PART 1: Synthesis Matrix

Name: Caroline Lanier Period: 4

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 Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3 Variable 4
last 5 years
if not
checked)

X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X X
x
x

X
X
x X
x X
X
X
X
X
x x X

X
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 Framewor Sample Design Variables/ Results Controversies, Limitation Implication
, etc. k instrument disagreements s s for
s with other practice,
(APA Overarch How the How the authors research,
format ing Hypothesi data was Validity hypothesis theory
reference) Question s/ collected and was You will add a
Objective ? Reliability supported/ list of authors
rejected referenced in
this section on
Conclusion a separate
and further page
studies
Conner, D. “The key “This Three Dot Content “The major None Only Continual
S., Montri, questions paper different poster validity: themes of studied at research
A. D., & of this reports Michiga surveys, multiple the focus farmers still needed
Hamm, M. research findings n focus data groups are markets in on the
W. (2009). are from the farmers groups, collection that the certain contribution
Demand determini first year markets: and utilized shoppers Michigan of hoop
for local ng of a Ann experime attend the regions houses to
produce whether project Arbor ntal farmers farm
from consumer which Farmers auctions markets viability
passive s will measures Market, (Conner regularly, (Conner et
solar patronize the Sweetwa et al., in many al., 2009, p.
greenhouse extended- potential ter Local 2009, cases, 51)
s: season benefits Foods p.47) buying
Contributio markets, of hoop Market, most or all
ns to whether houses to and of their
sustainable consumer farm Sault Ste produce
food s will pay viability Marie there when
systems. a and Farmers in season.”
Journal of premium sustainabi Market p. 49
Food for local lity in (Conner
Distributio produce, three et al., “Grown in
n and what Michigan 2009, p. Michigan
Research, attributes regions. 48) and grown
40(1), 47- and We begin with
52. products to organic
Retrieved customer determine methods
from the s most the again had
Business value” potential the highest
Source (Conner market for ratings,
Complete et al., hoop- althou^ the Commented [1]: *although
database. 2009, p. house auction Commented [2]: we typed the same correction at the
48) grown participant same time
produce s rated Commented [3]: *although
and organic
whether highest.”
consumer (Conner et
s will al., 2009,
patronize p. 50)
extended-
season “By
farmers.” fostering
(Conner the
et al., viability of
2009, farms,
p.47) enhancing
rela-
tionships
among
actors, and
decreasing
food miles
and their
concomita
nt
environme
ntal
impacts,
local food
purchases,
and
farmers
markets in
particular,
have a
wide array
of potential
benefits.
The use of
season-
extension
technologi
es such as
 hoop
houses
permits
consumers
to continue
to buy
from local
farmers
year-
round,
which
increases
the period
and
magnitude
of cash
flow, and
may foster
customer
loyalty by
keeping
consumers
in the habit
of buying
local.”
(Conner et
al., 2009,
p. 51)
Demirbas, The “The In the pre-test Consistent “When the None Study only “In this
C. O. effect of objective research, and post- increase in pre-test done on 21 sense (post-
(2017). out-of of this 21 test. word count and the students at test
The effect school study is students word by all post-test a total of 2 concepts),
of out-of- activities determini from associati students, were middle extracurricu
school on ng the two on test but not compared, schools. lar practice
activities conceptu change in different including retested, so both the small and
on al change secondary middle 10 low increase in sample fieldworks
conceptual in school schools keyword reliability. response size. also importance
change in environm students’ participa s (p. 234) words and just tests in terms of
environme ental cognitive ted in the word environmen
ntal education structure out-of emergence association tal
education. (Demirba related to school of education
Journal of s, 2017, the practices networks should be
Education p.232) concepts and show that emphasized
and of environ qualitative again”
Training environm mental change (Demirbas,
Studies, “The aim ental educatio accompani 2017, p.
5(2), 232- of this problems” n es to 240).
242. doi: study is (Demirbas program quantitativ
10.11114/j to , 2017, p. me for 5 e change.”
ets.v5i2.20 determin 232). weekend (Demirbas,
77 e the s 2017, p.
change in consecut 238)
cognitive ively.
structures (Demirb
of middle as, 2017,
school p. 234)
students
regarding
the
environm
ental
problems
”
(Demirba
s, 2017,
p. 233).
Fedele, G., Cross- “We Four Forest “...Used “At all None Only “However,
Locatelli, scale assessed forests inventori four four study conducted such
B., Djoudi, effects of how rural in es, indicators sites, in distinct changes
H., Colloff, land-use communit Indonesi remote to assess livelihoods regions of imply shifts
M.J. changes ies in two a. Two sensing, selected were Indonesia, in current
(2018). on forested in West and ecosystem mostly only 160 values
Reducing ecosyste landscape Kaliman interview services based on people related to
risks by m s in tan and s. and their land-use interviewe social-
transformin services Indonesia two investiga evolution activities.” d, and four ecological
g have Central ted three with land indicators sys- tems
landscapes: changed Java decades use “A range assessed can be
Cross-scale land uses specifica worth of changes: of challenging
