types of synthesis in academic writing

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Synthesizing Sources

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

When you look for areas where your sources agree or disagree and try to draw broader conclusions about your topic based on what your sources say, you are engaging in synthesis. Writing a research paper usually requires synthesizing the available sources in order to provide new insight or a different perspective into your particular topic (as opposed to simply restating what each individual source says about your research topic).

Note that synthesizing is not the same as summarizing.  

• A summary restates the information in one or more sources without providing new insight or reaching new conclusions.
• A synthesis draws on multiple sources to reach a broader conclusion.

There are two types of syntheses: explanatory syntheses and argumentative syntheses . Explanatory syntheses seek to bring sources together to explain a perspective and the reasoning behind it. Argumentative syntheses seek to bring sources together to make an argument. Both types of synthesis involve looking for relationships between sources and drawing conclusions.

In order to successfully synthesize your sources, you might begin by grouping your sources by topic and looking for connections. For example, if you were researching the pros and cons of encouraging healthy eating in children, you would want to separate your sources to find which ones agree with each other and which ones disagree.

After you have a good idea of what your sources are saying, you want to construct your body paragraphs in a way that acknowledges different sources and highlights where you can draw new conclusions.

As you continue synthesizing, here are a few points to remember:

• Don’t force a relationship between sources if there isn’t one. Not all of your sources have to complement one another.
• Do your best to highlight the relationships between sources in very clear ways.
• Don’t ignore any outliers in your research. It’s important to take note of every perspective (even those that disagree with your broader conclusions).

Example Syntheses

Below are two examples of synthesis: one where synthesis is NOT utilized well, and one where it is.

Parents are always trying to find ways to encourage healthy eating in their children. Elena Pearl Ben-Joseph, a doctor and writer for KidsHealth , encourages parents to be role models for their children by not dieting or vocalizing concerns about their body image. The first popular diet began in 1863. William Banting named it the “Banting” diet after himself, and it consisted of eating fruits, vegetables, meat, and dry wine. Despite the fact that dieting has been around for over a hundred and fifty years, parents should not diet because it hinders children’s understanding of healthy eating.

In this sample paragraph, the paragraph begins with one idea then drastically shifts to another. Rather than comparing the sources, the author simply describes their content. This leads the paragraph to veer in an different direction at the end, and it prevents the paragraph from expressing any strong arguments or conclusions.

An example of a stronger synthesis can be found below.

Parents are always trying to find ways to encourage healthy eating in their children. Different scientists and educators have different strategies for promoting a well-rounded diet while still encouraging body positivity in children. David R. Just and Joseph Price suggest in their article “Using Incentives to Encourage Healthy Eating in Children” that children are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables if they are given a reward (855-856). Similarly, Elena Pearl Ben-Joseph, a doctor and writer for Kids Health , encourages parents to be role models for their children. She states that “parents who are always dieting or complaining about their bodies may foster these same negative feelings in their kids. Try to keep a positive approach about food” (Ben-Joseph). Martha J. Nepper and Weiwen Chai support Ben-Joseph’s suggestions in their article “Parents’ Barriers and Strategies to Promote Healthy Eating among School-age Children.” Nepper and Chai note, “Parents felt that patience, consistency, educating themselves on proper nutrition, and having more healthy foods available in the home were important strategies when developing healthy eating habits for their children.” By following some of these ideas, parents can help their children develop healthy eating habits while still maintaining body positivity.

In this example, the author puts different sources in conversation with one another. Rather than simply describing the content of the sources in order, the author uses transitions (like "similarly") and makes the relationship between the sources evident.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

137 Synthesis

A synthesis will need to:

• Summarize and analyze.
• Show relationships and make connections.
• Make argumentative points with research.

What do we mean by synthesis? Where analysis calls on us to break an artifact  down into individual parts, synthesis requires us to make connections between those parts or—in most academic writing—among sources, topics, or events (just to name a few possibilities). A common type of synthesis in academic writing, for example, is a literature review in which the researcher-writer collects, compares, and shows connections or differences among different scholarly sources as well as gaps in the research. With academic writing foremost in mind, Lumen Learning defines synthesis as “analysis across sources,” adding that “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.” The idea is not just to summarize but to make connections. That feature is what makes synthesis so important: it’s critical thinking in action.

For example, in a movie review, you might first identify, summarize, and analyze key parts of the film, such as genre, plot, and specific techniques like suspense, background music, or humor. You might also find, summarize, and evaluate other critiques of the film. Synthesis relies on these skills, asking you to point out relationships between film elements, compare other critiques, note what’s missing or unexamined, then draw new, hopefully insightful conclusions of your own. Lumen Learning suggests, “… look for connections and patterns …[and] themes among your sources.” The idea is to connect ideas and show relationships from source to source. sources.” In other words, look for similarities, differences, and gaps. What did other critics or scholars say about a particular topic? On what points do they differ? Where do they agree? What have they missed?

In fact, we synthesize all the time but may not realize we’re gathering, comparing, and evaluating sources in this way. For example, imagine this scenario: You and a group of friends want to attend a movie together but cannot decide which one. Each of you makes a recommendation, summarizing key details about your choices (genre, good reviews, compelling plots, and so forth). Together, you and your friends compare the films, discuss each other’s assessments of the options available, and reach a conclusion: you’ll go see the sci-fi flick! That’s synthesis (or “analysis across sources”). In this case, your friends’ individual analyses are your sources; your discussion and conclusion is the synthesis.

For a more academic project, imagine that you need to gather sources, annotate them, then report what connections, differences, gaps, and other relationships you found. That’s one approach to writing a literature review, a common academic genre that synthesizes available research to position the writer to come to a conclusion or a recommendation on a topic. Here’s synthesis in action—in an academic literature review written in APA style:

The emergence of [open educational resources or OER] goes back to 1985, when the Free Software Foundation was founded by Richard Stallman to support the free software movement and to grant a certain freedom to software users (Caswell et al., 2008). In 1994, the term learning objects was introduced by Wayne Hodgins to refer to digital educational resources that could be shared via the World Wide Web (Wiley, 2006). In 1998, the term open content was coined by David Wiley and introduced to the educational community, specifically to the creators of learning objects. (Wiley, 2006)

Did you notice how the authors summarize each source and relate the sources  to one another? Richard Stallman “supported the free software movement.” Wayne Hodgins “introduced” a key concept that was widely shared and evolved into “open content” — the foundational idea for OER. The authors of this paragraph quickly summarize OER history but also show the relationship from one stage to another, and from one person to the next. By the way, analysis lies in the background here; to arrive at this synthesis, the authors had to gather sources, study them, summarize them, then analyze them before arriving at this brief synthesis.

