ask ourselves: What do we think is going on in the photo now? Has our thinking changed at all since the last picture? Why or why not? Lastly, we repeat those questions with the third and final photo. What new perspective have we gained by learning more information and seeing more of the big picture?

STICKY NOTE SYNTHESIZING:

Debbie Miller describes synthesis as ripples made by throwing a rock in a pond. The first circle is our initial thinking. As we read and learn more information, our thinking expands and grows bigger, like the ripples in a pond. Using this model, I like to model synthesizing a text using this type of interactive anchor chart. I simply stop throughout different portions of the text and write down my thoughts (and subsequent changing thoughts) on a sticky notes and model putting them in different areas of the ripple pond (or bullseye model). The innermost circle is reserved for my initial thoughts/predictions based on the beginning of the book. Throughout the middle of the story, I will stop and add more of my thoughts as they change or as I gain new information. At the end of the story I will clarify anything I’ve learned add that newly gained information to the last ring.

If you’re looking for some great books for synthesizing here are a few of my favorites (affiliate links):

STOP & SYNTHESIZE:

When I practice synthesizing with my students, I really let them know that this is when we are putting everything we’ve learned together. We are making inferences, we are using our schema, visualizing, etc. to gain a better understanding of what is happening in our stories. As we continue to read and use our skills, we synthesize and make sense of the story. Our thoughts change as we read more.

You can use any of the books I previously mentioned, but I also wrote 4 short stories with stopping points for students to stop and synthesize what they’ve learned so far:

All of these passages, activities, and recording sheets  (and much more)  are included in my  Comprehension Strategies that Stick  unit below:

Pin to remember:

You may also enjoy these posts...

Reader Interactions

July 1, 2019 at 2:57 am

I love this activity and will use this with my first graders this year. Love your blog! Thank you so much for your ideas!

September 23, 2019 at 10:42 pm

love your stuff

November 15, 2020 at 7:06 pm

January 23, 2022 at 9:54 pm

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Free CVC Word Mapping Mats

Sign up for my free email newsletter and receive these free CVC Word Mapping Mats to help with your next lesson plan!

Check out these popular reading resources!

We have loads of great reading resources over in the shop. Here are just a few I pulled together for you!

Blending Cards for a Phonics Blending Drill

Decodable Phonics Comprehension Passages (BUNDLE) | DIGITAL & PRINTABLE

Decodable Sentences: literacy intervention pages

Phonics Games for 1st Grade: Print, Play, LEARN!

Hello friends.

Welcome to Susan Jones Teaching. When it comes to the primary grades, learning *All Things* in the K-2 world has been my passion for many years! I just finished my M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction and love sharing all the latest and greatest strategies I learn with you through this blog and my YouTube channel! I hope you'll enjoy learning along with me :)

More About Me

Introduction to the special issue on synthesis tasks: where reading and writing meet

• Published: 13 December 2022
• Volume 36 , pages 747–768, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Nina Vandermeulen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6731-7470 1 , 2 ,
• Elke Van Steendam 3 &
• Gert Rijlaarsdam 4 , 5  

4025 Accesses

6 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Synthesis writing is a type of source-based writing that requires writers to synthesize the information from different sources into a new and meaningful text. A synthesis task is a cognitively demanding, so-called hybrid task (Spivey & King, 1989 ) as it involves both reading and writing activities that alternate throughout the process. When carrying out such tasks, students must switch between two ‘roles’: that of a reader who wants to understand the source contents and that of a writer, who wants their text to be understood. Given that a synthesis text is based on sources, the students have to read and understand the sources. They have to identify and select the relevant information. Moreover, they have to compare and contrast information units in the sources in order to cluster information within and between sources, to generate overarching labels for such clusters, and to detect complementary and/ or contradictory information within and between these clusters. Apart from these source-related comprehension-driven activities, students have to write a reliable text that can be read independently from the sources. During this process, reading activities are interspersed with writing activities, varying from making notes in the source materials, to drafting schemes and text production. At the same time, writing activities are interspersed with reading activities to generate additional meaning which must be coherently matched via abstracting activities into the text-written-so-far. Moreover, authors will regularly check the meaning of the text-so-far, against the source materials. This whole reading-writing process is guided by the goal to understand the information available coherently, and to produce a text that is understood by readers who did not have access to the sources.

Synthesis writing is a common activity in both upper-secondary and higher education (Raedts et al., 2017 ; Van Ockenburg et al., 2019 ), as the act of synthesizing is the highest cognitive operation for comprehension, useful in academic and workplace contexts (Leijten et al., 2014 ). Producing synthesis texts is considered to be an important learning task in education because of its epistemic value. Synthesis tasks have a high learning potential as the reading, rereading, integration, organization and elaboration of different source texts calls for knowledge transformation (Solé et al., 2013 ; Spivey & King, 1989 ). Independently of the field of study, all students will write multiple types of synthesis texts during their academic career. Students find it challenging, which is not surprising given the cognitively demanding nature of the task (Martínez et al., 2015 ; Mateos et al., 2008 ; Solé et al., 2013 ).

With this special issue in Reading and Writing , we aimed to bring together studies on the reading-writing connection in synthesis writing. When launching the call, we expressed our interest in studies that addressed one of the following topics:

Reading and/ or writing processes of synthesis tasks Previous research with a strong focus on the synthesis writing process is rather scarce. In studies by Martínez et al. ( 2015 ) and Mateos and Solé ( 2009 ), analysis of video recordings showed that higher-grade and thus more experienced students tend to adopt a less linear approach than less-experienced students. This amounted to a more recursive process in which reading and writing activities alternate throughout the process. Leijten et al. ( 2019 ), Vandermeulen, van den Broek et al. ( 2020c ), and Chau et al., ( 2022 ) used keystroke logging to map the use of sources during the writing process, and related the source use to the text's quality. Recent reading process studies have focused on various aspects of the reading process of source-based tasks, such as strategic processing of sources (Latini et al., 2020 ), sourcing and evaluating the credibility of online sources (Kiili et al., 2021 ; Salmerón et al., 2018 ), and information selection (Cameron et al., 2017 ).

Effects of task and learner variables in synthesis writing Current research on source-based writing involves a variety of synthesis tasks. Tasks vary, for example, in communicative goal, and source texts differ in difficulty, topic, number of sources and complementary character of the sources (Barzilai et al., 2018 ; Vandermeulen, De Maeyer, et al., 2020a ). Additionally, several learner characteristics might play a role in the processing of source-based tasks (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Tarchi et al., 2022 ). It is therefore worthwhile to explore the effect of task (e.g., task goal, perceived difficulty) and learner variables (e.g., topic interest, prior knowledge, need for cognition) on several outcome measures such as the writing or reading process, the final written product, knowledge gain, or text comprehension.

Intervention studies aiming to improve students' synthesizing performance Several studies have tested intervention programs to improve students' performance on source-based tasks (Van Ockenburg et al., 2019 ). Some of these studies presented extensive intervention programs within the writing-to-learn view, including a mix of strategy instruction, video modeling, collaborative practice and written strategy guides (Granado Peinado et al., 2019 ; Martínez et al., 2015 ). Other intervention treatments were designed from a learning-to-write paradigm, including analysis and discussion of good and poor synthesis texts (Boscolo et al., 2007 ), and feedback based on keystroke logging (Vandermeulen et al., 2022 ). More research on instruction and feedback aiming to support students' synthesizing skills is very much needed, also from a learning-to-write perspective.

