PART 1: Synthesis Matrix

Name:Joshua Dingle Period: Block 4

Engineering style question: test different teaching styles and make adjustments as you move forward.
STEP 1: Planning your Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature
Pre-planning: Concept Matrix of Literature. Read at least 15-20 articles that are related to your foundation sub problem. Look for a variety of variable that are
similar to your interest and overarching question. As you do a quick read of the articles, mark the variables that you are planning to consider as your applied
research. Please change the variables as needed since this is an example template. The checks (X) in the boxes are merely examples – remove them before you
start your planning analysis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237542915_The_Matrix_Method_of_Literature_Review

Preplanning: Concept Matrix of Literature

Author (s), title, etc. (APA format) Years (in the Pedagogy Variable 2 Variable 3 Variable 4 Commented [1]: Times new roman
last 5 years
if not
checked)
Ediger, M. (2001). Assessing methods of
teaching in the school setting. Education,
122(1), 123-127. Retrieved from the
Opposing Viewpoints in Context database. Commented [2]: Times new roman
Radoff, J., Robertson, A. D., Fargason, S.,
& Goldberg, F. (2018, July). Responsive
Teaching and High-Stakes Testing. Science
and Children, 55(9), 88-91. Retrieved from
the Science In Context database. Commented [3]: Times new roman
Harding, L., & Lane, A. K. (2018, July-
August). The Five Minute Teach:
Instructional Design to Support TA
Training and Writing Instruction in the
Sciences. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 47(6), 66-73. Retrieved from the
Science in Context database. Commented [4]: Times new roman
Harding, L., & Lane, A. K. (2018, July-
August). The Five Minute Teach:
Instructional Design to Support TA
Training and Writing Instruction in the
Sciences. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 47(6), 66-73. Retrieved from the
Science in Context database. Commented [5]: Times new roman
Ivic, S. (2016). Frequency of Applying
Different Teaching Strategies and Social
Teaching Methods in Primary Schools.
Journal Of Education And Practice, 7(33),
66-71. Retrieved from the ERIC database. Commented [6]: Times new roman
Machera, R. P. (2017). Teaching
Intervention Strategies That Enhance
Learning in Higher Education. Universal
Journal Of Educational Research, 5(5),
733-743. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2017.050505 Commented [7]: Times new roman
AL-Khayat, M. M., AL-Hrout, M. A., &
Hyassat, M. A. (2017). Academically Gifted
Undergraduate Students: Their Preferred
Teaching Strategies. International
Education Studies, 10(7), 155-161.
doi:10.5539/ies.v10n7p155 Commented [8]: Times new roman
STEP 2: Look over your pre-planning Matrix and choose the best 10 articles (mini 10 with 5 articles from the last 5 years). Complete a summary
of each relevant article you read using the Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature below:

Include the articles (the front page is important, but subsequent pages to be printed off should only be the pages that you cited in your synthesis
matrix) in your final copy – you need to make sure of the following:
a) Highlight on the original article - all the important facts that you have used in the matrix below.
b) When documenting, you also need to indicate which page number the information is found. The information on the synthesis matrix
should be the same as the highlighted section of the page number indicated.
c) You do not have to reword/rewrite the sentence, merely document by rewriting the important bits and pieces of the information and
indicate where you found it and page #
d) Work steadily each day, if you work on 3-4 articles a day, you will complete this analysis before the deadline. Meticulous work at the
start will help you through this process easily.

Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature

Author/title, Purpose Framework Sample Design Variables/ Results Controversies, Limitations Implications
etc. (what are instruments disagreements for practice,
you with other research,
(APA format Overarching Hypothesis/ taking How the Validity and How the authors theory
reference) Question Objective data was Reliability hypothesis was
the data collected? supported/rejected
from and You will add a list of
Conclusion and authors referenced
how in this section on a
further studies
much) separate page
Ediger, M. What are n/a n/a (see This n/a The Lecture The Lecture n/a The
(2001). the basic design) article is Method Method is assessment
Assessing ways to a Memorizatio widely of these
methods of teach in a collection n Methods regarded as teaching
teaching in school of other Discussion the worst methods will
the school setting, people’s Methods method of help anybody
setting. and how research Problem teaching. This who is
Education, do they and Solving is almost needing a
122(1), 123- affect the some of Use of Critical entirely up to change of
127. average the Thinking the professor pace when
Retrieved student? research Creative to make work. teaching.
from the the Thinking Having
Opposing author These are the multiple
Viewpoints has done, researcher’s ways to
in Context and provided best teach means
database. mostly methods of that teachers Commented [9]: Times New roman 12
consists teaching. HE can allocate
of his call suggests a different and
to action. variation in more Commented [10]: Good explanations
these personalized
methods will teaching to
give the best their
student students.
achievement.
Radoff, J., Imagine a Literature The Qualitati Altogether, Though this "The main These Commented [13]: Well done explaining the limitations
Robertson, classroom on following ve Data the class phenomenon constraint I findings, and reason for this paper being important.
A. D., where responsive example spent two has been see along with
Fargason, students teaching comes hours doing replicated in regarding rich
S., & are (e.g., from a science that this teacher's [responsive opportunities
Goldberg, F. empower Atkins and third- day. Many class every teaching] is afforded by
(2018, July). ed to Frank grade of the ideas year since time. It is teaching
Responsive pursue 2016; class at a students she began not responsively,
Teaching their own Hammer diverse had teaching possible to suggest that
and High- ideas, to 1997) has school, expressed responsively, explore veering from
Stakes act as suggested with over were not more data is every idea the
Testing. agents of that 15 ethnic "correct" in needed to for seeds standards-
Science and their own pursuing groups a traditional make or have a mandated
Children, learning, students' and 60 sense. But generalizatio rich curriculum to
55(9), 88- and to ideas does language what ns about our scientific pursue
91. engage in not s and students did findings. At discussion students'
Retrieved collaborati prevent dialects was the very on every ideas may
from the ve sense- them from represent valuable-- least, this question not be as
Science In making... getting the ed. they made case serves without risky as many
Context and where right Approxim connections as proof that tripling the fear.
database. they also answer. ately 78% between teaching class time. Commented [11]: Times New roman 12
perform However, of different responsively It also
well on to our students forms of need not makes
district- knowledge are energy ("a compromise resolving
mandated , studies identified rubber band students' test multiple
assessme have yet to as English is like a scores. ideas
nts. explore language steep hill") difficult
Perhaps how learners, and they because
this seems students in and every refined their there is not
impossible these student understandi always a
to you, as classrooms receives ng about "wrap-up"
it does to perform on free energy and time
many of mandated lunch. how to afterwards
the standardiz measure it to clarify
teachers ed tests. (i.e., in how which idea
we work far a car aligns with
with. But goes vs. the
that's how fast it's canonical
what this traveling at answers
article is any given they will be
about-- moment). tested on."
one such Their ideas (Jane) Commented [12]: Add page numbers to quotes
classroom and
. questions
kept them
engaged for
nearly two
hours. And
most
importantly,
they learned
to approach
science as a
sense-
making
activity.
Harding, L., In this Does the Out of TAs who self- Although TAs The current Future
& Lane, A. article, we 5MT the 36 elected reported reported study does research
K. (2018, investigat enhance TAs to quantitative varying levels not take might
July- ea the enrolled participat and of confidence into investigate
August). method pedagogica in three e in this qualitative in their ability considerati the
The Five for l training sections study data. to teach on effectiveness
Minute introducin offered to of the gave Quantitative scientific feedback of the 5MT
Teach: g TAs to TAs and writing- permissio data took writing, most from as a way to
Instructiona instructio support intensive n for the the form of study undergradu structure