Here’s a less academic example of synthesis that also begins to make an argument:

“While both Jones and Smith question the use of popular music in key scenes, I argue that the background tunes in Movie Z enhance suspense by using the dark sounds of a minor key and a fast, heart-like rhythmic beat.”

In this example, the writer refers briefly to the findings of other critics, demonstrates how or where they depart from those critics, identifies key elements of music in the film (a minor key, a fast beat), and offers an insight or interpretation (“the background tunes … enhances the suspense”). These moves represent a short synthesis. The writer packs a lot of information into this statement. Did you also notice how different it is from the academic synthesis? Like other genres, synthesis varies depending on purpose, audience, and other aspects of the situation.

Here’s another real-world example. Let’s say your chosen topic is “Background Music in the Horror Films Directed by Jordan Peele.” You gather reviews and scholarly articles on Peele, on music in films, on horror films, and so forth. Your goal as a researcher-writer is to summarize those sources for readers, study or analyze them so that you understand them, but primarily to put those sources in relation to each other. That is, you will compare sources, state where you disagree or agree (and why), and possibly point out gaps in the arguments or information supplied by these other sources. Individually, you analyze each source; but cumulatively, you’re using them to move toward your own conclusions.

What are some examples of this genre? 

Attributions

“Synthesis,” Lumen Learning, CC BY: Attribution , https://courses.lumenlearning.com/englishcomp1/chapter/synthesis/

“Synthesizing What You Read,” Excelsior Online Reading Lab, CC BY: Attribution, https://owl.excelsior.edu/orc/what-to-do-after-reading/synthesizing/ .

“Synthesizing Your Research Findings,” Christine Photinos, CC BY: Attribution, https://composingourselvesandourworld.pressbooks.com/chapter/20-2-synthesis/#syn .

Reading and Writing in College Copyright © 2021 by Jackie Hoermann-Elliott and TWU FYC Team is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How to Write a Synthesis Essay: Your Guide From Start to Finish

Today, we're swamped with information, like reading 174 newspapers every day. It comes from all over—news, social media, science, and more. This flood might make you feel overwhelmed and lost in a sea of facts and opinions. But being able to make sense of it all is crucial.

This guide isn't just about handling all that info; it's about using it to write awesome essays. We'll show you step by step how to pick a topic and organize your essay. Let's dive in and learn how to turn scattered facts into powerful essays that really stand out.

What Is a Synthesis Essay

The synthesis essay is a powerful tool in writing. It's not just about gathering facts but about connecting them to make a clear and strong argument.

Writing a synthesis essay allows you to dive deep into ideas. You have to find similarities between different sources—like articles, studies, or arguments—and use them to tell a convincing story.

In today's world, where we're bombarded with information, synthesis essays are more important than ever. They let us explore how different ideas fit together and help us express our thoughts on complex topics. Whether you're writing about literature, science, history, or current events, a synthesis essay shows off your ability to analyze and understand a topic from all angles. And if you're struggling with this task, just ask us to ' write paper for me ,' and we'll handle your assignment for you.

Explanatory vs. Argumentative Synthesis Essays

In synthesis writing, there are two main types: explanatory and argumentative. Understanding these categories is key because they shape how you approach your essay.

Explanatory:

An explanatory synthesis essay does just what it says—it explains. These essays aim to give a balanced view of a topic by gathering information from different sources and presenting it clearly. They don't try to persuade; instead, they focus on providing information and making things easier to understand. They're like comprehensive summaries, breaking down complex ideas for a broader audience. These essays rely heavily on facts and expert opinions, avoiding personal bias.

Argumentative:

On the flip side, argumentative synthesis essays are all about persuasion. Their main goal is to take a stance on an issue and convince the reader. They gather information from various sources not only to present different views but also to build a strong argument. Argumentative essays aim to sway the reader's opinion by using gathered information as evidence. These essays express opinions and use rhetorical strategies to persuade.

And if you're keen on knowing how to write an informative essay , we've got you covered on that, too!

Synthesis Essay Structure

To craft a strong synthesis essay, you need a solid foundation. Here's a structured approach to help you nail it:

Introductory Paragraph:

• To kick things off, grab your reader's attention with a catchy hook or interesting fact. Give a bit of background info about your topic and the sources you'll be using, as it can help readers understand your topic better! Then, lay out your main argument in a clear thesis statement.

Body Paragraphs:

• Each paragraph should focus on a different aspect of your topic or source. Start with a topic sentence that links back to your thesis. Introduce the source you're discussing and highlight its main points. Also, using quotes, paraphrases, or summaries from your sources can make your arguments stronger.

Synthesis :

• This part is where your essay comes together. Look for common themes or differences among your sources. Use your analysis to build a strong argument. Don't forget to address any opposing viewpoints if they're relevant!

Conclusion :

• Wrap things up by restating your thesis and summarizing your main points. Explain why your argument is important and what it means in the bigger picture. End with a thought-provoking statement to leave a lasting impression.

References :

• Finally, don't forget to list all your sources properly using the right citation style, like MLA or APA. Do you know that different citation styles have different rules? So, make sure you follow the right one!

Choosing a Synthesis Essay Topic

Picking essay topics is just the beginning. To write a great synthesis essay, you need to carefully evaluate and connect different sources to build a strong argument or viewpoint. Here's a step-by-step infographic guide to help you choose the right synthesis essay topics wisely.

How to Write a Synthesis Essay with Easy Steps

Writing a synthesis essay is similar to a compare and contrast essay . It requires a methodical approach to blend information from different sources into a strong and persuasive argument. Here are some crucial steps and tips to help you along the way.

• Clarify Your Purpose: First, decide if you're writing an explanatory or argumentative synthesis essay. This choice will set the tone and direction for your essay.
• Source Selection and Analysis: Choose credible and relevant sources for your topic, balancing different types like articles, books, and websites. Analyze each source carefully, noting the main ideas and evidence presented.
• Formulate a Strong Thesis Statement: Create a clear and concise thesis statement that guides your essay. It should express your main argument or perspective.
• Structure Your Essay: Organize your essay with a clear synthesis essay outline, including an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Each body paragraph should focus on a specific aspect of your topic.
• Employ Effective Transition Sentences: Use transition sentences to connect your ideas and paragraphs smoothly, ensuring a cohesive flow in your essay.
• Synthesize Information: Blend information from your sources within your paragraphs. Discuss how each source contributes to your thesis and highlight common themes or differences.
• Avoid Simple Summarization: Don't just summarize your sources—analyze them critically and use them to build your argument.
• Address Counterarguments (if applicable): Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and counter them with well-supported arguments, showing a deep understanding of the topic.
• Craft a Resolute Conclusion: Summarize your main points and restate your thesis in the conclusion. Emphasize the importance of your argument or insights, and end with a thought-provoking statement or call to action. ‍
• Revise and Proofread: Check your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammar mistakes. Ensure your citations are correct and follow the chosen citation style, like MLA or APA.

