T AND LEARNING INFORMATION SYNTHESIS - Ed
[ARTICLE]Volume 9, Issue 1, 2015TEACHING AND LEARNING INFORMATIONSYNTHESISAn intervention and rubric based assessmentKacy LundstromUtah State UniversityAnne R. DiekemaUtah State UniversityHeather LearyUniversity of Colorado BoulderSheri HaderlieUtah State UniversityWendy HollidayNorthern Arizona UniversityThe purpose of this research was to determinehow information synthesis skills can be taughteffectively, and to discover how the level ofsynthesis in student writing can be effectivelymeasured. The intervention was an informationsynthesis lesson that broke down the synthesisprocess into sequenced tasks. Researcherscreated a rubric which they used to assessstudents’ levels of information synthesisdemonstrated in their final research essays. Aform of counting analysis was also created tosee if other methods could help in measuringsynthesis.Findings from the rubric analysis revealed thatstudents appear to benefit from the synthesislesson. The level of synthesis, however,remains low overall. In addition, the studyshowed that the different measures of synthesisestablished were able to identify differentlevels of information integration. Discoveringeffective ways to measure and teach synthesiscontinues to be essential in helping studentsbecome information literate.60
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 2015INTRODUCTIONthrough information synthesis in discretesteps by means of individual reading andgroup discussion. At the end of the lessonstudents were asked to write a synthesizedparagraph. The authors also collected finalresearch papers in the class. Both writingproducts were analyzed for evidence ofsynthesis to evaluate the impact of thesynthesis lesson as well as to establishdifferent metrics for measuring synthesis.Perhaps the most essential, and certainlyone of the most complex research skills, isthe ability to synthesize information. Oneresearcher, J.D. Johnson (2009) writes: “ the ability for people to assimilateinformation they find into coherent personalstrategies is perhaps the critical modernsurvival skill” (p. 601). Informationsynthesis is the process of analyzing andevaluating information from varioussources, making connections between theinformation found, and combining therecently acquired information with priorknowledge to create something new.Information synthesis strategies are essentialskills. Without them, we cannot derive newknowledge from these large amounts of data(Larsen, Wactlar & Friedlander, 2003;National Science Board, 2005). Effectiveinformation synthesis is also vital indevelopingeffectivewritingandcommunication skills to share newknowledge. Coherent information synthesisis, therefore, required to productivelyparticipate in and contribute to ourinformation-rich society. Yet collegestudents have difficulty analyzing andsynthesizing different pieces of information(Howard, Serviss, & Rodrigue, 2010).Findings from the study revealed thatstudents appear to benefit from the synthesislesson. There were more instances ofinformation synthesis in the final papers ofstudents who received the lesson. The levelof synthesis however, remained low overall.In addition, studies measuring synthesisidentified different levels of informationintegration. The synthesis rubric used in thisstudy reaffirms that synthesis, and theassessment of it, includes numerous skillsand competencies. The implications of thesefindings suggest that teaching synthesisthrough scaffolding this process requiresmore than a single lesson and shouldperhaps be provided early in the semester.Rubrics and additional metrics that identifysynthesis can be used to communicate tostudents about certain features ofsynthesized papers and can help instructorsand librarians to more accurately assessstudent work and provide them meaningfulfeedback for improvement.The research questions explored in thisstudy ask whether information synthesisskills can be taught effectively byscaffolding this complex cognitive task, andhow the level of synthesis in student writingcan be effectively measured. The studydescribed here investigates an informationsynthesis lesson given to students in auniversity English writing class. The lessonbroke down the synthesis process intoseveral stages requiring students to goPROBLEM STATEMENTThe literature on information seekingbehavior shows that students havesuperficial information seeking and researchskills (Asher, Duke, & Green, 2010;Fitzgerald, 2004; Head and Eisenberg,2009; Kolowich, 2010). In one study only[ARTICLE]61
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 201550% of student participants were able tosuccessfully synthesize information frommultiple sources (Mateos & Sole, 2009).Information synthesis is a key skill forparticipants in our knowledge society andrequires complex processing (Fitzgerald,2004; Goldman, 2004). Yet informationliteracy instruction and practice tend tofavor easily-defined skills that often onlyemphasize the search component of theresearch process, leaving out higher orderprocesses like information synthesis (Lloyd,2007; Montiel-Overall, 2007; Simmons,2005; Tuominen, Savolainen, & Talja,2005; Webber & Johnston, 2000). Similarly,in the writing classroom, teachers arelargely unfamiliar with how to teachsynthesis sometimes implying it is a linearprocess (McGinley, 1992), leading Mateosand Sole (2009) to call for a “unique,careful teaching approach” (p. 448). Inresponse, this study seeks to address thequestion of how to teach students toeffectively synthesize information frommultiple sources, and how to effectivelyassess and identify synthesis when it occursin student work.sources (Howard, Serviss, & Rodrigue,2010), and information synthesis (Blake &Pratt, 2002; Goldschmidt, 1986). Relevantliterature to this study can be found inlibrary and information science (informationliteracy and information problem solvingmodels), education (cognition and literacyinstruction), and composition and rhetoric(writing). Each field approaches the subjectfrom a different angle. Different researchand resulting instructional approaches of thevarious fields are discussed below.Information Problem Solving ModelsInformation problem solving models, alsoknown as information literacy models,mostly serve as scaffolds for teaching theresearch process or as frameworks whenstudying the same process. Informationsynthesis appears in all of the most wellknown models. The The Big 6 model is aninformation problem solving modeldeveloped by Eisenberg and Berkowitz, andis used widely in K-12 schools. This modelincludes synthesis as step five in their sixstep stages, which also includes taskdefinition, information seeking strategies,location and access, use of information, andevaluation (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990;Lowe & Eisenberg, 2005). This particularstep includes organizing from multiplesources and then presenting the information.Here students are directed to read and thenwrite from their notes from previous stepsand to reflect on how best to present thisinformation. In Stripling's six-phase Modelof Inquiry, synthesis is contained in theconstruct phase (Stripling, 2010). This iswhere the bridge is built from previousknowledge to draw new conclusions, whereconflicting information is confronted,conclusions are drawn, and evidence-basedopinions are formed. In the InformationLITERATURE REVIEWInformation synthesis appears in theliterature under several different guises.Commonly used terminology to describe theprocess of analyzing and evaluatinginformation from various sources is multipledocument (or source) comprehension(Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Graesser, &Brodowinska,2012;Goldman&Scardamalia, 2013), multiple documentprocessing (Goldman & Scardamalia, 2013),transliteracy (Andretta, 2009; Thomas et al.,2008), intertextuality (Goldman, 2004;Stadtler & Bromme, 2013), writing from[ARTICLE]62
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 2015Search Process (ISP), Kuhlthau does not usethe label of synthesis, but does include theprocess itself in the formulation stage(Kuhlthau, 1991; Kuhlthau, Heinström, &Todd, 2008). The formulation stage is thefourth of six stages, where the learner formsa focus from all the informationencountered, identifying and selecting ideasfrom multiple sources to form a focusedperspective.domain. The create category is defined asputting together elements to make a whole,including the elements of generating,planning, and producing.The role ofcomprehensionsynthesisintextInformation synthesis can be seen in thearea of text comprehension, specifically inmultiple-source comprehension (also knownas multiple document processing, orintertextuality).Historically,textcomprehension research involved singledocument comprehension; this was notextended to multiple texts until the 1990swhen Wineburg (1991) studied how novicesand experts reasoned about a historicalevent using multiple documents. Usingthink-aloud protocols Wineburg identifiedthe strategies people used to come to aconclusion. More researchers followed (seeStadtler & Bromme, 2013 for details),resulting in a better understanding of thevariousstrategiesemployedwhenprocessing multiple documents (e.g.Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999). According toGoldman and Scardamalia (2013), to besuccessful at synthesizing information frommultiple documents, students need to betaught content knowledge, source expertise,and an understanding of how knowledge iscreated in the field of study. Once these arein place students can evaluate information,integrate it into existing belief structures,and create new knowledge. Both Jucks andPaus (2013) and Goldman and Scardamalia(2013) note the social aspect of creatingmeaning, and they emphasize the use ofdiscussion when teaching multipledocument processing in general and theresolution of conflicting informationbetween documents. Based on this research,the current study incorporates groupInformation synthesis, a higher formof educational thinkingInformation synthesis most commonlyappears in the education literature as a levelin the original Bloom’s Taxonomy ofLearning Domains (Bloom, 1956). ThisTaxonomy isaclassification forunderstanding student learning and topromote higher forms of educationalthinking. The Taxonomy is often depictedas a pyramid with the higher forms ofthinking at the top. For understanding thecognitive domain of learning, the Taxonomybuilds upon steps beginning with factualknowledge and moving to comprehension,application, analysis, synthesis, andevaluation. Synthesis, ranked second fromthe top in the original Taxonomy, isconsidered one of the most important goalsin the field of education. Here, synthesis isdefined as the building of structures orpatterns from a variety of elements withemphasis on creating some new meaning ora new structure from the elements. Some ofthe keywords involved in synthesis include:combine, create, design, and summarize. InKrathwohl’s (2002) revision of Bloom’sTaxonomy, the original categories wererenamed and their definitions revised torepresent more active thinking. Synthesiswas renamed to “create” and changed placeswith “evaluation” as the top category in the[ARTICLE]63
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 2015discussion in the intervention, alternated byindividual reading and reflection.including the ability to “select, organize andconnect content from sources texts as theycompose their own new texts” (p. 9). LikeWineburg (1991), both McGinley (1992)and Spivey (1984) note that much variationexisted in students’ writing processes withproficient and non-proficient college readersmaking different decisions in the ways theychose to make connections between texts.Synthesis in the writing classroomThe rhetoric and composition literatureaddresses how students learn to synthesizemultiple texts. Synthesis is complex innature; therefore, the reading processes, thewriting processes, and writing from multiplesources are all relevant to this discussion.This literature also focuses on how toeffectively teach the synthesis process.Mateos and Sole (2009) found that very fewteachers knew how to help students gobeyond connecting main ideas betweendifferent sources, while McGinley (1992),looking at the connection between writingand thinking processes, concluded thatteachers should avoid implying that writingfrom multiple sources is wholly linear.Following a collaborative approach similarto the current study, Fluellen (2011) pairedstudents together to read aloud and mapconcepts. McGregor (2011) used coded,graphical representations of student work tostart conversations about how students usesources.Anothersolutionrequiresinstructional technology to teach synthesisat younger stages, such as TurboCite orTurboWrite (Tooley, 2005).This literature also considers synthesis to bea cognitively demanding task (Mateos,Martin, Villalon & Luna, 2008), whichrequires multiple activities such asorganization, comprehension, problemdetection, and problem solving (Bråten, I.,Strømsø, 2003). Similarly, Nelson andHayes (1988) noted that in order to writefrom multiple sources, students had to“coordinate a number of supportingactivities.” Flower, et al. (1990) determinedthat synthesis is a risky endeavor, where thereader’s experience and knowledge, the text,and “reality itself may resist synthesis” (p.50). Not surprisingly, only 50% of thosehigh school and university students whowere studied could successfully synthesize(Mateos & Sole, 2009). Torraco (2005)views synthesis as a creative activity “thatproduces a new model, conceptualframework, or other unique conceptioninformed by the author’s intimateknowledge of the topic” (p. 362). The sameauthor describes four forms of synthesis,including a research agenda, a taxonomy orclassification construct, alternative modelsor conceptual frameworks, and metatheories.Measuring information synthesisThe usefulness of using rubrics to helpmeasure information literacy skills has beenwell documented by Oakleaf and others.Oakleaf comments on the ability of a rubricto “capture useable data about informationseeking behavior,” and on the value of therubric development process itself (2007, p.28).Nancy Spivey (1989), a major contributor toresearch in this area, elaborates on the majorcomponentsofdiscoursesynthesis,While no comprehensive rubric exclusivelyevaluating information synthesis was found,[ARTICLE]64
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 2015numerous rubrics have been created thatevaluate information literacy, and theytypically include elements of synthesis.Commonly found aspects of synthesis are asfollows: establishing associations imilarities,differences,unique instances), organizing information toexpress these relationships and patterns byusing transitional sentences, and otherexplicit or implicit markers. Relevantrubrics include the Inquiry and AnalysisVALUE Rubric (Association of AmericanColleges and Universities [AACU], 2010),Northern Arizona University’s (NAU)Synthesis Essay Rubric, Rubric Assessmentof Information Literacy Skills (RAILS)Using Information to Accomplish a PurposeRubric, the Evergreen Synthesis PaperRubric (Ford), and the General EducationAssessment Rubrics (Klassen, 2014). Wedetermined that combining and rethinkingpieces of these current rubrics would bestsuit the task of determining whether or notsynthesis was present in student papers.was a collaborative effort between NAU’seLearning Center and faculty to designeffective instruction and assessment. TheSynthesis Essay Rubric was especiallyimportant in creating subscale C in thepresent study: identifying conversations.The Using Information to Accomplish aPurpose Rubric was created for a libraryinstruction teaching workshop focused onassessment and deposited in the RAILSrepository, a funded research projectinvestigating the use of analytical rubrics inthe assessment of information literacy.Terry Ford, from Evergreen State College,created the Synthesis Paper Rubric. Ford’srubric was helpful in providing vocabularyto describe different skill levels for thepresent study: emerging, developing, andproficient. Ford’s rubric was also usedextensively to create subscale E: analyzingsources to create something new. Klassen’sGeneral Education Assessment Rubrics(2014) helped to distinguish levels ofprogression as students become moreproficient in developing a range of skillsessential to general education. The rubricadapted two of the seven categories in theSynthesis Rubric, including informationliteracy skills and synthesis and criticalthinking skill patterns. The researchersrelied on these five rubrics to develop arubric which more adequately provided aguide for identifying synthesis in studentwork.The rubrics listed above and an in-depthanalysis of numerous student papersinformed the creation of the informationsynthesis rubric (see Appendix A) used inthis study. The VALUE rubric wasbeneficial as it was developed by teams offaculty at colleges and universities acrossthe United States. The aim of the VALUEproject, which resulted in the creation of 16different rubrics, was to have a nationalframework to support common dialog andunderstanding in specific areas forundergraduate level work (AACU, 2010).The Inquiry Analysis rubric heavilyinformed a category (subscale D) in ourrubricwhichfocusedonsourceorganization. The Synthesis Essay RubricRESEARCH DESIGN ANDMETHODSThe research team included two facultylibrarians with a focus on library instruction,and two teaching faculty from theInstructional Technology & LearningSciences Department, all with a vested[ARTICLE]65
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 2015Measuresinterest in helping students improve theirsynthesis skills. The researchers developedan information synthesis lesson, which wasimplemented in four sections of an English2010 class. English 2010, IntermediateWriting: Research Writing in a PersuasiveMode,isarequiredsecond-yearcomposition class. The focus of the class,according to the course description, is the“writing of reasoned academic argumentsupported with appropriately documentedsources. [It] focuses on library and Internetresearch, evaluating and citing sources, oralpresentations based on research, andcollaboration.”Writing products werecollected at the end of the intervention inaddition to students’ final papers for thecourse. These products were analyzed usingthe synthesis rubric that was created andadapted from the previously mentionedrubrics.To measure the extent to which informationsynthesis took place in the written products(synthesis paragraphs and final papers),researchers in this study developed aninformation synthesis rubric based on an indepth analysis of student papers and a seriesof information literacy rubrics that includedaspects of synthesis. The rubric consisted offive categories: A. Source variety, B. Usesinformation from sources effectively, C.Identifies conversations among informationfrom different sources, D. Organizessources overall in a meaningful, purposefulway, and E. Analyzes sources to createsomething new or draw conclusions andmake generalizations. These categories werescored as unacceptable (0), needsimprovement (1), developing (2), advanced/mastery (3). The rubric was revised throughthree iterations in which researchers appliedit to a total of ten student papers from thesame course in a previous semester. Thisinitialassessmentprocessensuredconsistency between raters in ng information, and resulted in thefinal rubric version in Appendix A.ParticipantsThe 87 study participants were enrolled infour Spring 2013 sections of English 2010,all taught by the same instructor. Theenrollments for the four sections consistedof 21, 22, 23, and 21 students respectively.While biographical data on individualstudents was not collected, the totalparticipant pool was 32 female students and55 male students. There were five freshmen,29 sophomores, 34 juniors, and 19 seniors.For the paper analysis, nine papers wererandomly selected from each section.ProceduresThe information synthesis lesson wasimplemented in four sections of ENGL2010. The same researchers taught all foursections. The lesson (see Appendix B)lasted approximately 75 minutes and brokethe synthesis process down into sequencedtasks. The lesson was based on aninformation synthesis workshop developedby Johnson at Arizona State UniversityWest (2003). Students were placed ingroups of three. Using PowerPoint, thelibrarians provided instructions anddiscussed the characteristics of synthesis.The control group participants were enrolledin four Fall 2011 sections of English 2010,all taught by the same instructor. There were89 total control group students, of whom 44were female and 45 were male. There weresix freshmen, 26 sophomores, 37 juniors,and 20 seniors.[ARTICLE]66
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 2015After basic definitions were established, theguided practice began. Each step of theguided practice had clear time delineationswith corresponding instructions on aPowerPoint slide. Students were instructedto read two articles. Each student read oneunique article and one article in commonwith the other members of his or her group.Students each highlighted the main points orareas about which they had questions. Thenstudents wrote the five main points of theirassigned articles on post-it notes, sharedtheir notes with group members, andworked together to group main points bytopic. Once students established generalcategories, they regrouped their post-itclusters and titled each one. At the end ofthe lesson, students were instructed toindividually write a paragraph thatsynthesized one of their group’s clusters.predict the level of synthesis in studentpapers scored by the rubric.The information synthesis rubricTo test the information synthesis rubric forreliability, the researchers scored 72 finalstudent papers (36 from the control groupand 36 from the treatment group). Eachpaper was rated by two raters individuallyand then discussed to form a consensus. Totest the reliability of the rubric, inter-raterreliability was calculated using Cronbach’salpha. Raters had acceptable reliabilityoverall (α .72); the breakdown was α .73 on control papers and α .71 ontreatment papers. Cronbach values between0.70 and 0.95 are considered to beacceptable (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).The impact ofsynthesis lessonTwo researchers observed the lessons torecord students’ reactions, paying specialattention to student questions and theirdifficulties with particular steps in theprocess. After each lesson, the researchersasked for student and instructor feedbackthrough debriefing and a short onlinesurvey. They collected students’ clusters ofconcepts derived from in-class readings forlater analysis, and at the end of the semester,they collected students’ final papers as well.theinformationThe researchers calculated the differencebetween the control and treatment grouppapers for each subscale. To determine ifthere was a significant difference betweenthe calculated scores of the control andtreatment papers, an analysis of variancewas calculated for each of the five subscalesof the rubric. Subscales A, B, D, and E hadno significant differences. A main effect F(1, 70) 7.36, p .01 was reported forConversations Among Information fromDifferent Sources (subscale C), indicatingthat the treatment group papers were betterthan the control group papers for thissubgroup. Out of the five subscales,subscale C is essential, particularly in itsrelationship to category E, which focuses onstudents’ ability to enter the conversation ina meaningful way. In order to enter theconversation, students must first be able toidentify and articulate the conversationsalready taking place, which is the focus ofRESULTSThe researchers scored all student papersusing the rubric and tested their inter-raterreliability. They then measured whether theinformation synthesis intervention improvedstudent synthesis skills, based on studentpapers and the synthesized paragraphs.Finally, the researchers established whethercounting visible markers of synthesis could[ARTICLE]67
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 2015TABLE 1—ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE RUBRIC’S FIVE SUBSCALESSubscaleFp-valueA - Source Variety0.310.58B - Using information from sources effectively1.400.24C - Identifies conversations among information fromdifferent sources7.360.01*D - Organizes sources overall in a meaningful,purposeful way1.020.32E - Analyzes sources to create something new or drawconclusions and make generalizations1.580.21*Significant at p .05.category C. Table 1 reports the analysis ofvariance for all five subscales.were contained on the sticky notes in thecluster they used for writing their . After removal of paragraphswithout in-text citations, paragraphs basedon single-article clusters, and paragraphsfrom students who missed the intervention,a total of 52 paragraphs remained for theanalysis.Synthesis Paragraph AnalysisAt the end of the intervention, each grouphad several information clusters on theirbutcher paper (see figure 1). Every clustercontained several sticky notes, each noteincluding a key point extracted from articlesread by the students. The sticky notes weregrouped together in topical clusters as partof an iterative group process.The 52 paragraphs were analyzed usingsubscale C of the synthesis rubric, whichseemed to most robustly address the keyskill of making connections betweensources. No or very weak connections weremade for 9 (17.3%) paragraphs; onlyimplicit connections between the articleswere made for 10 (19.2%) paragraphs; someexplicit connections were made for 14(26.9%); and several explicit connectionswere made for many of the paragraphs (19or 36.5%).At the end of the lesson, student participantswere asked to pick a cluster and write aparagraphsynthesizingit.Studentssubmitted their synthesis paragraphs using aweb form. In the writing instructions for thesynthesized paragraph (provided in classand also on the form), students were askedto use the article ID (e.g., A, B, C) to cite anarticle in the paragraph. The same web formalso collected additional data: student name,group number, how many different articlesWhen comparing the level of synthesis in[ARTICLE]68
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 2015FIGURE 1—INFORMATION FROM PAPERS ORGANIZED IN NAMED CLUSTERSthe paragraphs with the level of synthesisfound in student papers, the paragraphsfared much better in the highest scorecategory of subscale C (Identifiesconversations among information fromdifferent sources). This remained true afteradding paragraphs without text citationsback into the analysis (see Table 2). Thisfinding suggests that our intervention doeshelp students with the process ofsynthesizing at the paragraph level, but thatthe process does not necessarily transfer tothe same extent to a larger scale project,such as an entire paper.Other methodssynthesisforsource was highlighted and numbered in theworks cited/bibliography list with adifferent color. Second, each source used inthe paper was highlighted in the matchingcolor. A source could have been used in thepaper, but not listed in the reference list.These sources were counted and added tothe works cited list, using the author or title,if available. Third, a comment was addednext to each source noting if it was quotedor referenced or both. Fourth, the number ofsources used in each paragraph was counted(i.e., source #2 was used in three differentparagraphs). And fifth, the researcherscounted how many paragraphs from eachessay used one source, how many used twosources, and so on (see Table 3).measuringAfter scoring each paper using the rubric,the researchers wanted to know if therewere other identifiers of synthesis, such ashow many times a student used a sourceacross paragraphs. With this in mind, trendswere identified using a counting analysisdeveloped by the researchers. First, eachGeneral counting observationsAs can be seen from Table 3, the controland the treatment papers had the samepercentage of paragraphs with the samenumber of sources. Over one-half (56%) ofthe paragraphs citied no sources, while[ARTICLE]69