In response to the call, we received 22 abstracts. We invited seventeen of them for full submissions and received fourteen manuscripts to review. All papers were reviewed by three reviewers. We are particularly grateful to them for their help, and their continued dedication and engagement to provide opinions to some contributions two or three times. We are also very grateful to the authors, for moving their contributions forward based on those comments. After these rounds of review and revision, ten manuscripts were accepted for publication in this special issue on "Synthesis tasks: Where reading and writing meet".

Overview of the studies in this issue

This special issue has four parts: (1) mapping the terrain of synthesis research, (2) process studies, (3) intervention studies, and (4) automatic assessment of synthesis texts. Each part contains one or several studies. In what follows, we give an overview of all the contributions to this special issue.

Mapping the terrain of synthesis research

The special issue opens with a review by Nancy Nelson and James King ( 2022 ), Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. They provide us with their map of the terrain of research in synthesis composition and embed their review in a historical account. The review focuses on the process of 'construction meaning from texts for texts', which requires three operations: organizing, selecting and connecting. These operations are the focus around which Nelson and King review three themes in synthesis writing. First, they analyze the role of task features, especially genres and textual functions, in these operations. They show how writers must adapt these key operations to the context of the task. Second, the authors discuss methodologies to trace these operations in processes, via text-based and process-based methods. The third perspective deals with instructional approaches, homing in on the most difficult operation – connecting or integrating – which seems to be best instructed explicitly via modeling. This holds for connecting selected content –the cognitive operation – but also for the transformative reuse of language, the way authors articulate content from other texts, using the words the sources provide them with, and adding their own content.

Process Studies

Three studies in this special issue investigate reading and writing processes of synthesis texts, sometimes in combination with different task types and learner groups. The studies deal with secondary school students (Barzilai et al., 2021 ) and university students (Castells et al., 2022 ; Valenzuela & Castillo, 2022 ). Barzilai et al. ( 2021 ) and Castells et al. ( 2022 ) start from a writing-to-learn perspective, that is, they investigate how writing can support content learning (from sources) or reading comprehension of source texts. The main focus in both studies is the reading process and its relation to writing and vice versa. In Castells et al. writing is a learning activity rather than a final product as in Barzilai et al. The study of Valenzuela and Castillo then focuses on the writing process, more specifically pausing, and investigates if pausing behavior is altered as a result of source modality (i.e., digital or print) and communicative purpose (inform vs persuade).

Barzilai et al. ( 2021 ) explored the use of a document mapping tool that supports students in constructing visual representations of multiple documents while writing a synthesis text. The study focuses on argumentative synthesis writing drawing on sources presenting different positions on a controversial issue. The work is situated within the field of the Documents Model Framework and the MD-TRACE model (i.e., the multiple-document task-based relevance assessment and content extraction model, Rouet & Britt, 2011 ). The tool scaffolds students to critically evaluate the relevance and trustworthiness of the sources, and to form an integrated representation of the sources. In addition, the document mapping tool aids students in the visualization of claims and content from the sources and intertextual connections, in this way creating visual representations of multiple documents (so-called document models).

The authors examined both the maps students came up with (i.e., products ) and students’ mapping processes to get an insight into how they used the digital mapping tool to construct multiple document models. Additionally, the study aimed to understand how document mapping supports argumentative source-based writing. Finally, students’ perceptions on the purpose of document mapping were explored.

To meet these research objectives, the researchers had 40 ninth-grade students from a junior high school in Israel participate in four sessions, consisting of a pre-test, two sessions in which they wrote an argumentative source-based text using the document mapping scaffold, and a post-test. A rich variety of data was collected: document maps, essays, screen recordings with cued retrospective recalls, and retrospective interviews.

The coding of the maps was based on the taxonomy proposed by Britt et al. ( 1999 ). Analysis showed that most students created models that included multiple claims, sources, and intertextual connections, and about half of the students constructed full document models (i.e., models that included both content and source integration). Based on the findings, the authors propose an expansion of the current multiple document typology, suggesting that students’ multiple document representations may be more diverse than previously thought.

An exploration of the mapping processes provided the researchers with insights into the diverse processes students engage in to construct their document maps. The findings confirm the importance of recursive processes . Rereading and transitions between reading and mapping processes led to more elaborate and well-integrated maps. In addition, analysis of the mapping processes showed that the document mapping tool supported students in evaluating source trustworthiness and relevance.

When relating the document maps to the argumentative writing quality, the study showed that students who invested more time in creating the map wrote higher quality essays. Moreover, more elaborate and two-sided (i.e., representing the two contrasting positions on the topic) maps were positively associated with essays with a higher level of integration. Students who engaged in a more recursive process , and who devoted more time to observing their map while writing, wrote essays that included and cited more documents.

Regarding students’ perceptions, results showed that they acknowledged document mapping as a tool for selecting and connecting sources, and recognized that it supports understanding and writing.

The primary research objective of Castells et al. ( 2022 ) is to study the surplus value of writing, in the form of a synthesis task, for reading comprehension. One could also consider it a goal-setting (writing) study into the impact of a writing goal on reading comprehension. Additionally, the authors investigate students’ reading processes while reading on paper and on screen (modality effect).

The authors investigated if graduate psychology students’ inferential reading comprehension of multiple sources is enhanced when reading is combined with a writing activity. In line with the functional view on reading—writing (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2020 ) and prior research, (having to) select relevant information from different sources, comparing that information, integrating it in a coherent way in a synthesis text can be expected to lead to (more reflection and) a deeper understanding of the source texts (cf. Moran & Billen, 2014 ; Nelson & King, 2022 as cited by the authors). To empirically verify this hypothesis, Castells et al. set up an experiment in which 155 psychology graduates read three source texts after which their inferential reading comprehension was measured. Students were randomly assigned to four different conditions differing in the presence of a follow-up writing task (yes/no) and in reading medium (reading on paper vs. reading on screen).

In order to acquire an insight into the strategies students use while reading and reading-to-write, the authors had students in the reading on screen conditions read and answer questions in the Read & Answer software. The Read & Answer software presents and segments source texts and inferential comprehension questions in (two) different screens. It registers the number of switches between the screens (i.e., sources and questions) but also within the same screen (i.e. between sources), the specific segment of the text or question a reader is dealing with and the time they spend in a specific segment. Additionally, it logs the time spent on a specific action and the sequence in which actions are performed. The software allowed the researchers to study rereading strategies. Additionally, the researchers studied note-taking strategies.

Results show that, contrary to expectations, students in the reading-and-writing conditions did not outperform students in the reading-only conditions on inferential reading comprehension. Put differently, embedding a (multiple) source comprehension task in a writing task does not seem to affect source comprehension. However, texts which were rated as better in terms of textual organization, and accuracy and relevance of selected ideas were related to a higher inferential reading comprehension.

No statistically significant modality/medium effect was found neither for reading comprehension nor for text quality. Students in the (sources-on-) screen condition and students with (sources-on-) paper & pen did not perform differently on reading comprehension nor did the texts students produced in the reading-and-writing conditions significantly differ in quality between the paper-and-pen and screen medium.

One of the few significant findings with regard to strategy use showed that compared to students in the reading-only condition, students in the reading-and-writing conditions took notes. Taking notes, however, was also related to lower-quality texts in terms of organization and copying from the source texts. Hence, note-taking, when done, served mainly to copy source information.

Valenzuela and Castillo ( 2022 ) studied pausing behavior during source-based writing processes. The study had a 2*2 factorial design. The goal was to identify the effect of reading medium (print or digital) and of the tasks’ communicative purpose (to inform or to persuade) on pausing during three phases of the writing process (beginning, middle and end). To investigate whether certain effects were dependent on the writers’ task performance (measured as text quality), a mixed model analysis was carried out.