Ready to Transform Your Synthesis Essay from Bland to Grand?

Let's tap into the magic of our expert wordsmiths, who will create an essay that dances with ideas and dazzles with creativity!

Synthesis Essay Format

Choosing the right citation style can enhance the credibility and professionalism of your paper. The format of your synthesis paper depends on the specific guidelines given by your instructor. They usually fall into one of the popular styles: MLA, APA, or Chicago, each used in different academic fields.

1. MLA (Modern Language Association):

• Uses in-text citations with the author's last name and page number.
• Includes a 'Works Cited' page at the end listing all sources.
• Focuses on the author and publication date.
• Often used in humanities essays, research papers, and literary analyses.

2. APA (American Psychological Association):

• Uses in-text citations with the author's last name and publication date in parentheses.
• Includes a 'References' page listing all sources alphabetically.
• Emphasizes the publication date and scientific precision.
• Commonly used in research papers, scholarly articles, and scientific studies.

3. Chicago Style:

• Offers two documentation styles: Notes-Bibliography and Author-Date.
• Notes-Bibliography uses footnotes or endnotes for citations, while Author-Date uses in-text citations with a reference list.
• Suitable for various academic writing, including research papers and historical studies.
• Provides flexibility in formatting and citation methods, making it adaptable to different disciplines.

Synthesis Essay Example

Here are two examples of synthesis essays that demonstrate how to apply the synthesis process in real life. They explore interesting topics and offer practical guidance for mastering the art of writing this type of paper.

Synthesis Essay Tips

Crafting a strong synthesis essay requires careful planning and effective techniques. Here are five essential tips to help you write your best paper:

• Diverse Source Selection : Choose a range of reliable sources that offer different viewpoints on your topic. Make sure they're recent and relevant to your subject.
• Seamless Source Integration : Avoid just summarizing your sources. Instead, blend them into your essay by analyzing and comparing their ideas. Show how they connect to build your argument.
• Balanced Tone : Maintain an impartial tone in your writing, even if you have personal opinions. Synthesis essays require objectivity, so they present different viewpoints without bias.
• Focus on Synthesis : Remember, synthesis essays are about linking ideas, not just summarizing sources. Explore how your sources relate to each other to create a cohesive argument.
• Address Counterarguments : Like in persuasive essays topics , acknowledge opposing viewpoints and explain why your perspective is stronger. This demonstrates your understanding of the topic and adds depth to your argument.

Concluding Thoughts

When writing a synthesis essay, it's essential to pick trustworthy sources, blend them effectively to build your argument and stay objective. Use smooth transitions, address counterarguments thoughtfully, and focus on analyzing rather than just summarizing. By following these steps, you'll create essays that inform, persuade, and engage your readers!

Want an Essay that Sings, Sparkles, and Stuns?

Fear not! Our expert wordsmiths are here to turn your thoughts into a symphony of ideas!

How Should You Conclude a Synthesis Essay?

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Related Articles

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

Related Articles

Student Resources

How To Cite A YouTube Video In APA Style – With Examples

How to Write an Abstract APA Format

APA References Page Formatting and Example

APA Title Page (Cover Page) Format, Example, & Templates

How do I Cite a Source with Multiple Authors in APA Style?

How to Write a Psychology Essay

Library Guides

Literature reviews: synthesis.

• Criticality

Synthesise Information

So, how can you create paragraphs within your literature review that demonstrates your knowledge of the scholarship that has been done in your field of study?  

You will need to present a synthesis of the texts you read.  

Doug Specht, Senior Lecturer at the Westminster School of Media and Communication, explains synthesis for us in the following video:  

Synthesising Texts  

What is synthesis? 

Synthesis is an important element of academic writing, demonstrating comprehension, analysis, evaluation and original creation.  

With synthesis you extract content from different sources to create an original text. While paraphrase and summary maintain the structure of the given source(s), with synthesis you create a new structure.  

The sources will provide different perspectives and evidence on a topic. They will be put together when agreeing, contrasted when disagreeing. The sources must be referenced.  

Perfect your synthesis by showing the flow of your reasoning, expressing critical evaluation of the sources and drawing conclusions.  

When you synthesise think of "using strategic thinking to resolve a problem requiring the integration of diverse pieces of information around a structuring theme" (Mateos and Sole 2009, p448). 

Synthesis is a complex activity, which requires a high degree of comprehension and active engagement with the subject. As you progress in higher education, so increase the expectations on your abilities to synthesise. 

How to synthesise in a literature review: 

Identify themes/issues you'd like to discuss in the literature review. Think of an outline.  

Read the literature and identify these themes/issues.  

Critically analyse the texts asking: how does the text I'm reading relate to the other texts I've read on the same topic? Is it in agreement? Does it differ in its perspective? Is it stronger or weaker? How does it differ (could be scope, methods, year of publication etc.). Draw your conclusions on the state of the literature on the topic.  

Start writing your literature review, structuring it according to the outline you planned.  

Put together sources stating the same point; contrast sources presenting counter-arguments or different points.  

Present your critical analysis.  

Always provide the references. 

The best synthesis requires a "recursive process" whereby you read the source texts, identify relevant parts, take notes, produce drafts, re-read the source texts, revise your text, re-write... (Mateos and Sole, 2009). 

What is good synthesis?  

The quality of your synthesis can be assessed considering the following (Mateos and Sole, 2009, p439):  

Integration and connection of the information from the source texts around a structuring theme. 

Selection of ideas necessary for producing the synthesis. 

Appropriateness of the interpretation.  

Elaboration of the content.  

Example of Synthesis

Original texts (fictitious): 

Synthesis: 

Animal experimentation is a subject of heated debate. Some argue that painful experiments should be banned. Indeed it has been demonstrated that such experiments make animals suffer physically and psychologically (Chowdhury 2012; Panatta and Hudson 2016). On the other hand, it has been argued that animal experimentation can save human lives and reduce harm on humans (Smith 2008). This argument is only valid for toxicological testing, not for tests that, for example, merely improve the efficacy of a cosmetic (Turner 2015). It can be suggested that animal experimentation should be regulated to only allow toxicological risk assessment, and the suffering to the animals should be minimised.   

Bibliography

Mateos, M. and Sole, 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. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760 [Accessed 29 June 2021].

