Use this literature review matrix to turn source notes into a comparison you can write about. The worked example includes the complete practice records, a filled matrix, and a synthesis paragraph whose references lead back to particular notes.
Start with the sources and the question
The practice question is: How do these accounts describe the specificity of peer feedback and the opportunity to revise?
The three records below are original fictional materials for learning the matrix method. They are not summaries of published studies. No authors, publication dates, journals, or research results are being attributed to real people. Use these records to try the example; use sources you have actually read for your own literature review.
| Record | Complete practice material |
|---|---|
| A · In-person design workshop | A1: Pairs discussed poster drafts during one in-person workshop. A2: The recorded comments named items on the supplied review criteria, including the title and reading order. A3: The session included time for a revised sketch before it ended. |
| B · Asynchronous design review | B1: Participants exchanged poster drafts and written comments asynchronously. B2: The recorded comments referred to the same supplied review criteria, including the title and reading order. B3: The record ends after comments were returned; it does not describe the next draft. |
| C · In-person design workshop | C1: Pairs discussed poster drafts in person with review criteria available. C2: The recorded comments used general praise, such as “looks good,” without naming a criterion. C3: The schedule included a later revision meeting; this record does not describe what changed at that meeting. |
Keep the record's setting beside its notes. A and B describe different ways of exchanging feedback, while A and C both describe an in-person workshop. That matters when you explain a difference: delivery mode alone does not account for all three records.
Read across a theme
Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries' synthesis guidance describes a matrix that arranges sources against themes or variables so a writer can relate the sources and develop a narrative. You can put sources in rows or columns. Choose the direction that makes the comparison easiest to read.
Here, each source has a row:
| Source | Feedback specificity | Opportunity to revise | What the record covers |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Comments name supplied criteria. A2 | Revised-sketch time in the same session. A3 | Workshop discussion and scheduled sketch time. A1–A3 |
| B | Comments name supplied criteria. B2 | No subsequent draft is described. B3 | Asynchronous comments through their return. B1–B3 |
| C | Comments remain general despite criteria being available. C1–C2 | A later revision meeting is scheduled. C3 | Workshop comments and the planned follow-up. C1–C3 |
Choose Feedback specificity in the example to compare A2, B2, and C1–C2. A and B describe criterion-specific comments. C describes a different pattern even though criteria were available there too. The shared column helps you notice that contrast before you write.
Then choose Opportunity to revise. A provides same-session sketch time, C schedules a later meeting, and B stops before describing a subsequent draft. These records cover different points in the process. They do not support a comparison of the quality of the resulting revisions.
For real papers, include the context that could change your interpretation: the population, task, method, or setting relevant to your question. Preserve the authors' qualifications. A cell should be short enough to compare, with a locator that takes you back to the fuller passage.
Write the relationship between the sources
A source-by-source draft might say, “A describes a workshop. B describes an asynchronous review. C describes another workshop.” That lists the records but leaves their relationship unwritten.
The matrix supports this more useful paragraph:
Across the practice records, criterion-specific comments appear in both an in-person workshop and an asynchronous exchange (A2; B1–B2). However, the second in-person account records general praise despite the availability of criteria (C1–C2). The accounts therefore describe different comment patterns within the same delivery mode as well as similarities across modes. They also provide different opportunities for revision: A includes same-session sketch time, while C schedules a later meeting (A3; C3). B ends when comments are returned (B3), so these records cannot establish which arrangement produced better revisions.
Organize the paragraph around the relationship you found, and keep the source references attached to it. The opening brings A and B together. The next sentence uses C to qualify that pattern. The final sentences explain why a comparison of revision outcomes would require different evidence.
The example's Read worked synthesis control shows this authored paragraph. It does not generate a literature review from arbitrary uploaded papers or assess whether your own interpretation is correct.
Make the matrix useful for your own reading
Begin with a question narrow enough to guide the columns. “Everything about peer feedback” gives you few reasons to choose one note over another. A question about the specificity of comments and the opportunity to revise gives each column a job.
Add a source only after recording what you have read and where the relevant material appears. Keep full bibliographic details and your source files in your reference manager or normal research records. Use the same source ID in the matrix so you can recover the exact paper and passage.