Participants were 66 first-year university students. They were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions (factorial design: print vs digital sources, to inform vs to persuade). Keystroke logging was used to gather information on several pausing measures such as the frequency and average duration of pauses, and the frequency of different types of pauses (such as within- and between-word pauses, and pauses before and after sentences). Assessment of the produced texts took into account textual elements (organization of ideas and cohesive resources), language conventions (register and tone), and the degree to which the text fulfilled the communicative purpose.

No effects of reading medium nor task purpose were found on pausing frequency, duration, or pause type in none of the three writing phases. Pausing frequency varied according to the writing process phase (i.e., more pauses at the end of the process than at the beginning). Moreover, for pausing duration, an interaction effect between the task purpose and the writing phase was observed. Namely, at the end phase of the process, the pauses were significantly longer for the persuasive task compared to the informative task. Several interaction effects between pause type, writing phase, and communicative purpose were found. These interaction effects were related to writing performance.

Intervention studies

Besides the process studies and the studies on task and learner characteristics, this special issue also includes five papers that report on intervention studies to promote synthesis writing. Two intervention studies were aimed at university students. Granado Peinado et al. ( 2022 ) focused on university students who underperformed on source integration, and Luna et al. ( 2022 ) targeted university students in an online distance learning course. The studies by Casado Ledesma et al. ( 2021 ), Van Ockenburg et al. ( 2021 ), and Konstantinidou et al. ( 2022 ) studied participants from secondary education. Konstantinidou et al. ‘s ( 2022 ) intervention specifically focused on students in vocational secondary education. The intervention programmes presented in the various studies are diverse: explicit instruction with video modeling on writing and collaboration in pairs (Granado Peinado et al., 2022 ), a product versus a process approach (Luna et al., 2022 ), instruction and deliberative dialogues (Casado Ledesma et al. 2021 ), individual learning paths within instruction (Van Ockenburg et al., 2021 ), and scenario-based reading and writing education (Konstantinidou et al., 2022 ).

Granado Peinado et al. ( 2022 ) positioned their study in academic literacy, and addressed a specific group of students, third-year university psychology students who (individually) scored relatively low on integration of information from multiple contrasting sources. These students were randomly paired during an intervention. Pairs were then randomly assigned to one of four conditions. In all conditions students worked in pairs. In the baseline group students worked in pairs without any additional scaffolding materials and/or instruction; in the other three conditions pairs worked with a strategy guide including worksheets. Two of these conditions got explicit instruction, one on synthesis writing only, and one additionally about collaboratively writing a synthesis. The strategy taught consisted of six steps: detailing/supporting, identifying and contrasting arguments from the source text(s), constructing an integrated conclusion, and planning, writing and revising the text. All texts, pretests, two intervention texts (practice sessions cf. infra) and posttests were written in pairs.

The authors studied the effects of the learning conditions on two variables; the identification of relevant arguments (argumentative coverage), and the (level of) integration of arguments in a new text. Results showed an effect for explicit modeling of the synthesis writing process for both dependent variables. For level of integration the condition with additional explicit modeling of collaboration outperformed the condition with modeling synthesis writing only.

Exploratively, the authors tested the contribution of each of the instruction components—type of instruction and the two practice sessions on the posttest scores—for both dependent variables separately. These explorations confirmed an earlier finding of Mateos et al. ( 2020 ), now in the context of collaborative pair activities. Explicit strategy instruction via modeling is needed to improve the integration of contrasting information in the texts in the collaborative practice sessions. For argument coverage this condition effect only affects the first practice session texts.

Luna et al. ( 2022 ) studied the effects of two learning conditions on the degree of integration of argumentative syntheses in distance learning. It is a relatively short invention targeted at part-time students. Participants were undergraduate Education and Psychology students with an average age of about 34 years. The two conditions were constructed according to Merrill's First Principles of instructional design (Merrill, 2002 ). One condition focused on the final product, a synthesis text, the other one on the process of reading and contrasting source materials and writing a synthesis text. These learning units were delivered via Moodle. The process condition outperformed the product condition. An exploratory analysis of responses on an intermediate task in the process conditions did not show a significant correlation between these responses and the level of integration in the pre- or posttest synthesis text.

Casado Ledesma et al. ( 2021 ) situated their study in scientific literacy, aiming at epistemological depth and science communication. Dialogic activities via both group discussion and writing argumentative synthesis texts had to simulate the integration of existing and new knowledge and the incorporation of multiple perspectives on a scientific issue. In a 2*2 factorial quasi-experimental design, participants (aged 14–15) in intact classes were assigned to four conditions: using a strategy guide with worksheets (yes/no) and explicit instruction with modeling (yes/no). The strategy that was trained contained seven steps for identifying relevant arguments from contrastive sources, comparing these arguments, constructing an integrative conclusion, writing up and revising the test. The strategy guide supported some of these steps with graphic organizers and set tasks via questions for several of the strategy steps. Students worked in small groups for discussions, and composed a synthesis text together in two rounds, based on two contrastive sources. One condition worked without a guide and without explicit instruction, one worked with a guide, one with explicit instruction with modeling, and one with a guide and explicit instruction with modeling. The modeling component in the latter two conditions varied according to the use of the guide. When no guide was used, the synthesis process was modeled; when a guide was used, the modeling component showed the collaborative work of using the guide, which then incorporated the synthesis writing process.

To increase the generalizability of the study, the same two topics were included in both pre-and posttests, in a balanced design. Effects were measured with writing a synthesis text and a content knowledge test, which required a written response to an open question ('What do you know about ….').

None of the four conditions outperformed one another, neither for the integration score of synthesis texts nor for the content knowledge test. Students in all conditions significantly improved their performance on both synthesis text and knowledge test after the intervention. An exploratory analysis did show that the role of source integration scores on content learning varied. Compared with the baseline condition, the effect of condition on content knowledge via integration was only significant in the condition with the explicit instruction with modeling component. This finding is in line with Granado Peinado et al. ( 2022 ), and Mateos et al. ( 2020 ): learning to integrate is best achieved via modeling. New in Casado-Ledesma et al.’s ( 2021 ) study is that the level of integration related to an open content measure.

Van Ockenburg et al. ( 2021 ) reported two intervention studies on synthesis writing in the 9th Grade. For these students it was the first time that they were formally instructed about writing a synthesis text based on sources that contained additive information. The intervention was based on the results of a review study (Van Ockenburg et al., 2019 ), and dealt with three key subskills in synthesizing: selecting, organizing and connecting information. In both studies the researchers implemented a switching panel design, allowing them to replicate findings in the second panel (Van Steendam, 2017 ). In both studies, modeling the three subskills was a key element in the instruction. Two different peer models on video were available: one who invested significant effort in selecting and organizing the source information ('pre-planner'), another who read, wrote a draft, and then revised ('post-draft revisor'). Participants could choose the model they wanted to observe. In both studies the intervention was effective, compared with the control condition that followed the regular language curriculum, with reading, writing and other activities. In the first study students who scored higher on the routine ‘pre-planning’, as measured before the intervention, profited more from the intervention. To avoid such an effect, in the second study a lesson was inserted to encourage students to reflect on their writing routine questionnaire scores and to set themselves goals for the learning unit. In the second study, the experimental effect generalized across the writing routines.