• << Previous: Structure
• Next: Criticality >>
• Last Updated: Nov 18, 2023 10:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/literature-reviews

CONNECT WITH US

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  

3583 Accesses

3 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

Writing Resources

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

ASC Chat Hours

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

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

  928-440-1325

  Ask a Coach

  [email protected]

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

Learning about Synthesis Analysis

What D oes Synthesis and Analysis Mean?

Synthesis: the combination of ideas to

• show commonalities or patterns

Analysis: a detailed examination

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

Synthesis and Analysis: combine and examine ideas to

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

Key Resource: Synthesis Matrix

Synthesis Matrix

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

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

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: International Center for Academic Integrity
• Next: How to Synthesize and Analyze >>
• Last Updated: May 16, 2024 8:28 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/writingresources

• Skip to main content
• Skip to ChatBot Assistant
• Academic Writing
• Research Writing
• Critical Reading and Writing
• Punctuation
• Writing Exercises
• ELL/ESL Resources

Synthesis Paper

This kind of paper is frequently assigned at Empire State University. It often replaces an exam. Usually, you are expected to use your writing to show that you have understood all the readings included in the assignment, and you are expected to synthesize the readings, to bring them together, in some interesting way around a central question. One key to successful synthesis papers is to bring your own voice and ideas into the paper sufficiently to actually direct the flow of the paper. If you find yourself just pasting together summaries of the readings in some kind of order, stop! You should find yourself, instead, identifying some interesting question that has grown out of your reading (you instructor may actually specify the question) and answering it. Your answer will usually become the thesis statement that directs the paper. You will use your reading, then, to develop your thesis--showing your reader what you mean by it and why you believe it is true.

Tip: Knowledgeable students often include more than the required readings in the bibliographies of their papers.

Need Assistance?

If you would like assistance with any type of writing assignment, learning coaches are available to assist you. Please contact Academic Support by emailing [email protected].

Questions or feedback about SUNY Empire's Writing Support?

Contact us at [email protected] .

Smart Cookies

They're not just in our classes – they help power our website. Cookies and similar tools allow us to better understand the experience of our visitors. By continuing to use this website, you consent to SUNY Empire State University's usage of cookies and similar technologies in accordance with the university's Privacy Notice and Cookies Policy .

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Academic Writing Style
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Academic writing refers to a style of expression that researchers use to define the intellectual boundaries of their disciplines and specific areas of expertise. Characteristics of academic writing include a formal tone, use of the third-person rather than first-person perspective (usually), a clear focus on the research problem under investigation, and precise word choice. Like specialist languages adopted in other professions, such as, law or medicine, academic writing is designed to convey agreed meaning about complex ideas or concepts within a community of scholarly experts and practitioners.

Academic Writing. Writing Center. Colorado Technical College; Hartley, James. Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Guide . New York: Routledge, 2008; Ezza, El-Sadig Y. and Touria Drid. T eaching Academic Writing as a Discipline-Specific Skill in Higher Education . Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2020.

Importance of Good Academic Writing

The accepted form of academic writing in the social sciences can vary considerable depending on the methodological framework and the intended audience. However, most college-level research papers require careful attention to the following stylistic elements:

I.  The Big Picture Unlike creative or journalistic writing, the overall structure of academic writing is formal and logical. It must be cohesive and possess a logically organized flow of ideas; this means that the various parts are connected to form a unified whole. There should be narrative links between sentences and paragraphs so that the reader is able to follow your argument. The introduction should include a description of how the rest of the paper is organized and all sources are properly cited throughout the paper.

II.  Tone The overall tone refers to the attitude conveyed in a piece of writing. Throughout your paper, it is important that you present the arguments of others fairly and with an appropriate narrative tone. When presenting a position or argument that you disagree with, describe this argument accurately and without loaded or biased language. In academic writing, the author is expected to investigate the research problem from an authoritative point of view. You should, therefore, state the strengths of your arguments confidently, using language that is neutral, not confrontational or dismissive.

III.  Diction Diction refers to the choice of words you use. Awareness of the words you use is important because words that have almost the same denotation [dictionary definition] can have very different connotations [implied meanings]. This is particularly true in academic writing because words and terminology can evolve a nuanced meaning that describes a particular idea, concept, or phenomenon derived from the epistemological culture of that discipline [e.g., the concept of rational choice in political science]. Therefore, use concrete words [not general] that convey a specific meaning. If this cannot be done without confusing the reader, then you need to explain what you mean within the context of how that word or phrase is used within a discipline.

IV.  Language The investigation of research problems in the social sciences is often complex and multi- dimensional . Therefore, it is important that you use unambiguous language. Well-structured paragraphs and clear topic sentences enable a reader to follow your line of thinking without difficulty. Your language should be concise, formal, and express precisely what you want it to mean. Do not use vague expressions that are not specific or precise enough for the reader to derive exact meaning ["they," "we," "people," "the organization," etc.], abbreviations like 'i.e.'  ["in other words"], 'e.g.' ["for example"], or 'a.k.a.' ["also known as"], and the use of unspecific determinate words ["super," "very," "incredible," "huge," etc.].

V.  Punctuation Scholars rely on precise words and language to establish the narrative tone of their work and, therefore, punctuation marks are used very deliberately. For example, exclamation points are rarely used to express a heightened tone because it can come across as unsophisticated or over-excited. Dashes should be limited to the insertion of an explanatory comment in a sentence, while hyphens should be limited to connecting prefixes to words [e.g., multi-disciplinary] or when forming compound phrases [e.g., commander-in-chief]. Finally, understand that semi-colons represent a pause that is longer than a comma, but shorter than a period in a sentence. In general, there are four grammatical uses of semi-colons: when a second clause expands or explains the first clause; to describe a sequence of actions or different aspects of the same topic; placed before clauses which begin with "nevertheless", "therefore", "even so," and "for instance”; and, to mark off a series of phrases or clauses which contain commas. If you are not confident about when to use semi-colons [and most of the time, they are not required for proper punctuation], rewrite using shorter sentences or revise the paragraph.

VI.  Academic Conventions Among the most important rules and principles of academic engagement of a writing is citing sources in the body of your paper and providing a list of references as either footnotes or endnotes. The academic convention of citing sources facilitates processes of intellectual discovery, critical thinking, and applying a deliberate method of navigating through the scholarly landscape by tracking how cited works are propagated by scholars over time . Aside from citing sources, other academic conventions to follow include the appropriate use of headings and subheadings, properly spelling out acronyms when first used in the text, avoiding slang or colloquial language, avoiding emotive language or unsupported declarative statements, avoiding contractions [e.g., isn't], and using first person and second person pronouns only when necessary.

