A127 Civic Identity and Education in a Multicultural Context

Spring 2011

Synthesis Paper Guidelines

Justification/Goals: The synthesis papers are designed to serve three functions in this class.
First, they should work as a learning tool for each of you individually. By writing each
synthesis paper, you will engage with the texts and the framing questions at a deeper level
and in a more active, engaged way than you are likely to for an average class. You will have
the opportunity before class to develop an argumentative stance—either about the framing
questions themselves or about the relationship among the texts with regard to the framing
questions—which will then enable you in class to push your own thinking one step further.
Second, by entering class with a synthetic understanding of the readings/framing questions
and then sharing your insights during the seminar (whether as a seminar leader or as a
participant), you will also help push your classmates’ thinking further. By seeding “experts”
in each class, I hope to improve the quantity and quality of class participation and class
learning.
Third, the first synthesis paper provides me a means to assess your reading and writing
skills early-ish in the semester, and both synthesis papers enable me to assess your
(formative) mastery of the course content in a different way than I am able to through your
seminar participation alone.

Basic Idea: Your synthesis paper should do one of two things: (1) make an argument about
the framing questions that is grounded in the assigned texts, or (2) make an argument
about the assigned texts that is grounded in the framing questions. It should be 5-6 pages
(about 1500-1800 words), double spaced, 1” margins with standard font.

Examples: A successful synthesis paper may take a position about one or more of the
framing questions for the class, using data/evidence from the texts to support your position.
You may argue that a framing question misses the point, say, because the texts
demonstrate the greater importance of something that the framing question doesn’t
take into account:
E.g. “One can’t answer whether there is such a thing as an ideal citizen in a
multicultural democracy, and hence an ideal civic education, without first
determining who is being asked to answer this question. The essence of a
multicultural democracy is the multiplicity and incommensurability of
perspectives and values; anyone who presumes to describe an ideal citizen is
thus substituting and elevating their inevitably partial perspective in
preference to others’ and thereby violating democratic principles in the
process. I will demonstrate this by comparing Jefferson, Mann, and Pangle and
Pangle.”
You could also answer a framing question using the texts as evidence:
“There are some attributes that all citizens must have, including integrity,
economic self-sufficiency, and respect for others. Other attributes, however,
are necessary only for some citizens, namely those who are elected to
leadership roles in the community. I will demonstrate this by drawing upon
arguments from Jefferson, Mann, and Pangle and Pangle.”
An equally successful synthesis paper may instead take a position about the texts with
regard to the framing questions.
You may argue that one text gives a much more compelling answer to the framing
question than the others:

1
 A127 Civic Identity and Education in a Multicultural Context
Spring 2011

“Pangle and Pangle recast Jefferson’s and Mann’s historically limited

perspectives in a broader light, demonstrating that it is possible to reconcile
republicanism and democratic egalitarianism by focusing on the development
of citizens’ character.”
Or, you may choose to compare and contrast the texts in light of the framing
questions.
“Pangle and Pangle focus on the individual character of citizens, making an
essentially conservative argument about ideals of citizenship that elevates
individuals and communities over structures and institutions. Kaestle, by
contrast, focuses on the structural and institutional interactions of politics and
capitalist economics, demonstrating that even when civic education appears
to address individuals’ needs and development, it actually is used to preserve
capitalist structures and the political institutions that serve them.”

For further guidance: The on-line Analytic Reading and Writing Tutorial provides
careful guidance in how to read for, develop a thesis for, select evidence for, and write an
analytic synthesis paper. You may find it helpful to work through the whole tutorial, or to
focus on a particular section with which you are struggling (such as how to put texts into
dialogue, or how to construct a thesis). Note that the tutorial also walks through an
exemplary synthesis paper so you can see how the recommendations play out in an actual
piece of student writing. I strongly recommend that you view this section in order to see
how all the individual elements of good analytic reading and writing come together in a
strong paper.
Each assessment category in the Synthesis Paper Rubric is also cued to the relevant slides
of the tutorial, so that you can target that skill directly.