effects of over the lly. change. values of adaptations because of
land-use last 20 (Fedele (Fedele harvested to maintain dominant
changes on years to et al., et al., products, livelihoods views,
ecosystem adapt 2018, 2018, p. peoples’ were traditions,
services. their pp. 3, 5) 6) satisfactio evident in and the
PLoS ONE liveli- n with the study interests of
13(4), 1- hoods that 160 clean population. powerful
21. were at people water ” (Fedele stakeholder
https://doi. risk from intervie availability et al., s.
org/10.137 multiple wed, 120 , amount 2018, p. 7) Therefore,
1/journal.p hazards” plots of of carbon building on
one.01958 (Fedele et forest stocked in currently
95 al., 2018, (Fedele abovegrou emerging
p. 1) et al., nd local
2018, p. biomass, adaptation
6) and tree pathways
species that dem-
richness” onstrate
(Fedele et multiple
 al., 2018, benefits
p. 6). across
This scales can
allows for help
content strengthen
validity and scale
up
responses
to climate
change and
other
sources of
vulnerabilit
y” (Fedele
et al., 2018,
p. 17).
Follmann, What is Understan NeuLan “Member None Being used None Investigate “Still need
A., & the effect d the d ship as a way d in just a better
Viehoff, V. of urban effects of experim based for people one understandi
(2015). A gardenin the ent in program to express particular ng of urban
green g on red NeuLand Cologne used for their city in commons
garden on clay in garden public political Germany. in order to
red clay: Cologne, project on educatio opinions Effects of analyze the
creating a Germany the n on urban urban interdepend
new urban ? communit projects, commons. commons encies
common as y in protectin “The would between
a form of regards to g the initiators change gardening
political both environm of the depending and
gardening society ent, and gardening on location political
in Cologne, and fostering project are and activism in
Germany. politics citizen effectively culture. recent
Local (Follmann participat evoking gardening
Environme et al., ion and his work initiatives
nt, 20(10), 2015, p. support (Lefebvre’ in Germany
1148-1174. 1148) of s right to and
doi:10.108 charitabl the city) in beyond.”
0/1354983 e spirit when (Follmann
9.2014.894 projects. protesting et al., 2015,
966 ” against p. 1168)
(Follman land
n et al., speculation
2015, p. and the
1158) amalgamat
ion of the
public and
the
private…”
(Follmann
et al.,
2015, p.
1168)
Hajba, G. What “My aim garden Strictly Content Organic None Only “There is
(2017). aspects is to in VIII observati validity gardening studied at certainly a
Aspects to affect the highlight district on based; because is often one need to
the social the key of conducte the based on specific pursue this
understandi dynamics points, Budapes d researcher societal communit line of
ng of the of dynamics, t (Hajba, interview spent a norms, and y garden in inquiry
social organic and 2017, p. s with great even Budapest. further,
dynamics food? communit 301) nearby length of though the cultural investigatin
of organic y demand residents time produce is limitations, g tops as
food on the observing subject to as well as describing
through the organic the garden local risks square other
example of food and its arising footage, dimensions
a productio surroundin from the amount of of gaining
community n” (Hajba, g urban people consciousne
garden in 2017, p. communit environme involved ss, or
Budapest. 297) y nt, citizens expounding
Acta are willing individual
Ethnograph to take part consumer
ica in it patterns.”
Hungarica: because of (Hajba,
An the 2017, p.
Internation criticism of 314)
al Journal consumer
of society in
Ethnograph Budapest
y, 62(2), (Hajba,
297-317. 2017, pp.
Retrieved 313-314)
from the
Global
Issues in
Context
database.
Hoffman, “The “benefits “Nine interview interview “A Pearson none Only Larger
A. J. current that are undergra -based, questions Correlation investigate sample size
(2017). qualitativ directly duate individua based on test d in one and a more
Creating a e mixed- afforded students l surveys the determined specific diverse
culture of methods to the (five Communit a Guatemala range of
transformat study communit women, y Service significant n area with community
ion in addressed y, but also four Attitudes correlation a small service
Guatemala: the towards men, age Scale between sample of could be
One fruit impact of those range 19 (CSAS) perception communit researched
tree at a nine individual – 57 which s of y members in more
time. volunteer s who are years) at helps to community and only detail
Electronic s who involved a ensure service nine U.S. (Hoffman,
Green participat in these Midwest construct work participant 2017, p. 10)
Journal, ed in a projects ern validity (CSW) as s. only one
1(40), 1- fruit tree (communi universit (Hoffman, important “green”
14. planting ty y 2017, p. 4) activities activity
Retrieved project in gardening voluntee for all was
from the a rural , ‘green’ red to communiti carried out
University Guatemal service participa es with in the short
of an programs) te in a participatio timeframe
California's communi ” 10-day n in future
eScholarshi ty"(Hoff (Hoffman, tree fruit CSW
p database. man, 2017, p. planting activities.
2017, p. 1). commun Additionall
10). ity y, a highly
develop significant
ment correlation
project between
in a rural perception
village s of feeling
located connected
in to the
Yalpeme community
ch, and
Guatema participatio
la.”over n in future
1000 CSW
trees activities”
planted (Hoffman,
amongst 2017, p. 6).
villagers
(Hoffma
n, 2017,
p. 5)