VII.  Evidence-Based Reasoning Assignments often ask you to express your own point of view about the research problem. However, what is valued in academic writing is that statements are based on evidence-based reasoning. This refers to possessing a clear understanding of the pertinent body of knowledge and academic debates that exist within, and often external to, your discipline concerning the topic. You need to support your arguments with evidence from scholarly [i.e., academic or peer-reviewed] sources. It should be an objective stance presented as a logical argument; the quality of the evidence you cite will determine the strength of your argument. The objective is to convince the reader of the validity of your thoughts through a well-documented, coherent, and logically structured piece of writing. This is particularly important when proposing solutions to problems or delineating recommended courses of action.

VIII.  Thesis-Driven Academic writing is “thesis-driven,” meaning that the starting point is a particular perspective, idea, or position applied to the chosen topic of investigation, such as, establishing, proving, or disproving solutions to the questions applied to investigating the research problem. Note that a problem statement without the research questions does not qualify as academic writing because simply identifying the research problem does not establish for the reader how you will contribute to solving the problem, what aspects you believe are most critical, or suggest a method for gathering information or data to better understand the problem.

IX.  Complexity and Higher-Order Thinking Academic writing addresses complex issues that require higher-order thinking skills applied to understanding the research problem [e.g., critical, reflective, logical, and creative thinking as opposed to, for example, descriptive or prescriptive thinking]. Higher-order thinking skills include cognitive processes that are used to comprehend, solve problems, and express concepts or that describe abstract ideas that cannot be easily acted out, pointed to, or shown with images. Think of your writing this way: One of the most important attributes of a good teacher is the ability to explain complexity in a way that is understandable and relatable to the topic being presented during class. This is also one of the main functions of academic writing--examining and explaining the significance of complex ideas as clearly as possible.  As a writer, you must adopt the role of a good teacher by summarizing complex information into a well-organized synthesis of ideas, concepts, and recommendations that contribute to a better understanding of the research problem.

Academic Writing. Writing Center. Colorado Technical College; Hartley, James. Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Guide . New York: Routledge, 2008; Murray, Rowena  and Sarah Moore. The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach . New York: Open University Press, 2006; Johnson, Roy. Improve Your Writing Skills . Manchester, UK: Clifton Press, 1995; Nygaard, Lynn P. Writing for Scholars: A Practical Guide to Making Sense and Being Heard . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2015; Silvia, Paul J. How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007; Style, Diction, Tone, and Voice. Writing Center, Wheaton College; Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.

Strategies for...

Understanding Academic Writing and Its Jargon

The very definition of research jargon is language specific to a particular community of practitioner-researchers . Therefore, in modern university life, jargon represents the specific language and meaning assigned to words and phrases specific to a discipline or area of study. For example, the idea of being rational may hold the same general meaning in both political science and psychology, but its application to understanding and explaining phenomena within the research domain of a each discipline may have subtle differences based upon how scholars in that discipline apply the concept to the theories and practice of their work.

Given this, it is important that specialist terminology [i.e., jargon] must be used accurately and applied under the appropriate conditions . Subject-specific dictionaries are the best places to confirm the meaning of terms within the context of a specific discipline. These can be found by either searching in the USC Libraries catalog by entering the disciplinary and the word dictionary [e.g., sociology and dictionary] or using a database such as Credo Reference [a curated collection of subject encyclopedias, dictionaries, handbooks, guides from highly regarded publishers] . It is appropriate for you to use specialist language within your field of study, but you should avoid using such language when writing for non-academic or general audiences.

Problems with Opaque Writing

A common criticism of scholars is that they can utilize needlessly complex syntax or overly expansive vocabulary that is impenetrable or not well-defined. When writing, avoid problems associated with opaque writing by keeping in mind the following:

1.   Excessive use of specialized terminology . Yes, it is appropriate for you to use specialist language and a formal style of expression in academic writing, but it does not mean using "big words" just for the sake of doing so. Overuse of complex or obscure words or writing complicated sentence constructions gives readers the impression that your paper is more about style than substance; it leads the reader to question if you really know what you are talking about. Focus on creating clear, concise, and elegant prose that minimizes reliance on specialized terminology.

2.   Inappropriate use of specialized terminology . Because you are dealing with concepts, research, and data within your discipline, you need to use the technical language appropriate to that area of study. However, nothing will undermine the validity of your study quicker than the inappropriate application of a term or concept. Avoid using terms whose meaning you are unsure of--do not just guess or assume! Consult the meaning of terms in specialized, discipline-specific dictionaries by searching the USC Libraries catalog or the Credo Reference database [see above].

Additional Problems to Avoid

In addition to understanding the use of specialized language, there are other aspects of academic writing in the social sciences that you should be aware of. These problems include:

• Personal nouns . Excessive use of personal nouns [e.g., I, me, you, us] may lead the reader to believe the study was overly subjective. These words can be interpreted as being used only to avoid presenting empirical evidence about the research problem. Limit the use of personal nouns to descriptions of things you actually did [e.g., "I interviewed ten teachers about classroom management techniques..."]. Note that personal nouns are generally found in the discussion section of a paper because this is where you as the author/researcher interpret and describe your work.
• Directives . Avoid directives that demand the reader to "do this" or "do that." Directives should be framed as evidence-based recommendations or goals leading to specific outcomes. Note that an exception to this can be found in various forms of action research that involve evidence-based advocacy for social justice or transformative change. Within this area of the social sciences, authors may offer directives for action in a declarative tone of urgency.
• Informal, conversational tone using slang and idioms . Academic writing relies on excellent grammar and precise word structure. Your narrative should not include regional dialects or slang terms because they can be open to interpretation. Your writing should be direct and concise using standard English.
• Wordiness. Focus on being concise, straightforward, and developing a narrative that does not have confusing language . By doing so, you  help eliminate the possibility of the reader misinterpreting the design and purpose of your study.
• Vague expressions (e.g., "they," "we," "people," "the company," "that area," etc.). Being concise in your writing also includes avoiding vague references to persons, places, or things. While proofreading your paper, be sure to look for and edit any vague or imprecise statements that lack context or specificity.
• Numbered lists and bulleted items . The use of bulleted items or lists should be used only if the narrative dictates a need for clarity. For example, it is fine to state, "The four main problems with hedge funds are:" and then list them as 1, 2, 3, 4. However, in academic writing, this must then be followed by detailed explanation and analysis of each item. Given this, the question you should ask yourself while proofreading is: why begin with a list in the first place rather than just starting with systematic analysis of each item arranged in separate paragraphs? Also, be careful using numbers because they can imply a ranked order of priority or importance. If none exists, use bullets and avoid checkmarks or other symbols.
• Descriptive writing . Describing a research problem is an important means of contextualizing a study. In fact, some description or background information may be needed because you can not assume the reader knows the key aspects of the topic. However, the content of your paper should focus on methodology, the analysis and interpretation of findings, and their implications as they apply to the research problem rather than background information and descriptions of tangential issues.
• Personal experience. Drawing upon personal experience [e.g., traveling abroad; caring for someone with Alzheimer's disease] can be an effective way of introducing the research problem or engaging your readers in understanding its significance. Use personal experience only as an example, though, because academic writing relies on evidence-based research. To do otherwise is simply story-telling.

