divergence <—> synthesis
- DeSchryver, M. (2015). Web- Mediated Knowledge Synthesis for Educators. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 58(5), 58(5), 388–396.
“I encouraged students to use the Web as a cognitive partner that could help them think and be creative with the Web, directing them to ‘start using the Web for more synthesis and/or creative thinking’…The more learners practice, and are cognizant of the results of this practice, the better they will get.”
In this article, DeSchryver briefly unpacks his Theory of Web-Mediated Knowledge Synthesis and describes the studies that led him to this theory. Beginning with a nod to McEaneaney’s claim that “digital literacies are evolving in a way that litbots (literacy robots) will eventually make meaning from Web resources for human readers,” DeSchryver believes that, as litbots take on the meaning-making roles for us online (synthesis for meaning), we can free up brainspace and time and focus on the higher-order meaning-creating roles (generative synthesis). Through multiple case studies of “advanced learners using the Web for ill-structured reading-to learn and reading-to-do tasks” DeSchryver builds a theory with seven interacting elements: (1) divergent keyword search phrases; (2) synthesis for meaning; (3) in-the-moment insights; (4) repurposing; (5) reinforcement; (6) note-taking; and (7) creative synthesis. He unpacks the 7 elements individually, with examples from the case studies showing how he taught and reinforced these elements and how students responded with their “a-ha moments.” The end of the article is a call to action for k-12 teachers to start scaffolding these elements into their practice to engender creative synthesis in k-12 students.
This theory, although complex, makes a lot of sense; however, the beginning focus on the evolution of technology to take care of our need to synthesize for meaning was somewhat distracting. I believe that we will always need to synthesize for meaning, regardless of the tools within reach; the key is to understand that students and adults fundamentally need to also engage in creative synthesis, and that our evolving technologies provide us with the ability to do both simultaneously. The Figure 1 illustration does not seem to have all elements interacting equally with each other, which is an assumption that I had made; are some of the elements not as interactive with others? It is decidedly difficult to illustrate the interactions in a way that is both thorough and coherent; placing creative synthesis at the center of it makes sense, as that seems to be the “generative synthesis” that DeSchryver is discussing at the beginning of the article. In essence, the six other elements all lead to and are supported by creative synthesis. I also wonder about the interchangeability of the ideas of generative synthesis versus creative synthesis. Although generare and creare are synonyms, I don’t know if they are used the same way in learning theory (a tangent I could research in my free time).
My struggle with the article is not with the theory but with the call to action; using a theory generated by (created by?) case studies with Masters-level adult learners in order to find applications for k-12 has a pedagogy/andragogy disconnect. Elementary students, especially younger ones, are eager to explore and create; unfortunately, because of so many factors related to how we do school and what our society views as the purposes of school, this passion to explore and make meaning is often missing in upper k-12. High school students have become adept hoop-jumpers and grade-getters, and the exploratory nature of generative synthesis is almost a lost art. My students want to find the right answer as quickly as possible and then move on to entertainment. It is a constant struggle to redirect and redirect and redirect and force them to spend the time they need both in online spaces and in offline contemplation to truly begin to make meaning beyond the scavenger hunt-and-peck of the internet webquest that they have become adept at completing as quickly as possible with as little reflection as possible. Don’t get me wrong, I love my students. But k-12 students are rarely self-directed and intrinsically motivated to simply “explore” without some sort of “correct answer carrot” at the end. (And their parents are generally not supportive of education without tangible and gradeable outcomes; and administrators are not keen on teaching and learning that cannot be formatively assessed based on learning targets, success criteria, and performance tasks on a daily basis).
All that being said, the questions DeSchryver asks and the tasks he has his students do are very similar to my Genius Hour design in my junior ELA classes. What he proposes can be done in K-12. I know that I and my colleague Janet Neyer in Cadillac are both fundamentally trying. But it has to be heavily managed and heavily scaffolded, and although the majority of students will eventually plug in, the level of their thinking and the proficiency of their creative synthesis is often distressingly low. So much of teaching and engendering critical thinking and creative or generative synthesis comes down to teaching habits of mind. In a class where we also have to teach subject-verb agreement and the rules of capitalization and the differences between a colon and a semi-colon…teaching students to engage with their devices in a meaningful way and to disengage meaningfully to allow for reflection…and teaching them to search for divergence instead of searching for the fastest correct answer is both exceedingly inspirational and depressingly daunting.
sharon murchie 