Comparison Matrix Writing Assignment

Details:

Before beginning the synthesis process, it is important to become acquainted with the analysis and comparison of empirical articles. In the previous assignment, you engaged with the Comparison Matrix, a tool for analysis and comparison of empirical articles. In this assignment, you will take the next step toward synthesis and write about your observations of the articles you compared using the Comparison Matrix. 

General Requirements:

Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

· Refer to the Comparison Matrix you completed

· Review: Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 641-656.

· Review: Baker, V., & Lattuca, L. R. (2010). Developmental networks and learning: toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 807-827.

· Review: Visser, L., Visser, Y. L., & Schlosser, C. (2003). Critical thinking distance education and traditional education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(4), 401-407.

· Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments.

Directions:

Locate the Comparison Matrix you completed in the Module 2 assignment. Using the outline you developed, the information from the Comparison Matrix. Write a paper (1,000 words) that compares all three of the articles. Do that by including the following:

1. A statement of common elements and themes addressed in each of the three articles.

2. A statement of the conclusions that can be drawn when the articles are taken together as a single entity. What is the overall message of the group of articles?

WRITING ASSIGNMENT

The paper should include the following:

WORD COUNT: 1500 words max.

Introduction. The introduction should engage the reader with a strong opening statement. It should also provide context for the paper, introduce the researchers and their studies (including the purpose of the studies), and include a thesis statement that serves as a roadmap for the reader.  

Comparison of Research Questions. Open the section with a sentence that engages the reader and gives a peak into your analysis. Please discuss the main ideas behind the research questions, as well as the researcher’s approach to exploring these questions. Did they use mixed methods, quantitative, or qualitative methods? Mention the number of hypotheses (quantitative) or research questions (qualitative), but do not list the research questions. Remember to compare the approaches and discuss similarities and differences.

Comparison of Literature Reviews. This section should analyze the research the authors use to support their studies. Do not take this section lightly. You want to point out the theory and/or main research the author’s used to set up their study, and if possible mention why. Did all the studies take the same approach, such as using similar authors for support? Do they all provide a comprehensive history of research? Or do they only use more recent work (last 10 years)? Both approaches can be good depending on focus of study. The actual number of references is not that important, however it would be apropos to compare the scope of the studies without the actual use of numbers.

Comparison of Sample Populations. Provide the important facts, but then analyze the sample populations. Please focus on available demographics, such as gender, age, education, income, etc…Also, analyze the size and response rate of the studies as well as whether or not the populations are homogenous or heterogeneous.

Comparison of Limitations. This is the area where your analysis will shine. Please understand that all research has shortcomings. Sometimes researchers will reveal some of these limitations, but usually there are more present than shared. Please read the articles and look for bias that is present in the studies. Sometimes it is the researchers’ fault and other times it happens because of the random population selected. If you read something and there seems to be something missing… you are probably right. This area requires you to think critically about the articles. I recommend using sub-headings in this section. Once you have provided a brief intro paragraph break down into the following sub-headings: Researcher Identified Limitations and Additional Limitations.  

Comparison of Results. This section examines the researchers’ results and discusses whether or not the hypotheses were supported or their objectives were fulfilled

Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Research. The conclusion section should refer back to the Introduction and wrap up your paper. It is not a restatement of the authors’ conclusions – it is your conclusions based on your analysis. The recommendations section should be rooted in the study and not something too far outside the scope. I would begin by looking at some of the limitations and generate your recommendations from there.

