Exploring the Effectiveness of Synthesis as an Integrated Approach to Learning in

International Schools in Accra. A Case Study of Eden International School: A

Cambridge Curriculum School in the Accra Metropolis.

“The course of evolution has been to reduce the number of parts and to adapt those which
remain more closely with their special uses, either by an increase in size or by modifications
of their shape and structure.” Samuel Willinston .

“The ability for people to assimilate information they find into coherent personal strategies is
perhaps the critical modern survival skill “ JD Johnson ,2009.

INTRODUCTION TO KEY TERM

Synthesis as learning objective will be in allusion to Blooms taxonomy of learning objectives.

It shall also be referred to as Information Syntheis as a teaching strategy in information
literacy , comprehension

According to Crossknowledge (2023) synthesis, the fifth level of Bloom's Taxonomy, occurs
when learners go beyond what they've learned, understood, applied, and analyzed, to create
a product or develop a new method.

Herr N. (2007) also captures synthesis in teaching as the ability to put parts together to form
a new whole. This may involve the production of a unique communication (theme or
speech), a plan of operations (research proposal), or a set of abstract relations (scheme for
classifying information). Learning outcomes in this area ,he postulates ,potray creative
behaviours, with major emphasis on the formulation of new patterns and structures.

Thus, general instructional objectives that categorise synthesis as a learning objective are
creative in nature .They include: giving well-organised speeches,writing a creative short
stories (or poems), proposing a plan for an experiment,integrating learning from different
areas into a plan for solving problems,formulating new schemes for classifying objects
(events, or ideas). Illustrative verbs for stating specific learning outcomes: to categorise,
combine, compile, compose, create, devise, design, explain, generate, modify, organise,
plan, rearrange, reconstruct, relate, reorganise, revise, rewrite, summarise, and writes~ all of
course on a rolling basis of applying previous knowledge and current learning.

Consequently ,synthesizing requires the reader to take that summary or partial retelling and
add in their own thoughts, experiences, opinions, interpretations and connections to
generate a new, and bigger idea - it’s going beyond the text. Even more, a true synthesis
can blend and integrate ideas from across multiple texts to form new big ideas. Synthesizing
is an on-going process that builds and grows as a reader gets deeper into the text.
Debbie Miller, author of Reading with Meaning compares synthesizing to dropping a pebble
into an area of calm water. First there is a small ripple where the pebble enters the water.
This represents our initial thinking as we begin reading. It’s small because we only have a
small amount of information. However, as we read, our thinking grows and expands, just the
like ripples grow bigger. We collect new information, form new thoughts and ideas, and
evolve our thinking. Each new thought expands from the previous thought. When we reach
the end of a book, we are left with our final thought. This final thought has been informed
and influenced by all that we have read and have previously read in other texts she asserts.

When thinking about synthesizing, experts have come to agree that there are 3 types of
syntheses that students can make.

A synthesis can form:

● a new understanding, something a reader has not considered before until reading the
text.

● a deeper understanding, becoming more aware or appreciative of an idea after

reading a text.

● a changed understanding, thinking differently as a result of the text.

In all three types, the result of synthesizing is an increase in knowledge for the reader.

Synthesis in learning as information Synthesis

Information synthesis is the process of analyzing and evaluating information from various
sources, making connections between the information found, and combining the recently
acquired information with prior knowledge to create something new.
Information synthesis strategies are essential skills. Without them, we cannot derive new
knowledge from these large amounts of data (Larsen, Wactlar & Friedlander, 2003;National
Science Board, 2005.) Effective information synthesis also vital in developing effective
writing and communication skills to share new knowledge.
Coherent information synthesis is, therefore, required to productively participate in and
contribute to our information-rich society.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Head , Heart ,Hand , the main premise for conceiving the idea to research into the
progressive nature of learning .It is little wonder that ‘hand ‘ completes this triad .

Indeed, it is not enough to ‘experience’ learning in all is receptiveness without a fruit of

production to show for it . Afterall, learning includes receptive and productive skills Webb
(2005). As true learning could only be evident when experience produces an action that
showcases the knowledge or skills acquired .

