Synthesize sources instead of stacking summaries · 综合来源而非堆砌摘要
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.
三个摘要仍可能让读者问“那又怎样？”
- 材料团队有关于布局、偏好和理解力的笔记。仅列出“来源P说……来源Q说……来源R说……”并不能解释这些来源之间有何关联或它们对拟议的分类问题有何贡献。
- 这份符合GAC033标准的原始课程教授综合能力：围绕问题连接信息的同时保留差异。下方的来源卡是虚构的课堂示例，非真实研究或引用。真实的提案需要单元5.3搜索过程中验证过的来源。
What does synthesis add beyond a list of summaries? · 综合除了摘要列表外还增加了什么？
Synthesis explains relationships and their implications while preserving distinctions. · 综合解释关系及其含义，同时保留区别。
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 |
比较问题、方法和结果
- 将三张虚构卡片视为不同的证据。P描述了任务结果；Q描述了偏好；R涉及另一种类型的指令。不要将所有有利的陈述合并起来，仿佛三者都测量了相同的结果。
- 构建一个矩阵，包含来源的问题、参与者、方法、发现和局限性。这能在你写段落之前使分歧或不匹配变得清晰。缺失的方法细节应保持未知，而不是用一个方便的猜测来填补。
| 虚构卡片 | 描述的证据 | 对我们分类提案的局限 |
|---|---|---|
| P | 12名成人在一项任务中使用分离标签时位置选择错误更少 | 成人样本量小且任务不同 |
| Q | 8名大学生志愿者更喜欢两个设计中空间更宽敞的一个 | 偏好，而非准确性 |
| R | 32名学生使用较短的软件指令正确完成了更多步骤 | 措辞改变，而非托盘标签布局 |
Which fictional card measures preference rather than task accuracy? · 哪张虚构卡片衡量偏好而非任务准确性？
Q asks which design volunteers preferred. It does not report correct sorting. · Q 询问志愿者更喜欢哪种布局。它不报告正确的分类。
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.
“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.”
按主张组织，而非作者列表
- 可能的一个主题是呈现方式可能会影响用户的响应，但不同的测量回答了不同的问题。将来源放在一起讨论该主题，然后解释差异。对广泛概念的一致并不意味着对具体效应的一致。
- 避免说“所有来源证明间距有效”。P提供了有限条件下的任务观察；Q支持偏好主张；R提示注意措辞。团队应区分这些贡献，而不是将它们提升为一条普遍规则。
“虚构卡片表明了几种评估指令的方式。P描述了使用分离标签时选择错误减少，而Q报告了偏好但未测量准确性。R涉及另一项任务中的较短措辞。它们共同促使进行仔细的比较，但它们并未确立我们的布局B能改进本班级的四项分类。”
Which TWO conclusions are appropriately limited? · 哪两个结论是适当限制的？
P and R have stated task and sample limits. Q does not measure accuracy, and universal superiority is unsupported. · P 和 R 陈述了任务和样本的限制。Q 不测量准确性，且普遍优越性缺乏支持。
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.
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.
将有依据的空隙连接到你的问题
- 这里的研究空隙是指已审查的证据未能解决的问题：两种拟议的布局在此特定纸面任务上的比较。这并不是声称任何地方都没有人研究过标签。你的搜索可能不完整，你的项目可能是现有研究的本地应用。
- 解释为什么下一个证据会有用以及它不能增加什么。小组内的比较可以为这一设计决策提供信息；但它无法建立适用于所有年龄、环境和语言的普遍规则。微小的贡献仍然有价值。
永远不要将这些虚构卡片作为真实参考文献用于申请、论文或研究提案中。它们仅用于建模推理。请替换为你已阅读并能追溯的来源，并根据那些来源修改论证。
A local gap means the team can assert that no one anywhere has researched label layout. · 局部空白意味着团队可以断言全世界没有人研究过标签布局。
A local unanswered question is not proof of a worldwide absence of research. Searches have limits. · 一个未回答的局部问题并非全球研究缺失的证明。搜索有局限性。
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.
保留归属和你自己的推理
- 当你改写时，保持来源观点的归属。更改几个词并不会使另一位作者的声明成为你的。你的贡献在于比较、解释以及与项目的联系；请在段落中明确这些步骤。
- 检查被引用的来源是否支持旁边的句子。不要将与偏好相关的来源附加到关于测量准确性的主张上。仅在确切措辞重要时才使用引语，并在笔记中保留必要的定位信息。
Order a synthesis-writing process. · 安排综合写作流程的顺序。
The argument grows from comparison; it does not force unrelated findings into a preferred conclusion. · 论点源于比较；不会将无关发现强加于偏好的结论。
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.
Synthesis connects sources by a relevant question, keeps measures and limits distinct, attributes ideas and explains a justified next investigation.
围绕目的修订综述
- 撰写一段120字的三张教学卡综合摘要，明确指出它们是虚构的。包括一个共同主题、一个重要差异、一个局限以及进行本地比较的原因。然后准备一个使用真实验证过的来源的版本，用于任何实际提案。
- 请同伴指出你从证据过渡到自己解释的句子。如果这种过渡缺乏支持，请加以限定。文献综述应引导至研究问题，而不仅仅是展示收集链接的数量。
综合通过相关问题连接来源，保持测量和局限的独立性，标明思想归属并解释合理的后续调查。