Grading: As I explained during shopping period and in the syllabus, I view these synthesis
papers as means of formative rather than summative assessment. You will receive a score
of 1-4 on these papers (as explained on the rubric below). These are intentionally not linked
to letter grades so that you focus on the criteria for mastery rather than on the score/grade
itself. Remember that your final grade will be an indication of mastery of the learning goals
at the end of the course, rather than an average of your mastery throughout. Thus, don’t
take your scores on these papers particularly seriously with respect to your final grade.
Instead, use them to help you focus on areas that you want to strengthen, and find
satisfaction in areas in which you are already strong, as you look toward your application
paper and final project. This is not to say these scores are irrelevant – but don’t stress out
about them. You are always welcome to revise and resubmit a paper if you would like to
increase your demonstrated mastery.

2
 A127 Civic Identity and Education in a Multicultural Context
Spring 2011

SYNTHESIS PAPER Rubric

1 = Missing or Thoroughly Inadequate 2 = Developing 3 = Meets Expectations
4 = Exceeds Expectations  = missing something optional
Category Criteria Stude Teache
Note: Italicized criteria are “as needed” nt r Score
(On-line
Teacher
Student

Score
Tutorial)
Careful Correctly summarizes texts as needed
Reading
Highlights/focuses on main ideas of focal texts
(slides 12-
23)
Thesis Thesis is clear and well defined: the reader can easily
(slides 29- identify and understand the central argument
34) Thesis makes a contestable claim with which others
might disagree
Thesis connects to the framing questions either by:
addressing the framing questions directly, using
evidence from the text to support the thesis; or
discussing and evaluating the texts themselves
with regard to the framing questions
Scope is appropriate given the space allotted: the
central argument can be adequatedly explored in about
1500-1800 words
Analytic Makes an original argument: does not merely summarize
Argument others’ arguments or positions, but instead does one of the
(tutorial as a following (indicate which with a check):
whole, but evaluates relationship(s) among arguments, texts, or
especially authors
slides 19-23,
42, 47-58) evaluates arguments’/texts’ structure and formulation
evaluates arguments/texts with respect to their
broader context or implications
Is internally cohesive: every part of the paper relates to
and advances the central argument
Is complete and coherent: claims are fully developed
(not conclusory) and do not raise more questions than they
answer
Is honest, when necessary, about student’s own
background assumptions, driving values, or other
presuppositions

3
 A127 Civic Identity and Education in a Multicultural Context
Spring 2011

Use of Supports thesis with strong evidence drawn from

Evidence text(s): specific examples, data, quotations, paraphrases,
(slides 35- etc. to back up claims when needed
40) Quotations and citations are used to justify claims,
not just restate them
Supports thesis with strong evidence drawn from
other “texts”: (written, oral, or visual), interviews,
personal experiences, testimonials, etc.
Synthesis Places texts in dialogue with one another, rather than
and solely treating them sequentially or separately
Application
Draws useful meaning from the text: explains (possible)
(slides 24- implications for one’s own thinking and/or actions, and/or for
28) others’ actions (e.g. teachers, policymakers, researchers,
etc.)
Organizati Argument is structured logically: each paragraph or
on and
Clarity
section builds upon the previous to support the thesis
(slides 41- Argument is easy to follow thanks to introductory
44) roadmap, clear transitions, topic sentences, indication of
intermediate conclusions, and other signals used in academic
writing
Writing is clear and easy to read and understand:
sounds like someone talking (although not colloquially)
rather than someone pompously or obscurely opining
Basics Yes / No First page of paper includes paper title, student’s name,
date, and framing question(s); no cover page
Yes / No Addresses 3-4 of the assigned texts (likely 2 texts carefully
and 1-2 texts more superficially)
Yes / No Stays within the guidelines of the assignment: about 1500-
1800 words, double-spaced, 1” margins and standard font
Yes / No Few or no errors in usage, grammar, or mechanics (spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, etc.)
Yes / No Citations and bibliography follow a standard format
(Chicago, MLA, whatever)
Yes / No Submission is timely: 8 p.m. the night before class to class
tab on iSite and via e-mail to all class participants
OVERALL This is a holistic score that reflects what you earn above. It is not an
SCORE (1- exact average, however, since this is an expansive rubric.
4)

Comments: