2: Synthesize

After writing an in-depth essay on one topic, the second essay is an opportunity to write with more breadth. You will be asked to write a thesis-driven essay, which synthesizes the core topics (shared themes and overlapping concepts) and takes a cohesive position on designing information environments. You may find that the authors discuss similar phenomena using different terminology. This is a chance to clear up miscommunication and create bridges among the topics. Additionally, the themes you choose to discuss in the essay should be relevant to design—you are responsible for making and describing how the topics relate to designing information environments.

We will begin by assembling into groups of 3 in which each group member represents a different topic. As a group, you will discuss the topics in detail and map overlapping concepts and themes. Afterwards, you will individually take a position, map the milestones for your argument, and compose a short essay. Your group will have 10 minutes to present and debate your positions.

Deliverables

• Synthesis and argument maps (at least 2)
• 1200 word essay (post to website and email Word document)
• 10 minute group presentation and debate (a visual presentation is advised)

Structure of Essay

Introduction:

• Opening statement
• Introduces the topics/work synthesized (title, author, pertinent background)
• Thesis statement that summarizes the context and your position

Body:

• Organized by theme/overlapping patterns across topics
• Begin each paragraph with a sentence revealing the purpose of the paragraph
• Include information from more than one source
• Clearly indicate sources using lead in phrases and in-text citations
• Compare similarities and differences across sources so as to reveal multiple points of view
• Represent the cited work accurately
• Include your interpretation of the meaning and significance of each theme in relation to designing information environments

Conclusion:

• Summarize the significant themes
• Disclose material beyond the scope of the paper
• Addresses how informed designers should continue thinking about design thinking and how recognizing your position will affect their future work

Process

1. Assemble into groups of 3 (each person should represent a separate topic)
2. Share topical maps from the first essay and discuss each in detail
3. Read the sources for the other 2 topics
4. Map/reorganize overarching themes and patterns among the topics/topical maps using group grids and cluster mapping (at least 3 times)
5. Discuss the themes and patterns in the context of design (what does it mean for designers)
6. Highlight overlaps that are significant for designers
7. Individually take a position on the importance of the overlaps
8. Find examples that support your position and/or adjust your position accordingly
9. Map the “milestones” in your argument (sequence chain)
10. Insert logical transitions between the milestones
11. Draft the essay according to the map
12. Refine your writing voice, including grammar and spelling
13. Edit the two essays written by your group members
14. Correct and refine your essay
15. Submit the essay through the website and email the word doc for evaluation
16. Deliver a 10 minute group presentation with a few minutes afterwards for Q&A

Assessment

The synthesis essay is worth %30 of your final grade. The grade will be determined by the following criteria:

20% Contextualizes the issue for readers: Introduction and conclusion

• 5: Captures the complexity of the issue and takes a clear position (conclusion does not summarize, but addresses how informed designers should continue thinking about design thinking and how it will affect their work)
• 4: States various components of the issue and takes a clear position (conclusion does not summarize, but addresses how informed designers should continue thinking about the issue)
• 3: Takes a position and simplifies the issue (introduction and conclusion may be redundant)
• 2: Takes a weak position that may be lost in the point of view of sources (vague conclusion)
• 1: Does not take a position (lacking a conclusion)

25% Structure: Combining sources and position

• 5: Cohesive, astute, well-organized, and supported argument (convincing and transferable argument; insightful connections among topics; conversation between writer and sources; successfully capture the intent of the source authors; effectively cite sources)
• 4: Cohesive, well-organized, and supported argument (convincing argument; adequate connections among topics; lacking conversation; may not capture intent of sited authors; adequately cites all sources)
• 3: Cohesive and supported argument (argument may be clear, but limited or inconsistent; truncated connections made among topics;  sources generally support the argument; response to topics may be misunderstood or oversimplified; some sources may not be cited)
• 2: Organization lacks adequate management (body paragraphs may not clearly support the thesis; only summarizes the source material; indirect reference to or long quotes from sources; topics not contextualized; sources are frequently not cited)
• 1: Alludes to rather than cites sources (summarize rather than synthesis; misinterpret sources; drift to other tangents)

25% Perspective

• 5: Insightful (a penetrating and novel viewpoint; effectively critiques and encompasses other plausible perspectives)
• 4: Thorough (a revealing and coordinated critical view; strengthens own view by describing the views of others)
• 3: Considered (reasonably critical and comprehensive look at all points of view; clarifies the plausibility of other view points)
• 2: Aware (knows of different ppoints of view and somewhat able to place personal views in perspective; weakly considers and/or critiques value of others’ perspectives)
• 1: uncritical (does not demonstrate awareness of differing points of view; has difficulty imagining other ways of seeing things)

15% Writing voice

• 5: Writing is effective and exhibits mature stylistic elements (each paragraph contains a separate idea; general statements are supported; explanations are clear, thorough, and accurate; effective diction; some figurative language; sentence structure varies; few to no spelling and writing mechanics errors)
• 4: Writing is effective and generally clear (each paragraph contains a separate idea; general statements are supported; explanations may be occasionally unclear, awkward, or implausible; stylistic elements may not be present; sentence structures may be repetitious; passive voice may be used ineffectively; few to no spelling and writing mechanics errors)
• 3: Adequately contains idea but often lapses in diction or syntax (generally good ideas but difficulty expressing them; expalnations may be occasionally unclear, awkward, or implausible; problematic spelling and writing mechanics errors)
• 2: Writing lacks control (difficulty expressing ideas; expalnations may be unclear, awkward, or implausible; problematic spelling and writing mechanics errors)
• 1: Writing is weak (incomplete, unclear, or implausible ideas and explanations; spelling and writing mechanics errors make reading difficult)

15% Presentation

• 5: Provides a variety of types of content; appropriate delivery for the audience and setting; excites the audience; material delivered in a confident and poise manner; uses visual aids to organize ideas in clear sequence; delivers materials in the allotted time.
• 4: Provides essential content; appropriate delivery for the audience; captures the audiences attention; appropriate volume and talking pace; the presentation can be outlined easily; delivers materials within a few minutes of allotted time.
• 3: Includes some irrelevant content; uses some terms or concepts wit which the audience is not familiar; audience cannot follow the presentation at times; the volume is too low and/or the pace is too fast; unorganized delivery; presentations is 5 minutes under or over allotted time.
• 2: Materials are primarily irrelevant; ignores the audience and situation; repetitive and insufficient use of materials; volume and pace make it difficult to understand the presenter; lack of organization makes it difficult to understand the message.