Capstone Synthesis Project

Common text, worked model and transfer

Fictional Rivermark case. A ten-day evening study pilot surveyed 40 current visitors: 24 request later hours, 10 prefer current hours, and 6 give no preference. Nonvisitors and transport providers were not surveyed. A staffing note requires two additional staff-hours daily for later opening but gives no wage or funding source. The last bus departs at 7:40 p.m. One representative proposes a 9:00 p.m. closing “because most students asked for it”; another wants transport investigated first.

Worked reasoning. The survey supports a preference among 24 of 40 respondents, not a preference among all students or the feasibility of later travel. “Investigate staffing and transport before a supervised extension trial” is a qualified recommendation. Its warrant is that access must be usable and feasible, not just popular. A fair counterclaim is that delaying the trial may leave a current need unmet.

Transfer notice. “Starting next week, the reading room welcomes evening visitors. Bring your work and plan your ride. Ask at the desk for details.” Identify what a first-time reader cannot determine. Revise with verified facts and mark unresolved details rather than inventing them.

All names and figures are course-created simulation material, not real public data.

Day 1

Feasible inquiry

Direct instruction

Connect course skills around a question answerable with available evidence. Limit the scope before drafting.

Apply and preserve

Choose a question connecting literature and public communication; define audience and source boundaries.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Day 2

Source conversation

Direct instruction

Synthesis organizes by agreement, tension and gaps rather than one paragraph per source. Similar subjects do not prove agreement.

Apply and preserve

Map two course texts and one simulation document with locators, tensions and limitations.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Day 3

Integrated argument

Direct instruction

A synthesis paragraph states a claim, brings relevant evidence together and explains the relationship.

Apply and preserve

Draft 800–1,100 words with two synthesis paragraphs and a fair counterreading.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Day 4

Revision under challenge

Direct instruction

Test weak warrants and generalizations before proofreading. Structural change should be preserved as evidence.

Apply and preserve

Answer three evaluator challenges and preserve a substantive before/after excerpt.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Day 5

Prepare the defense

Direct instruction

A defense explains choices and limits, including the distinction between instructional simulations and real-world claims.

Apply and preserve

Submit the project, source map, revision dossier and a five-minute or typed defense outline.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Synthesis project and revision dossier

Submit the product, five daily responses, one before/after revision and a 150–250-word reflection explaining an improvement with evidence.

Mastery requires evaluator review at 8/10. Revise weak criteria and resubmit below 8/10. The completion button records evidence preparation, not academic approval.