Konstantinidou et al. ( 2022 ) report a totally different study compared to the other writing intervention studies in this issue. They studied the effect of a scenario-based reading-writing intervention in vocational education. In this area of education, many students experience difficulties both reading and writing, which may affect their professional careers. To accommodate this specific group of learners, scenario-based education was introduced (in language lessons), to simulate real- or work-life situations. Reading was operationalized as functional reading which in most instances involved reading to act . This means that students were expected to select the information from the text that they needed to solve a problem at hand and to communicate about the problem. They thus had to transform what they read to meet a communicative goal; they wrote for a reason, selecting those sections of the source text to reach their communicative, functional goal. In a quasi-experimental design, the effects of the scenario-based reading-writing program of 12–14 sessions was compared with the regular curricular program. The experimental program consisted of three consecutive scenarios, each following the same phases, from presenting the functional context (scenario), planning actions, reading sources, to drafting, peer-feedback and revising. An effect of the experimental program was observed for writing, but not for reading. Students in the weakest strand of vocational education benefited most from the intervention.

Automatic assessment with NLP

The issue closes with a study on the automatic assessment of synthesis texts. Crossley et al. ( 2021 ) introduce the use of natural language processing techniques to assess source integration in synthesis writing. If automatic text scoring via NLP predicts human assessments of these texts, new venues for research are open. NLP is a product-focused technique that can identify the amount of information from a source text integrated into the essay, how the information is integrated, varying from quoting, paraphrasing to summarizing, and the accuracy of integration.

The NLP-measures the study discerned covered source use and inferencing, semantic overlap and semantic similarity between the essay and the sources. The authors tested this on a sample of 909 argumentative source-based essays written by participants from different populations, ranging from college undergraduates to military recruits and adults crowd-sourced from Mechanical Turk. Each participant wrote a single essay on one of four topics. The essays were holistically rated by two human raters on source use and inferencing.

Results showed that several indices of good source use and inferencing explained 47% of the variance in the human ratings. Importantly, it is not just the presence of citations that reflects good source use and inferencing: good texts have more sources later in the text, cite a greater number of sources, which should be spaced throughout the text. Results showed that the stronger essays showed more semantic overlap. At the same time, this overlap was not induced by copying text from the sources: less copying, and less long strings of copied words were associated with better texts. The NLP-scores predicted 52% of the holistic human ratings.

Following the overview of all the contributions to this special issue, we provide a discussion of some recurrent themes and issues in these studies that are important to current and future studies on synthesis writing tasks. We start with a discussion on the study of reading and writing processes within synthesis studies, followed by a discussion on intervention studies. Thirdly, we point to the technology-related developments within source-based writing research. We conclude by reflecting on key characteristics of synthesis tasks.

Process studies

From the studies in this issue into synthesis reading and writing processes, emerge several elements that are of importance for future studies. The process of source-based writing involves both reading and writing processes. The complexity of synthesis writing does not call for a simple “reading-then-writing” strategy. Rather, it is marked by recursivity as it involves a complex interplay of reading and writing sub-processes. Not only recursivity in itself, but also its timing is important. Studies such as the one by Breetvelt et al. ( 1994 ) showed the importance of temporal dimension during the writing process. Moreover, the patterns of interaction between reading and writing processes will be co-determined by characteristics of the task (purpose, genre), the reader/ writer (reading ability, writing ability), and interaction between the task and the reader/ writer (interest in the topic, prior knowledge, difficulty of the sources). Studies in this special issue offer some insight into this complex model.

Recursivity

Previous studies have looked into the use of sources during the writing process and its relation to text quality, and found that recursivity is crucial (Martínez et al., 2015 ; Mateos & Solé, 2009 ; Solé et al., 2013 ). A recursive process implies that the writer adopts a non-sequential or non-linear approach. Instead of a simple sequence of reading and then writing, the process is marked by a sequence of recurring and alternating reading and writing. Thus, in a recursive process, the reading and writing activities occur repeatedly throughout the process. Source-based writing is characterized by an interaction between reading and writing activities. Reading entails writing and vice versa. For example, while reading sources, the writer writes down notes, and while producing text, the writer goes back to the sources to look for information to include in the text. Martínez et al. ( 2015 ), Mateos and Solé ( 2009 ), and Solé et al. ( 2013 ) found a positive correlation between the quality of a synthesis text and the amount of recursion during the process in audio–video recordings of students’ synthesis processes. Also Vandermeulen, van den Broek et al. ( 2020c ) showed the importance of alternations between on the one hand the various sources, and on the other hand, the sources and the text in production. These findings seem in accordance with the very nature of the synthesis task, which involves sub-processes such as comparing and contrasting the information from the different sources, linking the sources to one another and integrating the information in a new independent text. In order to successfully accomplish these goals, the writing process should be marked by recursion.

In this special issue, the importance of recursivity is discussed at length by Nelson and King ( 2022 ). Recursivity is also very much present in both the studies by Barzilai et al. ( 2021 ) and Castells et al. ( 2022 ). The document mapping tool presented by Barzilai et al. ( 2021 ) actually scaffolds recursive reading and writing behavior as it supports students in connecting the sources and in integrating source content into their own text. The findings of this study confirmed the importance of recursive processes . Rereading and switching between reading and writing processes resulted in more elaborate and well-integrated maps, which in turn resulted in synthesis texts with a higher level of integration. In formulating their aims and hypotheses of the study, Castells et al. acknowledged the importance of recursivity. The Read & Answer software was used to explore students’ rereading activities and additionally, students’ note-taking was studied. The authors expected the students in the reading-and-writing condition to engage in more recursive processes than those in the reading-only condition, which would benefit comprehension performance. These hypotheses were, however, not confirmed. Despite this, this study contributes to the understanding of activities related to recursivity such as rereading during writing and note-taking during reading. As the authors point out, it might not be the mere act of switching between reading and writing processes, but the strategic or goal-oriented use of them that determines its impact. This insight points to the importance of providing more support to students in activities such as note-taking.

Temporal dimension of activities during the process

The study of Valenzuela and Castillo ( 2022 ) confirms the findings of previous studies that it is important to take into account timing or different phases when studying the writing process. Breetvelt et al. ( 1994 ) and Rijlaarsdam and Van den Bergh ( 1996 ) showed that the moment at which certain actions occur and their variation across the writing process are essential when describing writing processes and their relation to the product (text quality). This is also the case for synthesis writing tasks. Vandermeulen, Van den Broek et al. ( 2020c ) for example showed that spending a considerable amount of time in the sources has a positive relation to text quality in the beginning of the writing process. At the end of the writing process, however, a focus on reading the sources had a negative impact on the quality of the text. Additionally, a high amount of recursivity between reading the sources and writing the synthesis text in the first phase of the process had a positive impact on the quality of the text. Switching between the various sources in the beginning of the process had a positive impact on the quality of informative synthesis texts. Valenzuela and Castillo confirmed the importance of the temporal distribution for pausing behavior (i.e., frequency and duration) during synthesis writing processes by showing that pausing frequency was higher at the end of the writing process than in the beginning and middle phase. This difference in pausing frequency between the process phases was associated with the writer’s competence. Once the effect of the writer’s competence was statistically controlled for, the observed differences among the writing stages were attenuated.

Task effects

Whether factors like task and learner affect source-based writing, is addressed in the studies by Castells et al. ( 2022 ) and Valenzuela and Castillo ( 2022 ).

