ENGLISH 1302: WEEK
THREE
Synthesizing
Sources
PROMPT
 Please get out your homework assignments (Library
Assignment, Annotations) and have those ready.
 While we wait for class to begin, please read Charles Knight’s
sample Brief Assignment 2 in your First-Year Writing Textbook
p. 585. Note how the body paragraphs are structured in
relation to the thesis.
CLASS OVERVIEW







Announcements, Reminders, and Due Dates
Introduction to Synthesis
Identifying Synthesis Language
Literature Review Formal Requirements and Language
Review of Yarbrough’s Literature Review 1 .2
Synthesis Exercise: Poetry of World War I
Homework: Library Assignment, Topic Proposal, and Brief
Assignment 2
ANNOUNCEMENTS
 Upcoming Brief Assignment 2
 Library Assignment due in class next week (2/11) (make sure
to retain a copy for yourself!) (.5 of a point of f for each day
late).
 Formal Topic Proposal due by e -mail next week (no later than
midnight 2/12)
 University Writing Center Appointments
INTRODUCTION TO SYNTHESIS
 Synthesis is a technique that “groups similar pieces of
information together” and establishes patterns between different
texts.
 Think of synthesis as a “combining” or drawing together of elements: this
is how you identify the themes and elements of a scholarly conversation
for your reader.
 Synthesis is the core writing skill for the literature review , as
your body paragraphs should be devoted to synthesizing articles
based on subtopics of your research topic.
 Synthesis in a literature review should involve explicit,
qualitative comparisons between authors’ arguments and their
various sub-points and concerns.
 An effective synthesis essay will require you to draw on summary
and paraphrase skills but should operate by connecting authors’
arguments.
 Synthesis requires that you examine not just simple matters of
agreement but varying degrees of overlap and even
disagreement between authors.
IDENTIFYING SYNTHESIS LANGUAGE
 Formally, synthesis of arguments should focus on the authors and
their articles within the sentence.
 Ex: Whereas Barker’s research argues that metaphor is significant to
Dickinson’s poetry because of the way it relates to self -exploration and
“lyric identity,” Weisbuch identifies not metaphor but metonymy in
conjunction with Dickinson’s poetry. Moreover, he believes that metonymy
signifies a dissolution of identity as opposed to the expansion or
exploration Barker suggests (Weisbuch 233).
 Synthesis will require you to discuss at least two authors in
context with one another within the same sentence.
 Effective synthesis should not attempt to summarize each author
alone in their own paragraph; your paragraphs’ topic sentences
should identify the common subtheme shared by two authors or
more.
 Synthesis often employs comparative phrases, complex sentence
structure, and signal verbs to incorporate multiple authors’ views.
 Where in Yarbrough’s 1 .2 did we see these phrases?
BRIEF ASSIGNMENT 2
 BA 2 asks you to write an essay that synthesizes the main points of three
ar ticles: Birker ts’s “Into the Electronic Millennium,” Budiansky’s “Lost in
Translation,” and Rosenberg’s “Ever yone Speak’s Text Message” (all in your
FYW textbook).
 Should be written in the third -per son (no use of “I”) and must focus on the
author s and the connecti ons between their arguments/purposes.
 Your thesis sentence should identify the theme common to all three
ar ticles and allow you to identify sub -points for your body paragraphs.
 Although the assignment is 400 -600 words total, you must include a
suf ficient introductor y paragraph and concluding paragraph in addition to
two body paragraphs of synthesis . The body paragraphs should be
substantially developed ( i. e. not shor ter than your conclusi on or intro) and
must contain textual evidence (paraphrases or brief direct quotes) to
suppor t your synthesis of the sources. Be specific in your comparisons !
 Please be sure to include topic sentences that identify the point around
which you will synthesize the sources.
 You must include an MLA -format works cited entr y (labeled Works Cited) at
the end of your work . Not including attribution for your sources is akin to
plagiarism. In -text citations for paraphrases, quotes, and any idea taken
directly from the text must be included.
 Proofread carefully and make sure that you are referring to author s by
their last names af ter their full names have been established in the intro
paragraph.
INTRO AND CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
 Your introduction should be modeled after the structure of our
WWI example (coming up in this Powerpoint, slides 13/14).
 Your introduction should include:
 A one sentence hook/statement of exigency that focuses on the
researchers and their arguments
 A clear two sentence summary of the overall debate or concern in the
essays.
 A statement containing the articles’ titles and authors’ names as well
as the general theme that connects them.
 A thesis that indicates the trend in research and connects the three
authors.
 Your conclusion should include:
 A concise summary of the thesis and comparisons or differences that
arrived from the synthesis.
BRIEF ASSIGNMENT 2 DIRECTIONS
CONT’D
 Nearly every sentence should involve more than one author’s
article. Paragraphs should be organized by theme and not by
individual articles.
 When drawing comparisons for synthesis, make sure that you are
using correct source integration technique: look at the example
BA2 on 584-5 and Yarbrough’s 1 .2 (both in FYW) for models.
Also, you will want to review Ch. 13 in your St. Martin’s
Handbook for additional guidance on source integration.
 Practice active reading and make sure to use the checklist
provided on the following slide (and on the blog) to help you
identify the arguments of each article before you begin drafting
your BA2.