l Design to nal design writing pedagogy authors ratings on a participants ate writing
Support TA so they instruction course to use 5-point found the students instruction in
Training and can learn in writing- offered in data scale from 5MT project about the a variety of
Writing about intensive 2016- collected completely to be a 5MT, nor disciplines
Instruction teaching introducto 2017, 27 from disagree to productive do we and learning
in the in the ry biology agreed to three completely part of the evaluate contexts.
Sciences. context of lab participat sources: agree in pedagogy samples of Specifically,
Journal of developin courses? e in the (a) 5MT response to course student the 5MT
College g small study lesson nine (Figure 1). writing. could be
Science doses of (75% of plans and statements Most TAs Thus the studied as a
Teaching, student- total associate (Appendix 3, acknowledge extent to strategy for
47(6), 66- centered possible d available at d enjoying which the responding
73. writing participat instructio http://www. developing 5MT to student
Retrieved instructio ion). Of nal nsta.org/coll their own contribute writing that
from the n for a those, 23 materials ege/connect 5MT and d to gains addresses
Science in content- provided , (b) end- ions.aspx). participating in student common
Context heavy their final of-term Qualitative in their peers' learning struggles
database. curriculu 5MT reflection data came lessons and writing students face Commented [14]: Times New roman 12
m. lesson s from short- (Figure 1). is beyond more
plans pertainin answer Several TAs the scope efficiently
(64%). g to the responses appreciated of the than
The 5MT, and to three that the current individual
authors (c) a brief questions 5MTs project. feedback.
felt these online designed to encouraged Unlike
rates survey. allow them to be written
were participants creative and feedback,
sufficient the concentrate which can
given the opportunity on improving promote a
lack of to record their passive,
participa more teaching. One transactional
nt detailed and TA approach to
incentive specific commented, learning, the
s. Study feedback "The [5MT] is 5MT
participa about the a lovely encourages
nts 5MT and its teaching student-
entered utility as strategy centered
the part of a because it learning and
course pedagogy allowed me builds in
from training some checkpoints
various program flexibility to through pre-
science (Appendix be creative and
and math 3). and further postassessm
doctoral develop my ent to help
and own teaching instructors
master's style." All TAs determine if
programs described at and to what
, at least one way extent
various the 5MT students are
stages of advanced learning.
graduate their
school, teaching. We
and with sorted these
a range described
of benefits into
teaching five
experienc categories:
es, from teaching
assisting writing,
with lesson
 lecture planning,
courses student
to having engagement,
no prior time
experienc management,
e. We and future
made use.
clear to
participa
nts that
their
involvem
ent
would
not assist
their
grade nor
would
choosing
not to
participat
e hinder
them in
any way.
Ivic, S. The main Goals For the The The Results of The The question
(2016). objective 1. To purpose research research this analysis reliability that imposes
Frequency of this determine of this included was based indicate that of the itself is why
of Applying analysis is the research 20 male on a survey traditional survey was the
Different to frequency we examinee for teachers teaching tested with traditional
Teaching examine of applying decided s (12.8%) which was strategies still a work method
Strategies which different to apply and 136 received dominate coefficient still prevails
and Social approach teaching the female anonymousl Croatian of internal in Croatian
Teaching the strategies research examinee y. The classrooms, consistency schools.
Methods in Croatian and work method s survey has especially , Although
Primary primary methods in of a (87.2%). had seven primary Cronbach’s modern
Schools. school primary survey Of them, questions school ones alpha, teaching
Journal Of teachers schools; and data 35 relating to and they can which strategies are
Education prefer in 2. To gathering (22.4%) the social be seen as an points to often written
And order to examine is . 156 were and additional an about in
Practice, determine there a primary primary demographi motivation acceptable didactic
7(33), 66- how difference junior junior c data about to study this reliability literature and
71. frequently in grade grade the problem with level and is in the media
Retrieved their frequency and teachers examinees, the aim of 0.75. for the
from the classroom of applying intermedi and 121 while the modernizing purpose of
ERIC methods different ate and (77.6%) eight the teaching their
database. include teaching senior intermed question process. promotion, Commented [15]: Times New roman 12
traditional strategies grade iate and consists of this research
or modern and work teachers senior 17 sub- has
teaching methods from grade questions unfortunatel
strategies among different teachers. relating to y proven that
primary parts of The establishing they are