What I hear, I forget. What I see, I remember. What I do, I understand." Xunzi (340 - 245
BC)

Obanya (2012) in his convocation lecture confirmed the above statement by adding that the
average retention rate of learning by lecture is 5% while that of practice by doing (Activity-
oriented) is about 75%. This shows the importance of synthesis as an active strategy that
affords learners experiencial learning , a much more permanent , deeper and higher order
measure of learning.

Although there exists a revised taxonomy for learning objectives .There also exists the trap
of assuming that new knowledge somehow replaced or overshadowed previous
practice(Raphael, 2001, p. 9 in McVee et al 2005).Synthesis ,although replaced with
creating in the revised taxonomy of 1956 does not become obsolete .It rather merges two
powerful concepts into one.

This thesis does not relegate creation but expounds with it , the critical role of students'
previous learning , the new learning and how they interact to birth ideas , inform discourse
while transcending the context in which they are formed ,as the learner is able to make
connections and apply acquired knowlege into new situations .
The Cambridge Curriculum and Synthesis .
Across the Cambridge lower secondary curriculum , synthesis is explicitly mentioned ,
modelled and practiced across the schemes of work and endorsed teaching and learniing
resources. Teachers are tasked to model and scaffold this and learners are given awareness
of this, by way of prompting their awareness of different learning strategies .Its supporting
tenets Cambriddge Assessment International Education (2023) include being set to equip
learners with:

Confidence in working with information and ideas – their own and those of others.
They are keen to explore and evaluate ideas and arguments in a structured, critical and
analytical way. They are able to communicate and defend views and opinions .

Reflection as learners, developing their ability to learn.

They are concerned with the processes as well as the products of their learning and develop
the awareness and strategies to be lifelong learners.

Innovation and equipment for new and future challenges.

Cambridge students welcome new challenges and meet them resourcefully, creatively and
imaginatively. They are capable of applying their knowledge and understanding to solve new
and unfamiliar problems. They can adapt flexibly to new situations requiring new ways of
thinking.Engaged intellectually and socially, ready to make a difference.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Focus
Similar to Lundstrum et Al’s work (Communications in Information Literacy),the research
questions explored in this study explores information synthesis skills being taught effectively
by scaffolding this high order cognitive task, and how the level of synthesis in student writing
can be effectively measured.

This mirrors the study by Lundstrum et Al(2015) that investigated an information synthesis
lesson given to students in a university English writing class. The lesson broke down the
synthesis process into several stages requiring students to go through information synthesis
in discrete steps by means of individual reading and group discussion. At the end of the
lesson ,students were asked to write a synthesized paragraph. The authors also collected
final research papers in the class. Both writing products were analyzed for evidence of
synthesis to evaluate the impact of the synthesis lesson as well as to establish different
metrics for measuring synthesis.

In this research however, the synthesis lesson will be given to lower and upper secondary
students of Eden International School , aged between 11 to 16 years . A standardised lesson
plan derived mainly from the Cambridge curriculum scheme of works and Cambridge
approved learner’s resources from the classes in focus will be used to teach a Literacy
class. At the end of the lesson , a synthesised paragraph will be equally required from
students,this will be analysed to evaluate the impact of the lesson. For the sake of
consistency , these lessons will use the rule of three for different text types , but with same
learning objective to cater for any inconsistencies and to make sure students have a good
grasp of the concept to be evaluated cushioning on Johnson (2016)

Aim of the research.

The research is aimed at exploring synthesis being explicitly used during instruction, creating
awareness amongst students of its use , and reaffirming the teacher of the productive
strategy and learner of the productive and problem solving creative skill : a gem to keep for
lifelong learning.

How can they develop the skill of synthesis as not only a classroom tool but an valuable
learning asset ?It is for this reason that we this study embarked on to ascertain evaluate how
much synthesis affects lifelong learning .

Significance of the Study

The results of the research will inform the practice of teachers-even from early years
teacher, educational leaders ,curriculum developers ,policy makers at the school the
national and international level, and most importantly,pupils from the lower secondary school
onwards- which this will be most applicable to.It will teach them the relevance of what they
have learnt in the previous keystage in what they study in the the current :as most of their
productive learning requires the adoption of content and methods engaged with earlier to
produce learning outcomes.
Relevance of study in the field of education.
This research reinforces the need for productive learning competencies with real evidence
and results.It looks to affirm the relevance of Bloom, original taxonomy , not obsolete
although revised.

