It is possible that a result of analysis is to do nothing. That is a form of problem-solving and in some cases, is the best solution. Students should know when the answer is ‘nothing’. In other cases, the initial analysis will suggest that a solution be derived. The derivation will hopefully be criteria driven, options explored, options compared and the ‘best’ option chosen. The option might be procured, created, or the existing situation adjusted.

The synthesizing, or more popular word ‘creating’, is a more complex task than the remembering, comprehending, applying, and analysing. Again, there is some alignment with the learning and cognitive process with the complexity of the tasks. Creating can occasionally be the simple task of finding the 'right' puzzle piece that fits with little or no further work. On the other hand, creating can also mean creating your own puzzle piece from multiple smaller bits. Evaluating exists as you discriminate and judge how well a piece fits, will work. Which option is the best?

In any case, the synthesis process involves more analysis (see 12.4 ) and the bringing together of ideas, bits and pieces, that will ultimately deal with the original reason we are looking at something in the first place.

The quality of the process getting to the realized option is of interest to us, as well as the quality of the final, realized option when it is delivering its ‘value’. The solutions can be physical artefacts (e.g., a better mouse trap), processes (e.g., the steps needed to effectively and efficiently roll out a vaccine program), or conceptual and abstract (e.g., existing as words and phrases in speech or on paper).

And, as we have pointed out numerous times, we all have been synthesizing since birth and while it is possible to be lucky and accidentally stumble upon something that works, accidental discoveries should not be relied upon as they are usually one-hit wonders and are not sustainable. That being said, we believe that in society, private and public sectors, accidental discoveries should have a place, be recognized and facilitated. Many of the breakthrough, disruptive inventions through time have been accidental. What happens next with the core innovation is not usually accidental though as people figure out the elements, do further experimentation, understand the characteristics of the invention, and explore how the invention can be deployed and used. These evolutionary, incremental inventions are often done in a systematic fashion: make it smaller, make it reliable, make it repeatable, make it faster, reduce cost, make it lighter, use less energy, improve the efficacy, reduce waste, extend its scope and applicability, make it easier to use, make it more accessible, etc.

Learning thoughts…

• It is not possible to teach disruptive thinking and accidental discoveries. In some cases, discoveries of the past would not be done today because of different health and safety protocols and work place practices (e.g., artificial sweeteners, micro wave ovens).
• Accidental discoveries and synthesis are kinda back asswards; you have done something and without intent have created something of value. You need to be in a situation to do this. You need the skills to create the situation that will exhibit a secondary result that was not intended. You need the skill to recognize the secondary outcome. You need the skill to realize what the secondary outcome means.

• Accidental synthesis has sometimes relied on lack of knowledge and skill; e.g., who would be stupid enough today to see a powder on the desk in the lab, wet their finger, take a swipe and then taste it? That is how we got some of the artificial sweetners. How smart was that? Duh. We also believe that many innovative art forms were not done with intent, but were rationalized after the fact. Afterall, who would want to buy a piece of art that was an accident?
• So, it is likely that a course should focus on systematic synthesis and not accidental, ad hoc synthesis.
• This suggests that the pattern used to teach knowledge, then comprehension, then analysis is continued. One thing at a time. Once the students have demonstrated some kind of novice mastery of analysis, synthesis can be explored in a serious fashion. Do not try to teach two cognitive skills at a time. Yes, you will get stuff, but is it good stuff? As the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. And, over confident students can be like turbo-charged manure spreaders.
• Students need to be taught about criteria-based decision making; this is important for when making decisions about what to bring together into a solution. Same as when a program is designed, a course is designed, an award or policy is created. No difference.
• Students need to be taught how to research and find suitable components to be used in the synthesis; where to look, what needs to be learned, if an intermediate step is necessary to bridge a gap, etc. Again, this is true for processes, product design, services, health care, finance, etc. They need to know how to make choices between options: direct and indirect aspects, immediate and future aspects. Holistic ways of looking at options; impact on stakeholders, the chain of use, involvement, value.
• Like any cognitive skill, it is important to start small, slow and then develop the skills in an incremental, deliberate way. Slow down the process and explicitly talk about what should be comprehended in a specific situation, how comprehension was arrived at, how relevant pre-existing knowledge and skills can be applied, and so forth. Open up the process of thinking.

Assessing thoughts...

• Basically the same drill as the previous sections 12.1 thru 12.4. If you got this far, you should know where we are going.
• That being said, it is harder and harder as you go up the cognitive complexity, process dimensions. There are fewer and fewer exemplars and guiding lights. Most of the literature it seems is focused on the knowledge, remembering and this matches the dominance of memorization testing on assessments. When you get to the creating and synthesizing, the dedicated references are few and far between (sorry). You will likely have to be creative yourself in figuring it out.
• When assessing the synthesis process and final ‘form’, it is important to ask the student why they think it is a good synthesis and provide a justification. This will help them improve their synthesis skills. They should be asked to explain the process and the results of the synthesis in terms of assumptions, why done, strengths, and weaknesses.
• Ask the students to reflect on what was considered, each piece of the puzzle, justify its inclusion, strengths, weaknesses, assumptions. Have them discuss why the synthesized whole is appropriate and worthy. Ask about possible other bits that could have been included, but were not. Have them explain the sequence of discovery, puzzle solving, and final 'assembly' of the solution, idea.
• The assessments need to recognize that there is probably not one right way to do the synthesis and that different methods may result in the same synthesis. However, there are differences in synthesis quality and these should be taught and assessed.
• We suggest that you use the ideas laid out in the peer comparisons and subjective rubric note. This will help you figure out what to do with the assessment submissions.
• Do not give the students a rubric at the start. They will just follow the recipe and not really think.

• Do a dry run (or two), so the students get the hang of it first, with review and feedback, and then do a real assessment. This is a general principle of course, you should never just teach something and then assess it in a test or major deliverable. The students should always have the opportunity to practice and get feedback before an assessment.
• Do not assess knowledge, comprehension, analysis, and synthesis the first time, all together. Assess knowledge. Then comprehension. Then applying. Then analysis. Then synthesis. Ensure you know what you are assessing and that you are not confounding the assessment and learning. There is no point assessing synthesis if you do not know the analysis quality, and not point assessing applying before comprehension, and comprehension quality without knowing the knowledge quality. There is no point teaching and developing bad learning on top of bad learning!
• Make sure that you are analysing and assessing the process, as well as the final result. This is very important. The process should also be ‘marked’ as well.
• Allow a full lab or lecture after a major assessment for discussion, debrief, think-pair-share activity. They need to comprehend and understand what just happened!
• We also suggest that you have incremental assessments that build off the earlier ones, perhaps taking the example, presenting what would be considered a good solution, and then changing it up a bit and ask for the students for another application given the new information or changes.

Further reading

• Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman.
• Bolat,Y. (2021). The attainments in the framework annual plan for primary school adaptation classes prepared within the scope of PIKTES in terms of the revised bloom taxonomy. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8, 3l, pp 1706-1728.