 Make sure not to use excessive direct quotes: you do not have
the space. Your assignment will be docked points if you use
excessive or long direct quotes. Practice concision.
READING CHECKLIST
For each article you read for BA2, please note the following as
you take notes:
 Identify the specific theme of the article (must be narrower
than “technology” or “reading”(“technology” could mean
“washing machines” if left undefined): what problem are they
concerned with? What relationships or ideas?)
 Identify the argument: what does the author want his or her
audience to do or believe? What’s at stake?
How do they form their argument? Why do these techniques
matter?
 Who is the audience, and when was the piece written? (Hint:
this will alter how the authors examine their themes and form
their argument).
 What are some textual examples you could use to identify an
aspect or sub-point of the author’s argument?
EXAMPLE SYNTHESIS BODY PARAGRAPH
From Yarbrough’s 1 .2:
“[Topic S entenc e] Research agrees in addition to line spacing, bigger text
size is beneficial for child reader s. Sue Walker strongly states that “size of
typeface” is the “most impor tant factor in the influence of books upon vision”
(Describing 196). However , Walker’s studies are not completely relevant
since they revolve around children’s books from the early 1900s, but her
repor ts still consider the impor tance of design and the needs of beginning
learner s and their perceptions of words. Likewise , Laura E. Hughes and
Arnold J. Wilkins encourage larger word size since they believe type may be
too small for ef fective reading comprehensi on (Typography 410). They agree
with Walker by stating that font size usually gets smaller as a result of
smaller lettering and state it could hinder per formance and slow speed
(Typography 315). Hughes and Wilkins are also more urgent than Walker by
calling for a change in books by educator s. In a more recent ar ticle, Arnold J.
Wilkins obser ves reading speed in relationship to word size, but unlike his
earlier study with Hughes he does not focus on comprehensi on. He finds that
larger font is beneficial for both younger and older children. In addition , both
studies agree that larger word size designed for younger children was read
faster by older children, thus larger type size was beneficial to all ages.
When comparing Wilkins and Walker, Wilkins is more detailed in field
research by testing children, while Walker focuses more on the general
ef fectiveness of word size in the design of children’s books. [C onc luding
S entenc e] Nonetheless, Walker, Hughes, and Wilkins recognize that adjusting
word size is an impor tant factor to consider and can af fect the way children
learn to read.”
ANNOTATIONS
 In the previous slide, authors’ names are underlined and
signal phrases for synthesis are bolded. When a third author
is brought directly into a sentence via comparison, they are
marked in red. Likewise, phrases that pulled all authors
together were marked in blue.
 The topic sentence discusses all authors and defines the
paragraph’s point [sub -topic] for synthesis: agreement that
“bigger text is beneficial for child readers.”
 Note that Yarbrough does not only discuss basic agreement:
she explores the qualitative dif ferences and similarities
between each author’s approach to the sub -topic.
 Note the use of details (short direct quotes, paraphrases) to
support her synthesis and summary of each text.
SAMPLE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH:
SYNTHESIS OF WWI POETS
 “World War I saw one of the greatest outpourings of poetry
from active soldiers than almost any war before it. During the
war, soldier-poets or “trench poets” who made war their
subject reacted to the traditional, patriotic art of the 19 th
century through their own poetry, often refusing the public
conception of the soldier. Their poems, however, dif fer from
one another in their approach to the role of the soldier during
wartime. “Anthem for Doomed Youth” by Wilfred Owen, “Base
Details” by Siegfried Sassoon, and “In Flanders Fields” by
John McCrae all examine the legacy of fallen soldiers in
relation to the civilian public. These poets are in consensus
that a soldier’s experiences are separate from those of the
civilian public, although they dif fer in the way they believe a
soldier’s legacy should be received during wartime and as
part of the war ef fort.”
WWI SYNTHESIS: ANNOTATED
 “ [Hook] World War I saw one of the greatest outpourings of
poetry from active soldiers than almost any war before it.
[Debate/Concern ] During the war, soldier-poets or “trench poets”
who made “war” their subject reacted to the traditional, patriotic
art of the 19 th century through their own poetry, often refusing
the public conception of the soldier. Their poems, however, differ
from one another in their approach to the role of the soldier
during wartime. [Authors and general theme] “Anthem for
Doomed Youth” by Wilfred Owen, “Base Details” by Siegfried
Sassoon, and “In Flanders Fields” by John McCrae all examine the
legacy of fallen soldiers in relation to the civilian public.
 *Note: nearly all sentences start with or focus on “the authors” of
the texts/poems.”
 [Thesis indicating research trend] These poets are in consensus
that a soldier’s experiences are separate from those of the
civilian public, although they dif fer in the way they believe a
soldier’s legacy should be received during wartime and as part of
the war effort.”
HOMEWORK
 Read the three articles listed in BA2 (printed in your FYW
textbook) as part of BA2 (Hint: do this early!)
 Complete Brief Assignment 2 in Raider Writer, due Sat. 2/8
 Complete and send your formal topic proposal via e-mail
(please review our class notes for Week 2 on the blog for
specific details) (worth 4 points participation total). You must
follow directions with this e -mail.
 Complete the Library Assignment (all sections) and turn in a
copy in class on 2/11 (worth 8 points participation total) .
*Make sure not to turn in your only copy! You will need this
for our class next Tuesday.