NOTE:   Rules concerning excellent grammar and precise word structure do not apply when quoting someone.  A quote should be inserted in the text of your paper exactly as it was stated. If the quote is especially vague or hard to understand, consider paraphrasing it or using a different quote to convey the same meaning. Consider inserting the term "sic" in brackets after the quoted text to indicate that the quotation has been transcribed exactly as found in the original source, but the source had grammar, spelling, or other errors. The adverb sic informs the reader that the errors are not yours.

Academic Writing. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Academic Writing Style. First-Year Seminar Handbook. Mercer University; Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Cornell University; College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Murray, Rowena  and Sarah Moore. The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach . New York: Open University Press, 2006; Johnson, Eileen S. “Action Research.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education . Edited by George W. Noblit and Joseph R. Neikirk. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020); Oppenheimer, Daniel M. "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly." Applied Cognitive Psychology 20 (2006): 139-156; Ezza, El-Sadig Y. and Touria Drid. T eaching Academic Writing as a Discipline-Specific Skill in Higher Education . Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2020; Pernawan, Ari. Common Flaws in Students' Research Proposals. English Education Department. Yogyakarta State University; Style. College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Invention: Five Qualities of Good Writing. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Improving Academic Writing

To improve your academic writing skills, you should focus your efforts on three key areas: 1.   Clear Writing . The act of thinking about precedes the process of writing about. Good writers spend sufficient time distilling information and reviewing major points from the literature they have reviewed before creating their work. Writing detailed outlines can help you clearly organize your thoughts. Effective academic writing begins with solid planning, so manage your time carefully. 2.  Excellent Grammar . Needless to say, English grammar can be difficult and complex; even the best scholars take many years before they have a command of the major points of good grammar. Take the time to learn the major and minor points of good grammar. Spend time practicing writing and seek detailed feedback from professors. Take advantage of the Writing Center on campus if you need help. Proper punctuation and good proofreading skills can significantly improve academic writing [see sub-tab for proofreading you paper ].

Refer to these three basic resources to help your grammar and writing skills:

• A good writing reference book, such as, Strunk and White’s book, The Elements of Style or the St. Martin's Handbook ;
• A college-level dictionary, such as, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary ;
• The latest edition of Roget's Thesaurus in Dictionary Form .

3.  Consistent Stylistic Approach . Whether your professor expresses a preference to use MLA, APA or the Chicago Manual of Style or not, choose one style manual and stick to it. Each of these style manuals provide rules on how to write out numbers, references, citations, footnotes, and lists. Consistent adherence to a style of writing helps with the narrative flow of your paper and improves its readability. Note that some disciplines require a particular style [e.g., education uses APA] so as you write more papers within your major, your familiarity with it will improve.

II. Evaluating Quality of Writing

A useful approach for evaluating the quality of your academic writing is to consider the following issues from the perspective of the reader. While proofreading your final draft, critically assess the following elements in your writing.

• It is shaped around one clear research problem, and it explains what that problem is from the outset.
• Your paper tells the reader why the problem is important and why people should know about it.
• You have accurately and thoroughly informed the reader what has already been published about this problem or others related to it and noted important gaps in the research.
• You have provided evidence to support your argument that the reader finds convincing.
• The paper includes a description of how and why particular evidence was collected and analyzed, and why specific theoretical arguments or concepts were used.
• The paper is made up of paragraphs, each containing only one controlling idea.
• You indicate how each section of the paper addresses the research problem.
• You have considered counter-arguments or counter-examples where they are relevant.
• Arguments, evidence, and their significance have been presented in the conclusion.
• Limitations of your research have been explained as evidence of the potential need for further study.
• The narrative flows in a clear, accurate, and well-organized way.

Boscoloa, Pietro, Barbara Arféb, and Mara Quarisaa. “Improving the Quality of Students' Academic Writing: An Intervention Study.” Studies in Higher Education 32 (August 2007): 419-438; Academic Writing. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Academic Writing Style. First-Year Seminar Handbook. Mercer University; Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Cornell University; Candlin, Christopher. Academic Writing Step-By-Step: A Research-based Approach . Bristol, CT: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2016; College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Style . College Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Invention: Five Qualities of Good Writing. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College.

Writing Tip

Considering the Passive Voice in Academic Writing

In the English language, we are able to construct sentences in the following way: 1.  "The policies of Congress caused the economic crisis." 2.  "The economic crisis was caused by the policies of Congress."

The decision about which sentence to use is governed by whether you want to focus on “Congress” and what they did, or on “the economic crisis” and what caused it. This choice in focus is achieved with the use of either the active or the passive voice. When you want your readers to focus on the "doer" of an action, you can make the "doer"' the subject of the sentence and use the active form of the verb. When you want readers to focus on the person, place, or thing affected by the action, or the action itself, you can make the effect or the action the subject of the sentence by using the passive form of the verb.

Often in academic writing, scholars don't want to focus on who is doing an action, but on who is receiving or experiencing the consequences of that action. The passive voice is useful in academic writing because it allows writers to highlight the most important participants or events within sentences by placing them at the beginning of the sentence.

Use the passive voice when:

• You want to focus on the person, place, or thing affected by the action, or the action itself;
• It is not important who or what did the action;
• You want to be impersonal or more formal.

Form the passive voice by:

• Turning the object of the active sentence into the subject of the passive sentence.
• Changing the verb to a passive form by adding the appropriate form of the verb "to be" and the past participle of the main verb.

NOTE: Consult with your professor about using the passive voice before submitting your research paper. Some strongly discourage its use!

Active and Passive Voice. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Diefenbach, Paul. Future of Digital Media Syllabus. Drexel University; Passive Voice. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina.  

• << Previous: 2. Preparing to Write
• Next: Applying Critical Thinking >>
• Last Updated: May 18, 2024 11:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Memberships
• Institutional Members
• Teacher Members

Academic Synthesis

by AEUK | Aug 16, 2021 | EAP Teacher , Referencing

 What is  synthesis ?