Distinguish not addressed in the passage read from not yet checked. The first describes your evidence; the second describes your reading work. Neither belongs in a synthesis as a finding that an intervention had no effect.
After filling several rows, read down one column. Group agreements, describe a meaningful contrast, and check whether differing methods or settings limit the comparison. If a theme yields only disconnected summaries, refine the theme or return to the passages before drafting.
Copy a prompt for the matrix and review page
Replace the bracketed fields with your own question and notes. The practice records are included in full so you can also reproduce the worked example.
Create a literature review matrix and one complete HTML review page.
My review question and assignment requirements: [PASTE]
Sources I have actually read, with stable IDs and full references: [PASTE]
For each source: relevant context/method, notes, exact locators,
and whether a note is a quotation or my paraphrase: [PASTE]
Proposed themes and any passages still to read: [PASTE]
Use only my supplied source material. Organize sources against
themes so I can compare them. Preserve relevant differences in
setting, method and scope. Attach source IDs and locators to cells.
Keep quotations distinct from paraphrases. Do not invent papers,
authors, dates, references, quotations, findings or causal claims.
Mark not yet checked separately from not addressed in the material
read. Keep the original reference and research records authoritative.
Include this separate fictional practice set, labeled Original
fictional practice records; not published research:
Question: How do these accounts describe the specificity of peer
feedback and the opportunity to revise?
A: In-person design workshop.
A1: Pairs discussed poster drafts during one in-person workshop.
A2: The recorded comments named items on the supplied review
criteria, including the title and reading order.
A3: The session included time for a revised sketch before it ended.
B: Asynchronous design review.
B1: Participants exchanged poster drafts and written comments
asynchronously.
B2: The recorded comments referred to the same supplied review
criteria, including the title and reading order.
B3: The record ends after comments were returned; it does not
describe the next draft.
C: In-person design workshop.
C1: Pairs discussed poster drafts in person with review criteria
available.
C2: The recorded comments used general praise, such as "looks good,"
without naming a criterion.
C3: The schedule included a later revision meeting; this record
does not describe what changed at that meeting.
Practice columns: Feedback specificity; Opportunity to revise;
What the record covers. Show complete records A1–C3 beside the
matrix. Selecting a theme must show that theme's three cells with
their source locators, without erasing a reader's typed notes.
Include this exact authored worked synthesis separately from
blank reader writing:
Across the practice records, criterion-specific comments appear
in both an in-person workshop and an asynchronous exchange
(A2; B1–B2). However, the second in-person account records general
praise despite the availability of criteria (C1–C2). The accounts
therefore describe different comment patterns within the same
delivery mode as well as similarities across modes. They also
provide different opportunities for revision: A includes
same-session sketch time, while C schedules a later meeting
(A3; C3). B ends when comments are returned (B3), so these records
cannot establish which arrangement produced better revisions.
Provide Read worked synthesis and a separate labeled writing area
for my own comparison. Do not automatically grade it or generate
claims about papers I have not supplied. Provide a blank matrix
scaffold for my own sources. Ask before resetting typed work.
Use at least 16px body text, native labeled controls, visible focus,
and readable source records. At 360px present labeled source/theme
records without horizontal page overflow. Keep all CSS and
JavaScript in the file, with no external assets, network, upload,
storage, submission or pretend export. State that typing remains
in this open page only. Return the complete HTML and any questions
that prevent a supported comparison.
Check the generated matrix against the original passages before using its paragraph. A concise cell can accidentally drop a condition that mattered to the source. Follow your assignment's citation and submission requirements when you move the comparison into the actual review.
Give a reviewer the comparison and its basis
An HTML review copy can put your theme headings, source notes, and provisional paragraph together. Put that copy in your NOS workspace when you want a supervisor or writing partner to inspect how you have grouped the reading.
If the heading “Revision outcomes” overstates a column that only records scheduled revision time, change that static heading to “Opportunity to revise” in visual editing mode. Save the correction so your reviewer can reopen the existing link and read the narrower wording. Check any separately maintained labels or source records too; changing visible text does not revise your reference library.
Use the discussion to refine the comparison, then revise the literature review in its required document. Keep the source passages and references available while you write the next paragraph.