Synthesis task genre Most of the studies within the field of synthesis writing study a specific type of synthesis task, for example argumentative writing based on conflicting sources. The question imposes itself how transferable these findings are to other types of synthesis tasks or genres. In order to generalize across different types of synthesis tasks, Vandermeulen, De Maeyer et al. ( 2020a ) for example discerned several variations of ‘the’ synthesis task differing in communicative purpose (to argue or to inform), the number of sources and their complementarity, and the information density. Vandermeulen, van den Broek et al. ( 2020c ) showed that source use behavior and its relation to text quality differed for two genres of synthesis writing, an argumentative genre and an informative text genre. For argumentative synthesis tasks, switching between sources and synthesis text turned out to be a significant predictor of a high-quality text process-initially whereas for an informative text switching between the sources at the beginning (linear relation) and at the end of the writing process (curvilinear) was a predictor of a good text. That genre differences can be discerned in the writing behavior is confirmed by Valenzuela and Castillo in this issue. In line with genre differences for source use behavior by Vandermeulen, van den Broek, et al. ( 2020c ), Valenzuela and Castillo showed that pauses were significantly longer at the end of the writing process for a persuasive task than for an informative task. This implies that findings regarding synthesis writing processes if based on a specific task (i.e., genre) may possibly not be generalized to other types or genres of synthesis writing tasks.

Embedded reading and writing tasks On the basis of findings for single-source writing tasks, Castells et al. ( 2022 ) expected that having students write a synthesis text on multiple sources would enhance their reading comprehension compared to students who did not have to write. The goal-setting of reading sources and selecting information for a writing task and integrating that information into a new text was predicted to enhance students’ reading and comprehension process. However, Castells et al. showed that readers who read sources with the intention of selecting and integrating the information from them for a writing task did not perform significantly better on a reading comprehension task than students in the reading-only condition. With regard to task effects, at first glance the experiment seems to contradict prior research showing the added value of writing for comprehension of multiple sources as opposed to a single source as the synthesis of multiple sources did not lead to significantly higher inferential reading comprehension. However, the fact that the better texts were also related to more comprehension, indirectly, does confirm the instrumental writing-reading link. Students who understand the sources better, wrote the better texts or the other way around: the better writers can spend more effort in the comprehension process and vice versa.

Source medium or modality effects Castells et al. ( 2022 ) reported no statistically significant differences in inferential reading comprehension between reading source texts on paper or on screen (i.e., medium), a result which corresponds to similar findings by Valenzuela and Castillo ( 2022 ) for pausing. No statistically significant differences were found in pausing behavior (duration, frequency) across the writing process between reading printed or digital sources (medium). These highly interesting findings show that digital synthesis texts in which sources are provided on screen can be considered valid tasks. The added value is that online reading and writing processes can be adequately captured (with keystroke logging cf. infra).

The studies reviewed show the effect of different types of tasks on specific reading and writing processes such as note-taking (Castells et al.) and pausing (Valenzuela and Castillo). A logical question following from this is if genre effects can also be detected when different reading and writing activities are combined into larger integrative patterns. We know that writing activities form series or patterns of activities which follow and activate each other and are sometimes also embedded in other patterns of activities (Van den Bergh et al., 2016 ). In a large-scale national sample on synthesis writing, Van Steendam et al. ( 2022 ) distilled four different synthesis writing constellations which also differed between genres. These writing constellations consisted of source- and production- related activities and were extracted with profile analysis. The constellations characterized by more source use were mostly found in the informative genre. In contrast to the findings by Vandermeulen, van den Broek et al. ( 2020c ) for source use behavior, the writing constellations including source behavior and production indicators did not translate to text quality, that is, whereas the constellations were genre-specific, their relation to text quality was not. This may be an indication that writing activities are compensatory, especially for stronger writers. Of the studies reviewed only Castells et al. study a combination of reading and writing activities, that is, note-taking and rereading. Much more research looking into clusters of writing and reading activities in different genres and modalities is needed.

Learner effects

Van Steendam et al. ( 2022 ) report that secondary school students’ synthesis writing constellations are affected by their topic knowledge and topic interest. From research also emerges the central role of reading and writing skills. This is confirmed by Castells et al. ( 2022 ). Their analyses showed that almost 29% of the variance in inferential reading comprehension was explained by prior knowledge via the two key text quality attributes: textual organization and accuracy of content. Readers with more prior knowledge wrote the more organized and accurate texts content wise, leading to a higher reading comprehension and understanding of source information. Put differently: For the more knowledgeable readers embedding a writing task into a reading activity is a meaningful activity to deepen source understanding and comprehension. Especially selecting and organizing information contribute to a learning effect. As the authors also found that students who understood the sources better, also wrote the better texts, future research could include students’ writing and reading ability to explain effects of variation in tasks and of interventions.

In a reflection on the intervention studies presented in this special issue, we would like to discuss some issues regarding the instructional programs that were implemented and the methodologies that were used.

Strategy instruction

All five interventions implemented a form of strategy instruction. In most cases, studies report direct instruction as effective, with a modeling component, via videos by instructors or peers. A strategy is a series of actions that reduces the complexity of the task at hand, mostly presented as 'steps'. From the descriptions of the steps in the studies, two observations emerge. First, all strategies work from reading to writing, with the integration of information as the transition point between the analytical reading phase and the comprehensive writing phase. Reading in synthesis text instruction is taught in the first place as identifying arguments in texts (Casado Ledesma et al., 2021 ; Granado Peinado et al., 2022 ; Luna et al., 2022 ; Van Ockenburg et al., 2021 ), or as selecting relevant information for a pragmatic writing task (Konstantinidou et al., 2022 ). It is not seen as an act of comprehension, as meaning-making, as relating new information to the existing knowledge base. In this respect, the training programs do not match current comprehension models (Van den Broek & Helder, 2017 ). Second, the strategy steps are presented as a linear pattern: first the reading steps, and then, via integration, the writing steps. The role of writing during reading , and the role of reading during writing , does not seem to be explicitly included in the strategy steps. The continuous switch between reading and writing throughout the integration process, the switching roles between authoring a text and understanding other texts are not addressed (see Martinez et al., 2015 , for these switching roles). From process studies, however, we know that different patterns of attention for comprehending sources exist, and that various patterns can result in integrative texts. These patterns even vary within writers, due to factors such as topic interest and topic knowledge (Van Steendam et al., 2022 ). Such variation calls for inclusion of metacognitive awareness or conditional knowledge about factors that influence the optimal strategy for specific tasks, instead of presenting a fixed strategy for all.

Barzilai et al.'s ( 2021 ), data on the use of the scaffold mapping instrument illustrates this recursiveness: transitions between reading and mapping processes were related to better maps, and better maps led to better synthesis texts. It could be interpreted as recursive task behavior signals a more thorough process, with deeper understanding (quality of source information mapping) and better texts as a result. This raises the question how source mapping and more investment timewise could be triggered. Such a trigger could be a ‘standard of coherence’ (Van den Broek & Helder, 2017 ), which in turn could induce motivation and effort.

Methodology

From a methodological point of view, a number of observations can be made which are informative for instructional design and learning and teaching activities.

Role of pretest activity The studies of Luna et al. ( 2022 ) and Van Ockenburg et al. ( 2021 ) built on the experience of the pretest synthesis task for (subsequent) task representation activities in the learning program. From an instructional perspective, this seems a logical decision. The instruction with new procedural knowledge about the synthesis writing process and declarative knowledge about synthesis text characteristics or criteria, can then be related to the experience of carrying out such a task during the pretest task. Such a decision matches Merrill's ( 2002 ) first Instruction principle: start the instruction sequence with the whole task. The experience can be used to deepen and reshape the initial representation of the synthesis task. Another interesting feature of the pretest task in Van Ockenburg et al.'s study is the use of a brief pre-instruction, to support the task representation of the pretest task for a sample of participants for whom the task is new, so that off-task productions are minimized.