Comparison Matrix

	Article 1	Article 2	Article 3
Title/Author(s)	Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003).	Developmental networks and learning: toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study. Baker, V., & Lattuca, L. R. (2010).	Critical thinking distance education and traditional education.  Visser, L., Visser, Y. L., & Schlosser, C. (2003).
Purpose of the study What is the author’s rationale for selecting this topic? Does he build a strong case?	The study aims to address student socialization in regards to the effect that socialization has on a student’s success. The study also proposes that a student’s relationship with the professors plays a part in the success or basic foundation of academics in which they take with them throughout their entire collegiate career, either becoming successful or in essence setting a standard or falling short due to a lack of social interaction with other students and the faculty.	The purpose of this study is to see how networks of development and the perspective of a sociocultural element can be combined to create an “interdisciplinary” approach that leads to the formation of identity.	The purpose of this study is to think about the differences between traditional and non-traditional or “distant” education. The idea of critical thinking is to figure out how to incorporate it into those in a higher program of study and what are the contributing factors that inhibit a student’s critical thinking skills in distance learning.
Research Question(s) What question(s) does the author present?	The question that is posed is; How does a student’s interaction with faculty on a social level create an environment that is supportive. Another question is; How does this social interaction effect the foundation for potential research productivity among graduate and doctoral level students?	How does combining the key tenants and the developmental networks of sociocultural perspective remedy the limitations that are found in them individually?	The question that is posed is; what are the factors and conditions that inhibit critical thinking in a higher level of education in addition to distance education?
Literature Review How is this organized? What are the main themes found in the review? Who are the main authors used?	The paper is well written, other than some grammatical errors, and discusses items thoroughly and is easy to follow. The themes I find are the dimensions and the precise nature of the scholarly role, the purpose of a post baccalaureate degree, the framework of socialization in education, the various dimensions of a professional setting as opposed to a collegiate setting, the relationship between knowledge and professional practices, and contributing factors.	The paper is written at a more professional level than the first and has clear headings and themes. The first theme is graduate education is preparing one for academic careers. Another is relationship between knowledge and professional practice. The third one is about the relationship between knowledge and professionalism.	The author went around in circles, using less than desirable grammar and vocabulary, and actually created a sense of fear that if these are the standard research studies in a doctoral level program, then the future doesn’t look very bright, or at least smart. The integration of critical thinking factors, traditional and higher education settings, what prevents critical thinking in distance education, and opportunities given to distance learners.
Sample Population(s) What group(s) is/are being studied?	Graduate students, doctoral students, and the faculty.	Faculty, Doctoral students, Mentors, and social networks.	Higher levels of education, and students learning through distance education.
Limitations What are the limitations of the study? Why can it only encompass so much?	The main limitation that is visible is that this study was only done in the area of social science, or social studies. It is bias because the research does not include all social networks, but rather those in the immediate area of the writer. The actual theory that socialization contributes to the success of a student throughout their career is a huge assessment and cannot be encapsulated by looking at one group of students.	The limitation that I saw was the lack of scholarly research in the study. The more I read, the more bored I became only because it appeared that the author was repeating himself and going over the same thing but using different words.	There is nothing there for the any opportunities for traditional students in the area of critical thinking, so the study is bias. One cannot base the study on distance learning if there is not a fair or equal playing field to begin with and additions or options or support to both traditional and distance learning.
Results/ Conclusions What did the author find through the study? Was the original question answered?	I think that the author found what he was looking for however his study is bias due to the limitations put on the study from only one area of research.	The author found it difficult to write up this study and the original question was not even answered.	The reading was dry and was difficult to follow. It was more frustrating than anything. I completely lost track of the main idea of the study several times and the themes became segmented and hard to finish. I could not even say if the author answered their original question.

 WRITING ASSIGNMENT

 WORD COUNT: 1500 words max. 

Introduction. The introduction should engage the reader with a strong opening statement. It should also provide context for the paper, introduce the researchers and their studies (including the purpose of the studies), and include a thesis statement that serves as a roadmap for the reader.  

Comparison of Research Questions. Open the section with a sentence that engages the reader and gives a peak into your analysis. Please discuss the main ideas behind the research questions, as well as the researcher’s approach to exploring these questions. Did they use mixed methods, quantitative, or qualitative methods? Mention the number of hypotheses (quantitative) or research questions (qualitative), but do not list the research questions. Remember to compare the approaches and discuss similarities and differences.

Comparison of Literature Reviews. This section should analyze the research the authors use to support their studies. Do not take this section lightly. You want to point out the theory and/or main research the author’s used to set up their study, and if possible mention why. Did all the studies take the same approach, such as using similar authors for support? Do they all provide a comprehensive history of research? Or do they only use more recent work (last 10 years)? Both approaches can be good depending on focus of study. The actual number of references is not that important, however it would be apropos to compare the scope of the studies without the actual use of numbers.

Comparison of Sample Populations. Provide the important facts, but then analyze the sample populations. Please focus on available demographics, such as gender, age, education, income, etc…Also, analyze the size and response rate of the studies as well as whether or not the populations are homogenous or heterogeneous.

Comparison of Limitations. This is the area where your analysis will shine. Please understand that all research has shortcomings. Sometimes researchers will reveal some of these limitations, but usually there are more present than shared. Please read the articles and look for bias that is present in the studies. Sometimes it is the researchers’ fault and other times it happens because of the random population selected. If you read something and there seems to be something missing… you are probably right. This area requires you to think critically about the articles. I recommend using sub-headings in this section. Once you have provided a brief intro paragraph break down into the following sub-headings: Researcher Identified Limitations and Additional Limitations.  

Comparison of Results. This section examines the researchers’ results and discusses whether or not the hypotheses were supported or their objectives were fulfilled.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Research. The conclusion section should refer back to the Introduction and wrap up your paper. It is not a restatement of the authors’ conclusions – it is your conclusions based on your analysis. The recommendations section should be rooted in the study and not something too far outside the scope. I would begin by looking at some of the limitations and generate your recommendations from there.