Projection of Impact of Research on Educational Culture.

Especially for young learners , an appreciation and awareness of synthesis will shape
generational culture of how worthwhile their education is as they are aware of the results it
can create without having to complete a certain phase of education prior to.

This calls for curriculum integration,which presents a holistic view of knowledge to learners.
Curriculum integration : actively involve students in their own education. Traditionally,
integrated approaches to curriculum design have been associated with "intermingling" of
disciplines such as thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving capabilities. Curriculum
integration is not a random combination,it is to be approached with a systematic, conscious
effort that makes relationships among disciplines explicit. Enabling cross disciplinary links
that allow for previous knowledge to cross over to other subjects of study to use .

Thus, synthesis an integrated approach will translate as a systematic and conscious effort to
expose students to synthesis as a learning tool, that allows them to transcend into different
disciplines of study and discourse :alluding to Stayanchi 2017 on productive skills.

Research Question
To what extent does synthesis as an intergrated teaching and learning strategy enhance
learning as a creative and problem solving tool ?
UNIT 2 (REVIEW OF LITERATURE)

CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

This part of the literature review seeks to explain concepts the topic revolve around in
respect to what researchers have discovered concerning the topic.

Reading
According to Anyidoho (1997:3), "the term "reading" may have different meanings for various
people. For some, it is the act of running the eyes across and down the page, recognizing
and understanding the words. For others, it is the act of turning a page into speech that is,
turning the visual images into their spoken form." Anyidoho, however, postulates that
reading must go beyond word recognition and understanding. Additionally , the reader
should be able to form new meaning, make deductionsband create extensive ideas beyond
the text .

Washington -Nortey (2013) also conceptualizes reading as being able to

decipher meaning and getting what a writer intends in the text for the reader and using it to
influence the ability to understand. Since meaning is embedded in a text, the reader can only
extract it if they understand beyond the explicit .

Grabe and Stoller (2001), French (2004:16) define reading as the ability to draw meaning
from the printed page and interpret this information appropriately?. This brings to the fore the
assertion that "reading is a decoding process involving the breaking down of visual and
auditory codes by assigning sounds to printed words, and reading as a comprehension
process, making meaning out of printed matter through interplay of the reader's background
knowledge and the printed text" (French, 2004:16).

Synthesis
Information synthesis literature under several different guises appears in the commonly used
terminology to describe the process of analyzing and evaluating information from various
sources is: multiple document (or source)comprehension(Goldman,
Braasch,Wiley,Graesser, &Brodowinska, 2012;Goldman&Scardamalia,2013), multiple
document processing (Goldman & Scardamalia, 2013), transliteracy (Andretta, 2009; homas
et al.,2008), intertextuality (Goldman, 2004;Stadtler & Bromme, 2013), writing from sources
(Howard, Serviss, & Rodrigue,2010), and information synthesis (Blake & Pratt, 2002;
Goldschmidt, 1986)

Relevant literature to this study can be found in library and information science (information
literacy and information problem solving models), education (cognition and literacy
instruction), and composition and rhetoric (writing). Each field approaches the subject from a
different angle. Different research and resulting instructional approaches of the various fields
are discussed below.
Information Problem Solving Models
Information problem solving models, also known as information literacy models, mostly serve
as scaffolds for teaching the research process or as frameworks when studying the same
process. Information synthesis appears in all of the most well-known models. The The Big 6
model is an information problem solving model developed by Eisenberg and Berkowitz, and
is used widely in K-12 schools. This model includes synthesis as step five in their six-step
stages, which also includes task definition, information seeking strategies, location and
access, use of information, and evaluation (Fisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990;Lowe & Eisenberg,
2005). This particular step includes organizing from multiple sources and then presenting the
information.
Here students are directed to read and then write from their notes from previous steps and to
reflect on how best to present this information. In Stripling's six-phase Model of Inquiry,
synthesis is contained in the construct phase (Stripling. 2010). This is where the bridge is
built from previous knowledge to draw new conclusions, where conflicting information is
confionted, conclusions are drawn, and evidence-based opinions are formed.

In the Information Search Process (ISP), Kuhlthau does not use the label of synthesis, but
does include the process itself in the formulation stage (Kuhlthau, 1991; Kuhlthau,
Heinström, & Todd, 2008). The formulation stage is the fourth of six stages, where the
learner formsfocus from all the information encountered, identifying and selecting ideas from
multiple sources to form a focused perspective.