Synthesis is a key feature of analytical academic writing. It is the skill of being able to combine a number of sources in a clause, paragraph or text to either support an argument or refute it. We also synthesise sources to be able to compare and contrast ideas and to further expand on a point. It is important that the writer shows the reader that they have researched the subject matter extensively in order to not only demonstrate how a variety of sources can agree or disagree but also to present more balanced arguments.

Academic Synthesis Video

A short 8-minute video on what synthesis is.

PDF Lesson Download

  Academic Synthesis: synthesising sources  [new 2021]

This lesson is designed to support students in their understanding and use of synthesising sources. It includes noticing the use of sources in context, a language focus with examples, two guided writing practice activities, a freer practice paragraph writing task with model answer and teacher’s notes – see worksheet example. Time: 120mins.   Level *** ** [ B1/B2/C1]   TEACHER MEMBERSHIP / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

Terms & Conditions of Use

Paragraph example of synthesis.

Look at this paragraph containing synthesised sources. Highlight the citations / in-text references and their corresponding point made.

Coursework versus examination assessment

Using assignment essays for assessment supports learning better than the traditional examination system. It is considered that course-work assignment essays can lessen the extreme stress experienced by some students over ‘sudden death’ end of semester examinations and reduce the failure rate (Langdon, 2016). Study skills research by Peters et al. (2018) support assessment by assignment because research assignments can be used to assess student learning mid-course and so provide them with helpful feedback. They also consider that assignment work lends itself to more critical approaches which help the students to learn the discourse of their subjects. In contrast, Abbot (2008) and Cane (2018) both argue that assignments are inefficient, costly to manage and are the cause of plagiarism problems in universities. A key argument is that “assessment by examination is a clean-cut approach as you obtain students’ knowledge under supervised circumstances” (Bable, 2008, p.20). The weight of evidence, however, would suggest that it is a fairer and more balanced approach to have some assessment by assignment rather than completely by examinations.

Using assignment essays for assessment supports learning better than the traditional examination system. It is considered that course-work assignment essays can lessen the extreme stress experienced by some students over ‘sudden death’ end of semester examinations and r educe the failure rate (Langdon, 2016) . Study skills research by  Peters et al. (2018) support assessment by assignment because r esearch assignments can be used to assess student learning mid-course and so provide them with helpful feedback. They also consider that assignment work lends itself to more critical approaches which help the students to learn the discourse of their subjects . In contrast, Abbot (2008) and Cane (2018) both argue that assignments are inefficient, costly to manage and are the cause of plagiarism problems in universities. A key argument is that “assessment by examination is a clean-cut approach as you obtain students’ knowledge under supervised circumstances” (Bable, 2008, p.20) . The weight of evidence, however, would suggest that it is a fairer and more balanced approach to have some assessment by assignment rather than completely by examinations.

Language Focus

The writer synthesises two sources to be able to support their argument for assignment examinations.

It is considered that course-work assignment essays can lessen the extreme stress experienced by some students over ‘sudden death’ end of semester examinations and reduce the failure rate  (Langdon, 2016) . Study skills research by  Peters et al. (2018)  support assessment by assignment because research assignments can be used to assess student learning mid-course and so provide them with helpful feedback.

The writer synthesises two connected sources to be show the opposing views to assignment based examinations.

In contrast,  Abbot (2008)  and  Cane (2018)  both argue that assignments are inefficient, costly to manage and are the cause of plagiarism problems in universities.

The writer synthesises another relevant source through quotation to further support the point  against assignment-based examinations.

A key argument is that “assessment by examination is a clean-cut approach as you obtain students’ knowledge under supervised circumstances”   (Bable, 2008, p.20) .

The writer could synthesise a number of sources together to show they have applied comprehensive academic research into the topic.

Study skills research by Jones et al. (2010), UCL (2016), Wilson (2017) and Peters (2018) support assessment by assignment because research assignments can be used to assess student learning mid-course and so provide them with helpful feedback.

Study skills research supports assessment by assignment because research assignments can be used to assess student learning mid-course and so provide them with helpful feedback (Jones et al., 2010; UCL, 2016; Wilson, 2017 & Peters, 2018) .

Integral and non-integral referencing

When synthesising sources, it is important to incorporate and reference them accurately. This can be done in two ways:

• Integral citations are where the author is the main subject of clause and only the year is placed in brackets. A reporting verb ( argue, claim, suggest etc.) is required to introduce the rest of the clause.

2. In non-integral citations, both the author and year is stated in parenthesis at the end of a clause. There must also be a comma separating the name and year.

Synthesis Practice

Suggested answer

Although the main goal of the World Bank is to reduce poverty and foster economic growth in developing countries (Johnson, 2018) , Williams (2019) highlights that there has been an increase in the level of poverty in Africa.

For a detailed worksheet and more exercises – buy the  download below.

Arnold (2019) asserts that the decline of printed newspapers is mainly due to increased online activity overall. As we spend more time on the Internet in general than we did ten years previously, the more likely we are to search for news stories through search engines or blogs (James, 2020).

Academic Synthesis Download

More referencing downloads.

• Harvard Referencing Guide
• APA 7th Edition Referencing Guide

Referencing Guide: Harvard

 This is a basic reference guide to citing and creating a reference list or a bibliography. It shows the correct way to create in-text citations and reference lists for books, journals, online newspapers and websites.   Web page link . TEACHER MEMBERSHIP  / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

Free Download

Referencing Guide: APA 7th Edition

Referencing: harvard referencing worksheet 1 [updated 2021].

Two part worksheet that is a paragraph and reference list.  Students have to put in the correct in-text reference. The second part is a reference list exercise where students have to put the sections in the correct order. A nice lesson to introduce students to referencing and becoming aware of key referencing principles.  Level ** ** * [B1/B2/C1]  Example  / Webpage link / TEACHER MEMBERSHIP  / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

£4.00 – Add to cart Checkout Added to cart

Referencing: Harvard Referencing Worksheet 2 [new for 2021]

This lesson supports students in their understanding and use of Harvard referencing. It contains six worksheets: a discussion on referencing, a noticing activity, a reordering task, an error identification exercise, a sentence completion task, a gap-fill activity and a reference list task.   Level ** ** * [B1/B2/C1]  Example  / Webpage link / TEACHER MEMBERSHIP  / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

£5.00 – Add to cart Checkout Added to cart

Two part worksheet that is a paragraph and reference list. Students have to put in the correct in-text reference. The second part is a reference list exercise where students have to put the sections in the correct order. A nice lesson to introduce students to referencing and becoming aware of key referencing principles.  Level ** ** * [B1/B2/C1]    Example   / Webpage link   / TEACHER MEMBERSHIP  / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