Kuo, H.-J. “Identifyi “In U.S. Drawn multiple “Counties None Only uses “The
(2018). ng general, 2012 from the high level with higher a single regional
Identifying Sustainab an Census 2012 statistical environme year disparities
sustainabili ility agroecosy of Census tests were ntal measure of
ty --The —The stem Agricult of run. high sustainabili sustainabilit
measureme Measure framewor ure Agricultu validity ty are y between
nt and ment and k that re. primarily these
typology of Typology focuses Correlati located in dimensions
sustainable of on the on the of farming
agriculture Sustainab interplay coefficie Western practices in
in the le between nts, Mountains, the United
United Agricultu social and agglomer the New States
States. re in the ecological ative England, provide
EurAmeric United process of cluster the evidence
a, 48(2), States” the analysis Northern that
195-222. (Kuo, agricultur Great agricultural
Retrieved 2018, p. al system Lakes, the sustainabilit
from the 195). provides interior of y is Commented [4]: Hyphen?
World insights at the South conceptuall
History in the Atlantic, y and
Context systems around the empirically
database. level and Missouri- multi-
explicitly Arkansas- dimensional
interprets Oklahoma . The
the core border, agroecosyst
attributes along the em
of northern framework,
sustainabl Pacific which
e Coast of focuses on
agricultur Washingto the
e, both in n and interplay
definition Oregon, between
and and in social and
measurem states such ecological
ent” (Kuo, as process of
2018, p. Kentucky, the
196). Tennessee, agricultural
and Texas. system,
… The provides
spatial insights at
distributio the systems
n of level and
economic explicitly
sustainabili interprets
ty, the core
however, attributes of
looks sustainable
much agriculture,
different.” both in
(Kuo, definition
2018, pp. and
207-208) measureme
nt” (Kuo,
2018, p.
“The 216).
findings
reveal that
sustainable
agriculture
seems to
be spatially
dependent,
which
means that
high (low)
intensity of
sustainable
farming
areas tend
 to be
located
near other
high (low)
intensity
areas”
(Kuo,
2018, p.
217).
Marris, E. A garden Determine Multiple Temperat None “Take None Only Continued
(2007). for all how to different ure control by certain research
Gardening: climates. grow gardens evaluatio not being gardeners’ needs to be
A garden How to gardens in all over ns done too opinions done on
for all grow a the in the controlling were taken what type
climates. gardens greenhous world U.S. ; to worry into of
Nature, with the e world (Marris, less about considerati gardening
450(7172), presence (Marris, 2007, p. traditional on. Many could affect
937-939. of 2007, p. 938) species and more climate
Retrieved climate 937) to embrace studies change.
from the change well- could be (Marris,
Science in (Marris, adapted done on 2007, p.
Context 2007, p. species the best 939)
database. 937) whatever way to
their garden in
source (as the midst
long as of climate
they aren’t change.
destructive
ly
invasive).
The new
look in the
climate-
 adapted
garden is
rambunctio
us, diverse
and more
like wild
spaces.”
(Marris,
2007, p.
939)
Montiel, I., How to “Expand “A Linked Construct “We None Did not Environme
Antolin- effectivel the grounde case validity propose collect all ntal
Lopez, R., y use effectiven d theory categorie ensure that relevant sustainabilit
& Gallo, P. environm ess of study of s to six with usage teaching cases y
J. (2018). ental environm 75 literary of the cases that (Montiel et managemen
Emotions sustainab ental teaching genres grounded provide al., 2018, t is a