Information Synthesis, a Higher form of Educational Thinking

Information synthesis most commonly appears in the education literature as a level in the
original Bloom's Taxonomy of Leaming Domains (Bloom, 1956). This taxonomy is a
classification for understanding student learning and to promote higher forms of educational
thinking.

The Taxonomy is often depicted as a pyramid with the higher forms of thinking at the top.
For understanding the cognitive domain of learning, the taxonomy builds upon steps
beginning with factual knowledge and moving to comprehension, application, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation.

Synthesis, ranked second from the top in the original Taxonomy, is considered one of the
most important goals in the field of education. Here, synthesis is defined as the building of
structures or patterns from a variety of elements with emphasis on creating some new
meaning or a new structure from the elements.

Some of the keywords involved in synthesis include: combine, create, design, and
summarize. In Krathwohl's (2002) revision of Bloom's Taxonomy, the original categories
were renamed and their definitions revised to represent more active thinking. Synthesis was
renamed to "create" and changed places with "evaluation" as the top category in the domain.
The create category is defined as putting together elements to make a whole, including the
elements of generating, planning, and producing.

The role of Synthesis in Text Comprehension

Information synthesis can be seen in the arca of text comprehension, specifically in multiple-
source comprehension (also known as multiple document processing, intertextuality).

Historically,text comprehension research involved single-document comprehension, this was

not extended to multiple texts until the 1990s when Wineburg (1991) studied how novices
and experts reasoned about a historical event using multiple documents. Using think-aloud
protocols Wineburg identified the strategies people used to come to a conclusion. More
researchers followed (see Stadtler & Bromme, 2013 for details), resulting in a better
understanding of the various strategies employed when processing multiple documents
(e.g.Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999). According to Goldman and Scardamalia (2013), to be
successful at synthesizing information from multiple documents, students need to be taught
content knowledge, source expertise, and an understanding of how knowledge is created in
the field of study. Once these are in place students can evaluate information, integrate it into
existing belief structures, and create new knowledge.

Both Jucks and Paus (2013) and Goldman and Scardamalia (2013),beleive to be successful
at synthesizing information from multiple documents, students need to be taught content
knowledge, source expertise, and an understanding of how knowledge is created in the field
of study. Once these are in place students can evaluate information, integrate it into existing
belief structures, and create new knowledge. Both Jucks and Paus (2013) and Goldman and
Scardamalia(2013) note the social aspect of creating meaning, and they emphasize the use
of discussion when teaching multiple-document processing in general and the resolution of
conflicting information between documents. Based on this research, the current study
primarily incorporates group work.

Synthesis in the Writing Classroom

The rhetoric and composition literature addresses how students learn to synthesize multiple
texts. Synthesis is complex in nature; therefore, the reading processes, the writing
processes, and writing from multiple sources are all relevant to this discussion.
This literature also considers synthesis to be a cognitively demanding task (Mateos, Martin,
Villalon & Luna, 2008), which requires multiple activities such as
organization, comprehension,problem detection, and problem solving (Bräten, I.,Straise,
2003).

Similarly, Nelson and Hayes (1988) noted that in order to write from multiple sources,
students had to "coordinate number of supporting activities." Flower, et al. (1990)
determined that synthesis is a risky endeavor, where the reader's experience and
knowledge, the text, and "reality itself may resist synthesis" (p.50).

Not surprisingly, only 50% of those high school and university students who were studied
could successfully synthesize (Mateos & Sole, 2009). Torraco (2005) views synthesis as a
creative activity *that produces a new model, conceptual framework, or other unique
conception informed by the author's intimate knowledge of the topic" (p. 362). The same
author describes four forms of synthesis, including a research agenda, a taxonomy or
classification construct, alternative models or conceptual frameworks,and meta-
theories.

Nancy Spivey (1989), a major contributor to research in this area, elaborates on the major
components of discourse synthesis, including the ability to "select, organize and connect
content from sources texts as they compose their own new texts" (p. 9)
This literature also focuses on how to effectively teach the synthesis process.