This lesson supports students in their understanding and use of APA referencing. It contains six worksheets: a discussion on referencing, a noticing activity, a reordering task, an error identification exercise, a sentence completion task, a gap-fill activity and a reference list task. Level ** ** * [B1/B2/C1]    Example   / Webpage link   / TEACHER MEMBERSHIP  / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

How to use www.citethisforme.com  [new for 2021]

This lesson is an introduction to using the online reference generator: www.citethisforme.com. It begins by providing a step-by-step guide to using the application and its many functions. The lesson is a task-based activity where students use the reference generator to create bibliography citations.   Worksheet example  Time: 60mins.   Level *** ** [ B1/B2/C1]  / Video / TEACHER MEMBERSHIP / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

Paraphrasing Lesson – how to paraphrase effectively

 It starts by discussing the differences between quotation, paraphrase and summary. It takes students through the basics of identifying keywords, finding synonyms and then changing the grammatical structure. There is plenty of practice, all with efficient teacher’s notes.  Level ** ** * [B1/B2/C1]   Example  / TEACHER MEMBERSHIP  / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

Paraphrasing Lesson 2 – improve your paraphrasing skills  [new for 2021]

This lesson helps students to improve their paraphrasing skills. The guided learning approach includes a text analysis activity where students identify the paraphrasing strategies, five sentence-level tasks to practise the strategies and two paragraph-level exercises to build on the previous tasks..  Level ** ** * [B1/B2/C1]   Example  / TEACHER MEMBERSHIP  / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

      Writing a paragraph – using quotes about smoking

Students are given a worksheet with nine quotes taken from The New Scientist, BBC News, The Economist, etc… and choose only three. They use these three quotes to write a paragraph trying to paraphrase the quotes and produce a cohesion piece of writing.  Level ** ** * [B1/B2/C1]    Example / TEACHER MEMBERSHIP  / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

Reporting Verbs 

 Use the verbs in the box to put into the sentences on the worksheet. Each sentence has a description of the type of verb needed. Check the grammar of the verb too! Web page link . TEACHER MEMBERSHIP  / INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIP

More writing resources

Academic phrases, academic style [1], academic style [2], academic style [3], academic word list , writing websites, error correction,   hedging [1], hedging [2], noun phrases [1], noun phrases [2], referencing, in-text referencing, harvard referencing, apa referencing, reference generators, reference lists, reporting verbs, credible sources, evaluating sources, academic integrity, ‘me’ in writing, writing skills, paraphrasing [1], paraphrasing [2], paraphrase (quotes), summarising  , summary language, critical thinking, argument essays, spse essays, parallelism, sentence structure [1], sentence structure [2], punctuation, structure    , essay structure, introductions, thesis statements, paragraphing, topic sentences, definitions, conclusions, linking words, marking criteria, more blog posts….

Advertisement 

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Video Transcripts: Analyzing & Synthesizing Sources: Synthesis: Definition and Examples

Analyzing & synthesizing sources: synthesis: definition and examples.

Last updated 11/8/2016

Video Length: 2:50

Visual: The screen shows the Walden University Writing Center logo along with a pencil and notebook. “Walden University Writing Center.” “Your writing, grammar, and APA experts” appears in center of screen. The background changes to the title of the video with open books in the background.

Audio: Guitar music plays.

Visual: Slide changes to the title “Moving Towards Synthesis” and the following:

Interpreting, commenting on, explaining, discussion of, or making connections between MULTIPLE ideas and sources for the reader.

Often answers questions such as:

• What do these things mean when put together?
• How do you as the author interpret what you’ve presented?

Audio : Synthesis is a lot like, I like to say it's like analysis on steroids. It's a lot like analysis, where analysis is you're commenting or interpreting one piece of evidence or one idea, one paraphrase or one quote. Synthesis is where you take multiple pieces of evidence or multiple sources and their ideas and you talk about the connections between those ideas or those sources. And you talk about where they intersect or where they have commonalities or where they differ. And that's what synthesis is. But really, in synthesis, when we have synthesis, it really means we're working with multiple pieces of evidence and analyzing them.

Visual: Slide changes to the title “Examples of Synthesis” and the following example:

Ang (2016) found that small businesses that followed the theory of financial management reduced business costs by 12%, while Sonfield (2015) found that this theory reduced costs by 17%. These studies together confirmed that adopting the theory of financial management reduces costs for U.S. small businesses.

Audio: So here's an example for you. In this eaxmple we have Ang (2016), that's source number 1, right? Then Sonfield (2015), that's source number 2. They are both using this theory and found that it reduced costs by both 12% and 17%. So this is my evidence, right?

I have one sentence, but two pieces of evidence, because we're working with two different sources, Ang and Sonfield, one and two. In my next sentence, my last sentence here, we have my piece of synthesis. Because I'm taking these two sources and saying that they both found something very similar. They confirmed that adopting the theory for financial management reduces costs for small businesses. So I'm showing the commonality between these two sources. So it's a very, sort of, not simple, but, you know, clean approach to synthesis. It's a very direct approach to kind of showing the similarities between these two sources. So that's an example of synthesis, okay.

Visual : The following example is added to the slide:

Sharpe (2016) observed an increase in students’ ability to focus after they had recess. Similarly, Barnes (2015) found that hands-on activities also helped students focus. Both of these techniques have worked well in my classroom, helping me to keep my students engaged in learning.

Audio: Another example here. So Sharpe found that one thing helps students. Barnes found another thing helps students focus. Two different sources, two different ideas. In the bold sentence of synthesis, I'm taking these two ideas together and talking about how they have both worked well in my classroom.

The synthesis that we have here kind of take two different approaches. The first example is more about how these studies confirm something. The second example is about how these two ideas can be useful in my own practice, I'm applying it to my own practice, or the author is applying it to their own practice in the classroom. But they both are examples of synthesis and taking different pieces of evidence showing how they work together or relate, okay.

I kind of like to think of synthesis as taking two pieces of a puzzle. So each piece of evidence is a piece of the puzzle. And you're putting together those pieces for the reader and saying, look, this is the overall picture, right? This is what we can see, when these two pieces--or three pieces--of the puzzle are put together. So it's kind of like putting together a puzzle.

Visual: “Walden University Writing Center. Questions? E-mail [email protected] ” appears in center of screen.

• Previous Page: Analyzing & Synthesizing Sources: Analysis in Paragraphs
• Next Page: Analyzing & Synthesizing Sources: Synthesis in Paragraphs
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

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

Centers and Offices

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

Student Resources

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

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.