# data[].attributes.body
Interpretation means:

•  Explaining your own understanding of the academic support you have included in the paragraph

• Showing how the academic support links back to:

-your research focus

-the main claim / supporting claim

Each main body paragraph of the Literature Review must include interpretation of support.

# data[].attributes.body
In your groups, complete Activity 3 from the last lesson:

1.Spend 15 minutes finishing task C (editing your synthesis).

2. Share (copy and paste) your completed paragraphs in the column for your group --->

3. Complete task D (evaluating another synthesis).

# data[].attributes.body
Evaluate your group’s / other groups’ interpretation sentences :

• Has an appropriate verb been used?

• Does the interpretation show how the support links back to the claim?

• Is the interpretation written in the student’s own words?

• Which group’s interpretation sentence is the most useful? Why?

# data[].attributes.body
High-speed rail network is needed in Australia. Australia’s current travel system cannot cover its population growth (Patel, 2016). This is agreement with Subinur’s (2020) findings, which claim that High-speed rail can help Australia’s  infrastructure meet its growing residents. However, Picard (2015) and Lee (2019) both mentioned that people in Australia might not afford the high price of high-speed rail tickets. In order to match the price gap between airfares and high-speed rail, Subinur (2020) suggested that carbon tax could be put on air travel and the tax can be the subsidy to high-speed rail users. Overall, High-speed rail is necessary for Australia in the future..

This is a very good example of synthesis and interpretation, but a couple of things could be improved:

The first sentence and the final sentence do not include both  viewpoints or arguments.

The final sentence would be better interpretation if it included a summary of the contrasting viewpoints in the paragraph and a connection to the topic sentence.

# data[].attributes.body
Join your groups again, go back to the synthesis you finished in Activity 1.

After the academic support, add interpretation for each citation, or for the connection between sources and ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
Mingxi: For the effects on building an Australian high-speed railway, many scholars have different opinions about the advantages and disadvantages on Australian environment, individuals, and their travel costs. Some of them show a positive perspective about building railway. Patel (2016) and Subinur (2020) illustrate that the improvement of infrastructure like high-speed railway construction can effectively cope with the growing travel demand of increasing population. The construction can also benefit the natural environment in a long-term period (Patel, 2016). Besides, the carbon tax for those who traveling by plane could be a good way to encourage people taking more environment-friendly high-speed railway. However, Picard (2015) hold an opinion of Patel (2016) that it is not cost-efficient for such a small proportion of Australian population to build expensive high-speed railway. Furthermore, the pressure on environment will increase by building railway in 20 years (Picard 2015). Lee (2019) also has a negative attitude about the travel costs by comparing the cost of high railway ticket price and lower airfare. All of these evidence show the construction of high-speed railway has both advantages and disadvantages.

This example is excellent.  It has an effective topic sentence; clear use of supporting claims connecting to the main topic; good use of academic support; and excellent synthesis and interpretation.

To improve in future work:

add interpretation for the first two claims.

add some more specific interpretation at the end, mentioning the specific ideas which contrast within the paragraph

add (connect and incorporate) more details from research (the method, setting, topic, conclusions) from one or two of the sources (this was not possible in this task, but it will be possible in your literature reviews).