Lundstrom et al, Teaching & Learning Info SynthesisCommunications in Information Literacy 9(1), 2015TABLE 2—RUBRIC SUBSCALE C SCORES OF STUDENT WRITING PRODUCTSWriting ProductsNRubricScore C0RubricScoreC1RubricScoreC2RubricScoreC3Student Papers (nointervention)364 (11.1%)22 (61.1%)10 (27.8%)0 (0%)Student Papers(intervention)362 (5.6%)12 (33.3%)22 (61.1%)0 (0%)Paragraphs (intervention)529 (17.3%)10 (19.2%)14 (26.9%)19 (36.5%)All Paragraphs*(intervention)7128 (39.4%)10 (14.1%)14 (19.7%)19 (26.8%)*All paragraphs include paragraphs based on single article clusters (3) and paragraphs without any in-textcitations (16). All these 19 articles received a rubric score of 0.almost one-third (29%) cited only onesource. However, having a large number ofsingle-sourceparagraphsdoesnotnecessarily mean the paper scored low onsynthesis overall, as evidenced by controlgroup paper 046-12. This paper receivedone of the two highest synthesis rubric totals(score 10), but had nine paragraphs withonly a single source in them. In contrast, theother high scorer on the synthesis rubric,paper 046-17 (score 10), had threeparagraphs with two sources in them andone paragraph with four sources, whichcould indicate a high level of synthesis.Source useA common scenario for students was toinclude a number of sources
lesson. The level of synthesis, however, remains low overall. In addition, the study showed that the different measures of synthesis established were able to identify different levels of information integration. Discovering effective ways to measure and teach synthesis continues to be essential in helping students become information literate.
and this is still in the form of a PID controller but now the settings are: 2Ip W p c W T p c p K K, W W, and W T 1 Dp. . Colorado School of Mines CHEN403 Direct Synthesis Controller Tuning Direct Synthesis - Direct Synthesis - Direct Synthesis - Colorado School of Mines CHEN403 Direct Synthesis Controller Tuning File Size: 822KB
Milli-Q Synthesis/Synthesis A10 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 USING THIS MANUAL MATCHING THIS MANUAL WITH YOUR MILLI-Q This manual is intended for use with a Millipore Milli-Q Synthesis or Milli-Q Synthesis A10 Water Purification System. This Owner s Manual is a guide for use during the in
Organic Synthesis What are the Essentials in Synthesis? 5 Since organic synthesis is applied organic chemistry, to stand a realistic chance of succeeding in any synthesis, the student ought to have a good knowledge-base of organic chemistry in the following areas: Protecting group chemistry Asymmetric synthesis
2 Materials and methods 14 2.1 Materials 15 2.2 Synthesis of ITO NPs 16 2.3 Synthesis of TiO 2 NPs 17 2.4 Synthesis of PES support layer 18 2.5 Synthesis of PES-ITO nanocomposite membrane 18 2.6 Synthesis of TFC membranes 19 2.7 Characterization of synthesized NPs and membranes 20
Multistep Synthesis: Synthesis of Piperine The independent project I chose to do is the synthesis of Piperine. The reason I choice this project was so that I could compare the results I obtained from the isolation of piperine, and see how both techniques compare to one another. The materials and procedure are
the advantages of microwave assisted synthesis in com-parison to conventional heating. First, we will discuss the microwave synthesis of 2-pyridones. In the second part, microwave assisted synthesis of 2-quionolones will be given. At the end of the review, examples of microwave synthesis of ring fused N-substituted 2-pyri-dones will be discussed.
3.1.2.9 Synthesis of Propoxylated Bisphenol A dimethacrylate 57 3.1.2.10 Purification of Propoxylated Bisphenol A dimethacrylate 60 3.1.2.11 Synthesis of Propoxylated 6F dimethacrylate 60 3.1.2.12 Synthesis of Ethoxylated Bisphenol A dimethacrylate 61 3.1.2.13 Synthesis of Ethoxyla
needs based on the SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle). Scrum method is a part of the Agile method that is expected to increase the speed and flexibility in software development project management. Keywords—Metode Scrum; Agile; SDLC; Software I. INTRODUCTION Companies in effort to maximize its performance will try a variety of ways to increase the business profit [6]. Information .
