ENC 1102 Synthesis Important Dates Basic Draft Due for peer workshop: 9/30 Revised Due to instructor:

10/4 Conferences with instructor: 10/7 Assignment Outcomes and Context The goal of the synthesis assignment is to illustrate how three of the sources below address a similar idea or concept: Panopticism by Foucault How to Tame a Wild Tongue by Anzalda Authority and American Usage by Foster Wallace "The Joy of Lexicography" by Erin McKean (http://www.ted.com/talks/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html) Ways of Seeing by Berger Writing Requirements In 1200-1500 words, synthesize three sources in an essay about a particular idea or concept. To do this, think about what the sources have in common, how they differ, and how they are in conversation with one another. As a rhetorical model, it might be best to take note of how the scholarly articles you are reading address similar ideas in their first few pages. The synthesis will demonstrate your (rhetorical) knowledge of the topic at hand. This assignment requires a Works Cited page (use MLA formatting). Elements of the synthesis essay: Begin with a synthesis or focusing question that reflects your intellectual wrestling with the ideas in your sources and in some way integrates ideas from these sources with your own independent thinking. Include short summaries of the texts to build context for an uninformed audience. Write a thesis that indicates how you have analyzed and synthesized the readings to arrive at a new perspective. An analysis and synthesis of ideas from the texts combined with your own ideas.

Synthesis Prep 1. List 5-10 questions that the readings have provoked you to think about. Then narrow the list to 2-3 questions.

2. What 3 essays have interesting things to say about the questions you like the most?

3. Summarize each text. (Writing a 1-page summary is a good way to clarify your understanding of the text.) 4. Analyze the rhetorical strategies used in the texts. (Use the analysis questions from the Analysis prep packet also in your book on p.105-110.) 5. Identify main issues or themes in your assigned or chosen texts. Then explore the similarities and differences in their ideas. a. What main ideas or themes related to your synthesis question do you see in each text?

b. What similarities and differences do you see in the way the authors choose to frame the issues they are writing about? How do their theses (either implied or stated) differ?

c. What are the main similarities and differences in their angles of vision?

d. What commonalities and intersections related to your synthesis question do you see in their ideas? What contradictions and clashes do you see in their ideas?

e. What similarities and differences do you see in the authors underlying values and assumptions?

f. What overlap, if any, is there in these authors examples and uses of terms?

g. On the subject of your synthesis question, how would Author A respond to Author B, etc.

6. In light of what you have read and thought about so far, explore your own views on the original synthesis question that has guided your probing of the texts. a. What do you agree with and disagree with in the texts you have analyzed?

b. How have these texts changed your perception and understanding of an issue, question, or problem? (You might want to use these prompts: I used to think ____, but now I think ____. Although these texts have persuaded me that ____, I still have doubts about ____.)

c. Related to your synthesis question, what new, significant questions do these texts raise for you?

d. What do you now see as the main controversies?

e. What is your current view on the focusing question that connects your text and that all your texts explore?

f. How would you position yourself in the conversation of the texts?

g. If you find one authors perspective more valid, accurate, interesting, or useful than anothers, why is that?

7. Reread your responses to questions 3-6 and consider how your own views on the synthesis question have evolved and emerged. Think about the risky, surprising, or new views that you can bring to your readers. In light of your reading and thinking, explore what you want to say in your own voice to show the connections you have made and the new insights you now have. What discoveries have you made after much thought? What are the most important insights you have gotten from these readings? What is your intellectual or personal investment with the synthesis question at this point? Where can you step out on your own, even take a risk, in your thinking about the ideas discussed in the texts? What new perspective do you want to share with your readers?

Synthesis Peer Review Workshop 1. Read the entire paper at normal speed without stopping. (You may make marks at things to come back to, but dont make comments yet.) 2. Find and highlight the thesis statement. If you cant figure out what the thesis is, say so. Are there a number of sentences/ideas that could be the thesis? Is it completely missing? Does it map out for readers the points that are to be developed and discussed in the paper? Is there tension? In your own words, what is the main point of the essay?

What works well about the writers presentation of the synthesis question that connects the texts under examination? How could the writer better show the questions significance and problematic nature?

3. In the margin, write the topic of each paragraph. If there is more than one topic, then write all of them. This should make up the outline of the paper. Write the outline here:

Does the outline follow the ABC or 123 format? If not, does it still work as a synthesis of ideas? If the outline needs some attention, what should the author do?

4. How could the body of the analysis follow the thesis more closely? Where do you, the reader, need more clarification or support for the writers points? What further textual evidence could the writer add to develop the analytical points and make them more interesting or comprehensive? Is the writers voice included? If not, where or how could it be?

5. Are the articles summarized sufficiently? Are they placed appropriately? How could they be improved? Do you feel they accurately reflect the original text? If not, what needs to be added/changed?

6. Where could the writer work on the effectiveness of attributive tags, quotations, and documentation?

7. How appealingly do the title and introduction of the essay set up the topic of critique, convey the writers interest, and lay a foundation for the writers thesis? How could the writer conclude the essay more effectively to leave readers with a new perspective on the texts and on the underlying question?

8. What is one thing you enjoyed about the essay? What is one thing you suggest the author focus on during revision?