Synthesize sources instead of stacking summaries
Three summaries can still leave the reader asking “so what?”
- The materials team has notes on layout, preference and comprehension. Listing “Source P says… Source Q says… Source R says…” does not explain how the sources relate or what they contribute to the proposed sorting question.
- This original GAC033-aligned lesson teaches synthesis: connecting information around a question while preserving differences. The source cards below are invented classroom examples, not real research or citations. A real proposal needs verified sources from the search process in unit 5.3.
What does synthesis add beyond a list of summaries?
Synthesis explains relationships and their implications while preserving distinctions.
Compare question, method and outcome
- Read the three fictional cards as different pieces of evidence. P describes a task result; Q describes preference; R concerns a different kind of instruction. Do not combine every favourable statement as if all three measured the same outcome.
- Build a matrix with the source's question, participants, method, finding and limit. This makes a disagreement or mismatch visible before you write a paragraph. A missing method detail stays unknown, not filled with a convenient guess.
| Fictional card | Evidence described | Limit for our sorting proposal |
|---|---|---|
| P | 12 adults made fewer location-choice errors with separated labels in one task | Small adult sample and a different task |
| Q | 8 college volunteers preferred the more spacious of two designs | Preference, not accuracy |
| R | 32 students completed more steps correctly using shorter software instructions | Wording changed, not tray-label layout |
Which fictional card measures preference rather than task accuracy?
Q asks which design volunteers preferred. It does not report correct sorting.
Organise by a claim, not by an author list
- A possible theme is that presentation may influence how users respond, but different measures answer different questions. Put sources together where they speak to that theme, then explain the differences. Agreement about a broad idea does not prove agreement about a precise effect.
- Avoid “all sources prove spacing works.” P offers a task observation under limited conditions; Q supports a preference claim; R suggests attention to wording. The team should distinguish these contributions rather than upgrade them to one universal rule.
{callout:example} “The fictional cards suggest several ways instructions may be evaluated. P describes fewer choice errors with separated labels, whereas Q reports a preference without measuring accuracy. R concerns shorter wording in a different task. Together they motivate a careful comparison, but they do not establish that our layout B improves four-item sorting in this class.” {/callout}
Which TWO conclusions are appropriately limited?
P and R have stated task and sample limits. Q does not measure accuracy, and universal superiority is unsupported.
Connect a justified gap to your question
- A research gap here is a question the reviewed evidence does not settle: how the two proposed layouts compare on this specific paper task. It is not a claim that no one anywhere has studied labels. Your search may be incomplete, and your project may be a local application of existing research.
- Explain why your next evidence would be useful and what it cannot add. The small class comparison could inform this design decision; it cannot establish a universal rule for all ages, settings and languages. A modest contribution can still be worthwhile.
{callout:warn} Never use these invented cards as real references in an application, essay or research proposal. They model reasoning only. Replace them with sources you have read and can trace, and revise the argument to match those sources. {/callout}
A local gap means the team can assert that no one anywhere has researched label layout.
A local unanswered question is not proof of a worldwide absence of research. Searches have limits.
Preserve attribution and your own reasoning
- Keep source ideas attributed when you paraphrase. Changing a few words does not make another author's claim yours. Your contribution is the comparison, interpretation and connection to the project; make those moves visible in the paragraph.
- Check that the cited source supports the sentence beside it. Do not attach a source about preference to a claim about measured accuracy. Use a quotation only when its exact wording matters and keep the necessary location information in your notes.
Order a synthesis-writing process.
The argument grows from comparison; it does not force unrelated findings into a preferred conclusion.
Revise a review around its purpose
- Write a 120-word synthesis of the three teaching cards, explicitly calling them fictional. Include one shared theme, one important difference, a limit and the reason for a local comparison. Then prepare a separate version using real verified sources for any actual proposal.
- Ask a partner to identify the sentence where you move from evidence to your own interpretation. If that move is unsupported, qualify it. A literature review should lead to the research question, not simply display the number of links collected.
{callout:key} Synthesis connects sources by a relevant question, keeps measures and limits distinct, attributes ideas and explains a justified next investigation. {/callout}