and ility sustainabi cases, (Montiel theory different p. 174) growing
sustainabili managem lity gathered et al., methodolo and fully field with
ty: A ent managem from 2018, p. gy developed much more
literary education ent instructo 156) formulated stories are research to
genre- (Montiel education rs with a by Glaser likely to be done
based et al., greatly, variety and accomplish (Montiel et.
framework 2018, p. by of Strauss in the al., 2018, p.
for 155) exploring backgro 1967 multidime 174).
environme the unds and (Montiel et nsional
ntal teaching affiliatio al., 2018, learning
sustainabili materials ns, who p. 160) needed in
ty and teach environme
manageme methods environ “First, ntal
nt used in mental constant sustainabil
education. the sustaina compariso ity Commented [7]: *sustainability
Academy classroom bility n between manageme
Of , as well manage data, nt
Manageme as the ment” codes, and education”
nt Learning skills, (Montiel cate- (Montiel et
& values, et al., gories al., 2018,
Education, and 2018, p. required p. 172).
17(2), 155- attitudes 156). continuous
183. needed internal
doi:10.546 for checks and
5/amle.201 managing data
6.0042 sustainabi triangulati
lity more on of the
effectivel codes and
y” interpretati
(Montiel ons made
et al., by each
2018, p. author.
156). Second,
we
collected
cases until
no new
evidence
appeared.
Reaching
category
satura- tion Commented [5]: Hyphen not necessary
is an
important
means of
verificatio
n in
grounded
theory
(Strauss &
 Corbin,
1990).
Third,
after
identi-
fying the Commented [6]: Is there a reason for all these
core hyphens
categories
and their
properties,
we
triangulate
d data and
checked
for
consistenc
y. This
internal
validation
allowed us
to test
interrater
reliability”
(Montiel et
al., 2018,
p. 163).
Van Commun “We 55 Beginnin Criterion “Househol None “Self- Potential to
Heezik, Y. icating to attempted gardens g and validity. ders in the reported scale up the
M., change to across concludi Qualitative second data have data in
Dickinson, gardenin improve 30 ng responses interview been order to
K. M., & g knowledg suburbs interview and scored criticized understand
Freeman, practices e and in s, 10-12 quantitativ higher as being and a
C. (2012). in influence Dunedin month e when unreliable review a
Closing the support values, , New timefram assessment naming when larger
gap: of native attitudes, Zealand. e, with s both species people are population
Communic biodivers and voluntar about 10 indicated a (P<0.001) asked to of garden
ating to ity in gardening y property shift in and remember owners
change urban behavior participa visits by attitude categorizin details, (Van
gardening private of 55 tion the and g species particularl Heezik et
practices in gardens household (Van researche knowledge as native y al., 2012, p.
support of ers in Heezik r (Van . or exotic embarrassi 7)
native favor of et al., Heezik et (P<0.001). ng ones, or
biodiversit native 2012, p. al., 2012, … reveal
y in urban biodiversi 2) pp. 2-3) Qualitative informatio
private ty and responses n that may
gardens. environm to open- portray
Ecology & entally ended themselves Commented [8]: Maybe the hyphen is necessary?
Society, friendly questions as less
17(1), 455- practices, revealed a socially
463. through a shift in acceptable
Retrieved two-way values, ” (Van
from the communic attitude Heezik et
GreenFILE ation and al., 2012,
database. process, understand p. 6)
or ing
interactive ” (Van
dialog, Heezik et
during a al., 2012,
process of p. 4)
biodiversi
ty
document
ation of
their
gardens”
(Van
 Heezik et
al., 2012,
p. 1)

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