Using intermediate activities/measures to explain the learning effects Studies by Granado Peinado et al. ( 2022 ), Luna et al. ( 2022 ) and Casado Ledesma et al. ( 2021 ) included intermediate products to explain the effects of the intervention. Granado Peinado et al. included the quality of texts written in two practice sessions between the pre- and posttest session as a factor to the analysis and confirmed for collaborative writing what Mateos et al. ( 2020 ) found for individual writing: the effect of the level of integration of texts is best explained by direct instruction with modeling, while the effect on identifying all arguments to include in the synthesis text is best explained by collaborative practice.

Casado Ledesma et al. ( 2021 ) applied another research strategy to explain the learning effects. The unique contribution in this paper is that these authors measured, next to text quality, content knowledge as an outcome. They tested for each of the four conditions – strategy guide yes/no and explicit instruction with modeling yes/no – the relations between text quality gains and content knowledge gains. Only in the condition with explicit instruction including modeling, content knowledge gain was related to the quality of integration in the synthesis text. This finding adds to the insight that explicit instruction with modeling seems to be the best choice when aiming at integration of source information.

Van Ockenburg et al. ( 2019 ) also used intermediate scores. They coded students’ written responses in which they had to explain their choices of which model they wanted to observe (a planning or a post-draft revising model). The researchers included the variable in the analyses as a moderator variable. Luna et al. ( 2022 ) selected responses to one of the subtasks to try to explain the variance in the effect of the process condition. In both studies, these additions had an explorative, post-hoc character. One of the drawbacks of such a strategy is that as a result of the learning task not having been strictly formulated, responses were not easy to analyze (Van Ockenburg et al., 2021 ), or that, because participants were free to add a response (Luna et al., 2022 ), the effort and the quality of the critical thinking process at hand cannot be fully or adequately demonstrated. Our recommendation is to include products of key learning activities in intervention studies in a structured way, not only to report fidelity of implementation of the conditions, but also to evaluate the mediation effects of these activities on the outcomes. Such a research strategy requires mediation hypotheses, and a well-developed rationale for including these learning activities in the learning unit.

Measurements The intervention studies in this issue aimed at improving comprehension of source materials and text quality. Most studies measured these two outcomes via the written text in terms of representations and integration of source information. Casado Ledesma et al. ( 2021 ) and Konstantinidou et al. ( 2022 ) included content knowledge. Castells et al. ( 2022 ), which was not an intervention study, also included reading scores and text quality scores in their study. Because of this inclusion, these studies could explore relations between effects of task variations or learning conditions, and different target outcomes. Such explorations enrich theory-building, but we would suggest that such explorations be more strongly prepared in the research questions and hypotheses.

Triangulation Different methods to tap into processes and triangulation of product and process measures can complement each other and as such provide researchers with more and richer data. In that respect, Barzilai et al. ( 2021 ) used a rich variety of measures combining product and process data (document maps, essays, screen recordings with cued retrospective recalls, and retrospective interviews).

In recent years, computational advances have introduced more and more tools into the field of writing research. In general, these tools found their way to three areas of writing research: writing processes, writing products, and writing interventions.

Observing writing processes via keystroke logging has become fairly popular and the possibilities to analyze the logging data have increased rapidly (Lindgren & Sullivan, 2009 ). Keystroke logging consists of a software that, when activated on a computer, records every keystroke and mouse click or movement. The logging data are time-coded and can be analyzed in different ways providing insights into several aspects of the writing process (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013 ). Previous studies on synthesis writing using keystroke logging have provided information on the use of sources during the writing process (Chau et al., 2022 ; Leijten et al., 2017 ; Vandermeulen, van den Broek, et al., 2020c ; Van Steendam et al., 2022 ). The study by Valenzuela and Castillo ( 2022 ) in this special issue adds to existing keystroke logging studies on source-based writing by not only looking into reading times and switches between production and reading, but also by focusing on pausing behavior during production.

Natural language processing (NLP) methodologies have advanced the field of product-oriented studies in writing. NLP tools have been developed to automatically calculate information about the linguistic and semantic properties of text and discourse. One of the most used NLP-tools in writing research are automated essay scoring systems. Various automated essay scoring tools have been developed that reach a level of accuracy in essay scoring that is as accurate as expert human raters (Allen et al., 2021 ). Crossley et al. ( 2021 ) contributed to this special issue with a study that used an NLP-approach to provide automatic assessment of source integration and citation reliability. The study’s contribution lies in the exploration of the added value of automated text analysis or automatic NLP-features for research purposes and for learning and teaching source-based texts. From a research perspective, automated indices which have been proven to predict human ratings could serve both as a first indicator, as accompanying analytic measures, as “reliability metrics” or as “a proxies for certain aspects of source-based essays”; especially in large-scale studies where the cost of having human raters score part or all of the texts on different measures may be high. From an educational perspective, students could for example vet their texts on the textual dimensions that significantly predict and contribute to overall human (i.a. teacher, instructor) ratings, prior to submitting them to their teachers or peers provided these automated measures are (rendered) transparent and user-friendly. Ideally, as a result, texts of a potentially higher quality could be submitted which could save teachers time and resources when correcting these drafts. At the very least, the automated indices could serve as an awareness tool and trigger reflection for the students. However, more research is needed, also with regard to construct-representation, before the automated measures could serve learning or feedback purposes for students and teachers alike.

Tools have not only been used to study process and product characteristics in writing, but they are also common in current writing intervention studies. Over the last decades, technological developments have led to a fast increase in tools that aim to help writers to develop their writing process and to produce better texts (Limpo et al., 2020 ). As mentioned before, the study by Crossley et al. ( 2021 ) of this special issue opens up possibilities for providing students with automatic feedback on their source integration based on NLP-features. Though not yet common within synthesis writing, providing writing support by means of NLP has been proven successful in previous intervention studies (McNamara et al., 2012 ; Zhang et al., 2019 ). Also keystroke logging has been used in a couple of studies to provide students with information on their writing process as part of feedback in an intervention study (Dux Speltz & Chukharev-Hudilainen, 2021 ; Lindgren et al., 2009 ). Some of these studies also focused on improving synthesis writing (Bowen et al., 2022 ; Vandermeulen, Leijten, et al., 2020a , 2020b , 2020c ). In the case of both NLP and keystroke logging, the tools enable automated feedback. However, as appealing as this may sound, thorough research into writing processes and products is first needed to form the basis and make it possible to generate meaningful evidence-informed feedback.

This special issue also contains a study that presents an educational tool that helps students in writing a synthesis text. Barzilai et al. ( 2021 ) presented a tool that supports students in reading and evaluating sources, and in organizing and integrating source information. With the help of the tool, students create a visual representation of multiple document models. Studies like this one, which present and test the effectiveness of tools to support students’ source-based writing are of the utmost importance. Given the complexity of synthesis writing, students need support in developing their skills. Moreover, tools like this document mapping tool, can be used by students on an individual basis, without the need for teacher intervention. This creates opportunities for, for example, large class groups (and little time for feedback or instruction), or remote learning contexts. In addition, the approach is interesting from an ecological validity and methodological perspective, as the tool provides insights into processes taking place when carrying out the activity. In this way the tool not only supports students' synthesis processes, but also provides information on how this support is shaped.

We aimed for a special issue on Where Reading and Writing meet. The current special issue offers a palette of studies in which participants perform tasks involving writing and reading. This may be the case because participants need to master a functional writing task (Konstantinidou et al., 2022 ), write something based on sources (Crossley et al., 2021 ), or, the most common task in this issue, write a synthesis text, either to demonstrate understanding of sources or to demonstrate their skill in writing (cf. other studies). Nelson and King (this issue) trace the origins of synthesis writing research to the 70 s, providing us with a rich historical account of research on synthesis writing. It is about time to reflect on the current use of the term.