junior the share the rarely
grade Republic of frequency of applied in
teachers of Croatia particular applying most schools.
and were subjects different The reason
intermedia included which teaching may be a
te and in the intermed strategies strictly
senior research. iate and and work written
grade The senior methods. curriculum,
teachers. research grade The stated inflexible
was teachers questions time table,
conducte teach is were especially in
d in a shown in presented in subject
total of the form of teaching,
13 following Likert scale methods of
primary chart. It from 1 to 5 assessing
schools shows where 1 is teaching
located in that the “Never”, 2 is outcomes
Zagreb, majority “Rarely”, 3 which are
Rijeka, of is still adapted
Osijek, teachers “Occasionall to traditional
Šibenik, who y”, 4 is teaching
Dubrovni were “Often” and style or
k, Ogulin, included 5 “Always”. insufficient
Vukovar, in our education of
Novigrad, research teachers who
Novska, teach may not
Mali foreign know or may
Lošinj, language not want to
Ozalj and (23.60%), do things
Ivanić- Croatian differently
Grad (16.56%) and
respectiv and consciously
ely. mathema resist to
tics changes a
(14.61%). modern
The society
lowest imposes.
percenta Future
ge refers research
to should
teachers concentrate
who on answering
teach these
chemistr questions
y (6.74%) which are a
and key factor to
physics necessary
and change in
biology teaching
(8.99%). approach in
Croatian
 schools.
Machera, R. The main What are The data The Answer The results Based on the
P. (2017). purpose the for this research questionnair above results from
Teaching of this students’ study er gave e with indicated the
Intervention paper is to reactions was the “strongly that the participants
Strategies identify towards collected students agree”, students’ it was
That approache their form the a “agree”, peer- recommende
Enhance s performan three question “disagree”, assessment d that self-
Learning in that ce after classes naire or “strongly and the assessment
Higher prepare implement for AAT with disagree”. teacher’s and peer-
Education. the ing self- semester instructio marking were assessment
Universal students assessmen three ns on close to each enhance
Journal Of for self- t and with a how to other and learning in
Educational learning peer- populatio complete there were higher
Research, and self- assessmen n of 90 it and it low variances education
5(5), 733- directing t? students. took which are hence the
743. doi: in the AAT What are them statistically need to
10.13189/uj departme the approxim acceptable. implement
er.2017.050 nt within benefits ately half The variances these
505 Botho that accrue an hour were from teaching Commented [16]: Times New roman 12
University from well to the students intervention
. administer complete who were strategies.
ed self- . The biased This
assessmen students towards high study’s
t and peer- were performers recommenda
assessmen told not and awarded tions are
t? to them with limited to
What are complete low marks. formative
the their The process assessments.
recommen names also However, the
dations on the experienced researcher
based on question that the high challenges
the naire. performers other
participant The also awarded researchers
 s’ feelings importan high marks to to consider
towards ce of the low future
implement question performers; studies for
ation of naire was this same self-
self- explained problem was assessment
assessmen during experienced and
t and peer- the in [8]. A cure peer-
assessmen training to this assessment
t in higher sessions problem was focusing on
education? and all to rigorously summative
the train the assessments.
question students in
naires order to
were reduce the
complete level of
d. biasness.
The
question
naires
were
given to
the
ninety
students
who
were in
the
research
er‘s
classes.
AL-Khayat,
M. M., AL-
Hrout, M.
A., &
Hyassat, M.
A. (2017).
Academicall
y Gifted
Undergradu
ate
Students:
Their
Preferred
Teaching
Strategies.
Internationa
l Education
Studies,
10(7), 155-
161.
doi:10.5539
/ies.v10n7p
155 Commented [17]: Times New roman 12
Retnawati, In relation One he FGD
H., to this question participa
Arlinwibow situation, that nts were
o, J., there usually 15
Wulandari, should be comes to physics
N. F., & a research the surface teachers
Pradani, R. to is how to (post
G. (2018). describe solve a service)
Teachers' this problem for Senior
difficulties peculiarity without a High
and , tool. School in
strategies in especially Another Kudus
physics the question Regency,
teaching physics might be the
and learning teachers’ how to Province
that difficulties solve of Central
applying and physics Java,
mathematic strategies problems Indonesia
s. Journal Of in without and one
Baltic conductin using mathema
Science g the mathemati tics
Education, learning cs educatio
17(1), 120- process requireme n expert
135. that nts. from a Commented [18]: Times New roman 12
demands university
the . These
prerequisi participa
tes in the nts
form consisted
of of 10
mathemat male
ical informan
concepts ts and 5
in senior female
high informan
schools. ts.

STEP 3: References (From the Controversies, disagreements with other authors’ column)
*Note: Always in APA format