The overrepresentation of synthesis texts in this special issue showcases that research in this area is flourishing. However, at the same time, the studies lay bare questions about the true nature of the task. They underline that the use of the term calls for a robust round of conceptual analysis. Texts in which participants do indeed arrive at a synthesis of information are rarely encountered: intervention research in this special issue shows that. ‘Synthesis’ can be achieved after intensive study, much reflection on and reprocessing of information and representations. The distinction between argumentative and informative "syntheses" should also be the object of that conceptual analysis. The question is whether a synthesis can be an argumentative or even a persuasive text. After all, the ultimate aim of a synthesis text should be to synthesize, or perhaps more accurately, 'objectively expound on' the arguments in an issue rather than take a position.

Gathering knowledge through texts of all kinds, and sharing that knowledge with others through various text forms are inextricably linked: understanding and being understood is at the heart of the human way of being. We believe that this inseparability should be the starting point for research and education, in which education is seen as the window to the world and the human being.

Contributions to this issue

Barzilai, S., Tal-Savir, D., Abed, F., Mor-Hagani, S., & Zohar, A. (2021). Mapping multiple documents: From constructing multiple document models to argumentative writing. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10208-8

Article   Google Scholar  

Casado Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., & Martín, E. (2021). Learning science through argumentative synthesis writing and deliberative dialogues: A comprehensive and effective methodology in secondary education. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10191-0

Castells, N., Minguela, M., & Nadal, E. (2022). Writing a synthesis versus reading: Strategies involved and impact on comprehension. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10341-y

Crossley, S., Wan, Q., Allen, L., & McNamara, D. (2021). Source inclusion in synthesis writing: An NLP approach to understanding argumentation, sourcing, and essay quality. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10221-x

Granado Peinado, M., Cuevas, I., Olmos, R., Martín, E., Casado Ledesma, L., & Mateos, M. (2022). Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: Explicit instruction and practice. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x

Konstantinidou, L., Madlener-Charpentier, K., Opacic, A., Gautschi, C., & Hoefele, J. (2022). Literacy in vocational education and training: Scenario-based reading and writing education. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10373-4

Luna, M., Villalón, R., Martínez Álvarez, I., & Mateos, M. (2022). Online interventions to help college students to improve the degree of integration of their argumentative synthesis. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10248-0

Nelson, N., & King, J. (2022). Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

Valenzuela, A., & Castillo, R. (2022). The effect of communicative purpose and reading medium on pauses during different phases of the textualization process. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10309-y

Van Ockenburg, L., van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2021). Choosing how to plan informative synthesis texts: Effects of strategy-based interventions on overall text quality. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10226-6

Allen, L. K., Creer, S. D., & Poulos, M. C. (2021). Natural language processing as a technique for conducting text-based research. Language and Linguistics Compass . https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12433

Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., Florit, E., & Mason, L. (2022). The role of individual differences in sourcing: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34 , 749–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09640-7

Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8

Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: An intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476092

Bowen, N., Thomas, N., & Vandermeulen, N. (2022). Exploring feedback and regulation in online writing classes with keystroke logging. Computers and Composition . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2022.102692

Breetvelt, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction, 12 (2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1202_2

Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar  

Cameron, C., Van Meter, P., & Long, V. A. (2017). The effects of instruction on students’ generation of self-questions when reading multiple documents. Journal of Experimental Education, 85 (2), 334–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1182884

Chau, L., Leijten, M., Bernolet, S., & Vangehuchten, L. (2022). Envisioning multilingualism in source-based writing in L1, L2, and L3: The relation between source use and text quality. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.914125

Dux Speltz, E., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2021). The effect of automated fluency-focused feedback on text production. Journal of Writing Research, 13 (2), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr[1]2021.13.02.02

Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2020). Reading and writing relationships and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5

GranadoPeinado, M., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Cuevas, I. (2019). Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education. Reading and Writing, 32 , 2037–2058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09939-6

Kiili, C., Forzani, E., Wennås Brante, E., Räikkönen, E., & Marttunen, M. (2021). Sourcing on the internet: Examining the relations among different phases of online inquiry. Computers and Education Open . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100037

Latini, N., Bråten, I., & Salmerón, L. (2020). Does reading medium affect processing and integration of textual and pictorial information? A multimedia eye-tracking study. Contemporary Educational Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101870

Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30 (3), 358–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692

Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schrijver, I., Bernolet, S., & Vangehuchten, L. (2017). Hoe schrijven masterstudenten syntheseteksten? Het brongebruik van gevorderde schrijvers in kaart gebracht [How do master’s students write synthesis texts? Mapping the source use of advanced writers]. Pedagogische Studiën , 94 (4).

Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schrijver, I., Bernolet, S., & Vangehuchten, L. (2019). Mapping master’s students’ use of external sources in source-based writing in L1 and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41 (3), 555–582. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263119000251

Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K., & Hayes, J. R. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5 (3), 285–337. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.05.03.3

Limpo, L., Nunes, A., & Coelho, A. (2020). Introduction to the special issue on “Technologybased writing instruction: A collection of effective tools.” Journal of Writing Research, 12 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.01

Lindgren, E., Sullivan, K., Deutschmann, M., & Steinvall, A. (2009). Supporting learner reflection in the language translation class. In M. Chang & C.-W. Kuo (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer enhanced language and culture learning (pp. 21–40). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/jicthd.2009070102

Martínez, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7 (2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.03

Mateos, M., Martín, E., Villalón, R., & Luna, M. (2008). Reading and writing to learn in secondary education: Online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks. Reading and Writing, 21 (7), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9086-6

Mateos, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Solari, M. (2020). Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome? Instructional Science, 48 (2), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09508-3

Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24 (4), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760

McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. (2012). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45 , 499–515. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0258-1

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (3), 43–59.

Moran, R., & Billen, M. (2014). The reading and writing connection: Merging two reciprocal content areas. Georgia Educational Researcher . https://doi.org/10.20429/ger.2014.110108

Raedts, M., Van Steendam, E., De Grez, L., Hendrickx, J., & Masui, C. (2017). The effects of different types of video modelling on undergraduate students’ motivation and learning in an academic writing course. Journal of Writing Research, 8 (3), 399–435. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2017.08.03.01

Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). The dynamics of composing - An agenda for research into an interactive compensatory model of writing: Many questions, some answers. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and application (pp. 107–125). Erlbaum.

Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). IAP Information Age Publishing.

Salmeron, L., Gil, L., & Bråten, I. (2018). Using eye-tracking to assess sourcing during multiple document reading: A critical analysis. Frontline Learning Research, 6 (3), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i3.368

Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., Espino, S., & Minguela, M. (2013). Integrating information: An analysis of the processes involved and the products generated in a written synthesis task. Written Communication, 30 (1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312466532

Spivey, N., & King, J. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24 (1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/748008

Tarchi, C., Villalón, R., & Lamanda, E. (2022). Investigating the effect of actively-openminded thinking on source-based writing: A randomized control trial. Thinking Skills and Creativity . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101128

van den Broek, P., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54 (5–6), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1306677

Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van Steendam, E. (2016). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 57–71). The Guilford Press.

Vandermeulen, N., De Maeyer, S., Van Steendam, E., Lesterhuis, M., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2020). Mapping synthesis writing in various levels of Dutch upper-secondary education. A national baseline study on text quality, writing process and students’ perspectives on writing. Pedagogische Studiën, 97 (3), 187–236.

Vandermeulen, N., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020b). Reporting writing process feedback in the classroom: Using keystroke logging data to reflect on writing processes. Journal of Writing Research, 12 (1), 109–140. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.05

Vandermeulen, N., van den Broek, B., Van Steendam, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2020c). In search of an effective source use pattern for writing argumentative and informative synthesis texts. Reading and Writing, 33 (2), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09958-3

Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E., De Maeyer, S., & Rijlaarsdam, G., (2022). Writing process feedback based on keystroke logging and comparison with exemplars: Effects on the quality and process of synthesis tasks . Written Communication, accepted for publication.

Van Ockenburg, L., Van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2019). Learning to write synthesis texts: A review of intervention studies. Journal of Writing Research, 10 (3), 402–428. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.01

Van Steendam, E. (2017). Een synopsis van schrijfonderwijsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen: Waar staan we en waar willen we naartoe? [A synopsis of writing research in the Netherlands and Flanders: Where do we stand and where are we heading?]. Pedagogische Studiën, 94 (4), 348–359.

Van Steendam, E., Vandermeulen, N., De Maeyer, S., Lesterhuis, M., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2022). How students perform synthesis tasks: An empirical study into dynamic process configurations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114 (8), 1773–1800. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000755

Zhang, H., Magooda, A., Litman, D., Correnti, R., Wang, E., Matsmura, L., Howe, E., & Quintana, R. (2019). eRevise: Using natural language processing to provide formative feedback on text evidence usage in student writing. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33 (01), 9619–9625. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019619

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Language Studies, Umeå Universitet, 90187, Umeå, Sweden

Nina Vandermeulen

University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium

Elke Van Steendam

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Gert Rijlaarsdam

National Science and Technology University Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Vandermeulen .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E. & Rijlaarsdam, G. Introduction to the special issue on synthesis tasks: where reading and writing meet. Read Writ 36 , 747–768 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10394-z

Download citation

Accepted : 21 November 2022

Published : 13 December 2022

Issue Date : April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10394-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Rating Count
• Price (Ascending)
• Price (Descending)
• Most Recent

Synthesis writing

Resource type.

Title: Synthesis Essay Writing Unit: 14 Argument Essays for Engaged Learning

American Dream Unit: Literature, Film Studies, Poetry, & Synthesis Essay Writing

Synthesis and Argument Writing : Does a #hashtag create real social change?

Synthesizing Texts: Synthesis Reading and Writing Lesson - Digital

Synthesis and Argument Writing : Is True Love Fantasy or Destiny?

Synthesis and Argument Writing : Is it ever okay to fail?

Synthesis and Argument: Holiday Prompt for Essay Writing or Socratic Seminar

Writing Conclusions Unit | Summarizing | Synthesizing | Sentences & Paragraphs

AP Language & Composition - Mastering the Synthesis Essay Workshop Writing Unit

Thematic Unit: Immigration & The American Dream | Lit. & Synthesis Essay Writing

Synthesis and Argument Writing : What is Happiness and is it Important?

RESEARCH SYNTHESIS ESSAY Writing Introductory Lesson Handouts Google Classroom

Synthesis and Argument Writing : Are Creativity and Imagination Important?

Muckraking & Investigative Journalism Unit - Synthesis & Research Writing Unit

Fairy Tales: Writing a Parody - Common Core/ Synthesis Activity

Perspective Taking Scenarios Dinner Party: AP Seminar Synthesis Writing Project

Distance Learning - The Synthesis Writing Process: College Ready Writing

Writing a Synthesis Essay; Thesis for Synthesis Paper PPT

Synthesis Writing Unit: Should We Ban Plastic Straws? Digital Distance Learning

Synthesis Writing Units High School ELA Curriculum: Nonfiction, Poetry, Fiction

Writing the Synthesis Essay for AP Lang: Sentence Frames

AP Language & Composition - Synthesis Essay Writing Practice & Remediation Unit

Writing Synthesis Lesson Bundle (Slides, Handout/Notes, & Practice WS) *DIGITAL*

• We're hiring
• Help & FAQ
• Privacy policy
• Student privacy
• Terms of service
• Tell us what you think

an Excelsior University site

Synthesizing

Write  |  Read  |  Educators

The contents of this web page were developed under grant #P116F150077 from the U.S. Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Grumble... Applaud... Please give us your feedback!

Learn how to synthesize what you read by teasing out the main ideas and combining them with other ideas to formulate new perspectives.

Video Transcript Video Reference Guide

• Online Reading Comprehension Lab »
• What to Do After Reading »
• Synthesizing »

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Published on July 4, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Synthesizing sources involves combining the work of other scholars to provide new insights. It’s a way of integrating sources that helps situate your work in relation to existing research.

Synthesizing sources involves more than just summarizing . You must emphasize how each source contributes to current debates, highlighting points of (dis)agreement and putting the sources in conversation with each other.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field or throughout your research paper when you want to position your work in relation to existing research.

Table of contents

Example of synthesizing sources, how to synthesize sources, synthesis matrix, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about synthesizing sources.

Let’s take a look at an example where sources are not properly synthesized, and then see what can be done to improve it.

This paragraph provides no context for the information and does not explain the relationships between the sources described. It also doesn’t analyze the sources or consider gaps in existing research.

Research on the barriers to second language acquisition has primarily focused on age-related difficulties. Building on Lenneberg’s (1967) theory of a critical period of language acquisition, Johnson and Newport (1988) tested Lenneberg’s idea in the context of second language acquisition. Their research seemed to confirm that young learners acquire a second language more easily than older learners. Recent research has considered other potential barriers to language acquisition. Schepens, van Hout, and van der Slik (2022) have revealed that the difficulties of learning a second language at an older age are compounded by dissimilarity between a learner’s first language and the language they aim to acquire. Further research needs to be carried out to determine whether the difficulty faced by adult monoglot speakers is also faced by adults who acquired a second language during the “critical period.”

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

To synthesize sources, group them around a specific theme or point of contention.

As you read sources, ask:

• What questions or ideas recur? Do the sources focus on the same points, or do they look at the issue from different angles?
• How does each source relate to others? Does it confirm or challenge the findings of past research?
• Where do the sources agree or disagree?

Once you have a clear idea of how each source positions itself, put them in conversation with each other. Analyze and interpret their points of agreement and disagreement. This displays the relationships among sources and creates a sense of coherence.

Consider both implicit and explicit (dis)agreements. Whether one source specifically refutes another or just happens to come to different conclusions without specifically engaging with it, you can mention it in your synthesis either way.

Synthesize your sources using:

• Topic sentences to introduce the relationship between the sources
• Signal phrases to attribute ideas to their authors
• Transition words and phrases to link together different ideas

To more easily determine the similarities and dissimilarities among your sources, you can create a visual representation of their main ideas with a synthesis matrix . This is a tool that you can use when researching and writing your paper, not a part of the final text.

In a synthesis matrix, each column represents one source, and each row represents a common theme or idea among the sources. In the relevant rows, fill in a short summary of how the source treats each theme or topic.

This helps you to clearly see the commonalities or points of divergence among your sources. You can then synthesize these sources in your work by explaining their relationship.

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Synthesizing sources means comparing and contrasting the work of other scholars to provide new insights.

It involves analyzing and interpreting the points of agreement and disagreement among sources.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field of research or throughout your paper when you want to contribute something new to existing research.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

Topic sentences help keep your writing focused and guide the reader through your argument.

In an essay or paper , each paragraph should focus on a single idea. By stating the main idea in the topic sentence, you clarify what the paragraph is about for both yourself and your reader.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix. Scribbr. Retrieved August 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/synthesizing-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, signal phrases | definition, explanation & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to find sources | scholarly articles, books, etc., "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”