Mateos and Sole (2009) found that very few teachers knew how to help students go beyond
connecting main ideas between different sources, while MeGinley (1992), looking at the
connection between writing and thinking processes, concluded that teachers should avoid
implying that writing from multiple sources is wholly linear.

Following a collaborative approach similar to the current study, Fluellen (2011) paired
students together to read aloud and map concepts. McGregor (2011) used coded, graphical
representations of student work to start conversations about how students use sources.

Another solution requires instructional technology to teach synthesis at younger stages, such
as TurboCite or'Turbo Write (Tooley, 2005).
THEORITICAL REVIEW

Theories for discussion include, the schema theory , the bottom up approach to learning ,
constructivitism and the interactive approach .

The Schema Theory

The first theory for this research will be the Schema Reading Theory. It is used because of
its interactive approach to reading that taps into the background or prior knowledge of the
reader to generate new ideas on a different but immediately associated reading. Proponents
of this approach are of the view that learners require instructional and interactive processes
to process information.

Washington - Nortey, 2013, suggests that the model devises a dual affair between the
learner and the text in which case what the reader comprehends is in tune with his prior
knowledge of the text. She believes therefore that the most effective instructional strategy is
that which connects attitudes, past experiences and knowledge with new information, which
is the core of the schema.
The Schema is defined as of knowledge that is mind represented and used in such a way
that all knowledge is packed into units; the schemata (Bartlett, 1980).

Schema is regarded as a cognitive construct, which allows the organization of information in

the long-term memory of a pupil (Widdowson, 1983).

Bartlett(1932), one of the oldest schema theorists , also defines schema as an active
organization of past reactions of experiences.

Schema again defined by researchers at Reading Apprenticeship in 2018 as the structure of

prior knowledge and experiences that are used to interpret and process new information on
a topic. The child's schema therefore may include values, culture, beliefs, expectations and
systems of what he already possesses.

Rumelhart (1980; 77-85) suggests that the Schema theory is a theory of how knowledge is
mentally represented and used in the mind or text. These,according to Savage (1998),
constitute the schemata by which the child organizes information. The theory asserts that the
ability to learn is based on the existence of a schemata framework, which is patterns of
background knowledge that a person brings to bear on these new ideas or events.
Schema (plural schemata) is a hypothetical mental structure for representing generic
concepts stored in memory, Ajideh (2003).As a widely accepted theory for reading
comprehension, the schema theory is based on the assumption that every reader's prior
knowledge directly affects his new learning.

French (2004:12) citing Kitao (1989) explains, "That most linguists now see schema theory
as a framework that organizes knowledge in memory by putting information into the correct
slots". Kitao states, "A schema includes information about what can or must fill each slot and
the relationship among the slots". The schema theory emphasizes the importance of prior
knowledge in reading.

Dry(2013:1), is of the opinion that "most of us do not realize how much we have already
stored in our memories, or how we draw upon it when we deal with new situations or
challenges. As we learn more, we add to our knowledge or develop
our schema".

Schema Reading Theory is an interactive approach to reading that taps into the prior or
background knowledge of the learner and uses it to achieve a better meaning of what is
read. According to Ajideh (2003:4), proponents of the SRA such as Bartlett (1932), and
Rumelhart (1977), postulate that there ought to be an instructional and interactive process
by learners to process information.

The SRA model dwells on the fact that information processing is a dual affair between
the learner and the text in which case what the reader comprehends must be in tune with his
prior knowledge of the subject or text read.

Approaches to the Schema Theory in Reading

Reading according to Washing - Nortey 2013 can be done using a number of processes that
can be divided into two main categories: bottom-up processing and top- down processing.

Alderson and Urquhart (1986) affirm that reading can be viewed as a product and as a
process. They assert that focusing on only one aspect of the reading process is to under-
estimate the whole act of reading.

They believe that a reader benefits from what he/she gets from the text in the product view
while using the process view point in investigating how his/her prior knowledge makes
meaning of what is read."
 ● Top Down Approach
Top down approach, also known as the concept driven approach. The top
down approach includes searching for meaning, selectively reacting to print, confirming or
rejecting predictions made and emphasizes readers bringing meaning to text based on their
experiential background and interpreting text based on their prior knowledge (whole
language). Top refers to higher order mental concept such as the knowledge and
expectation of the reader. This model of reading therefore focuses on what the readers bring
to the process.

The readers sample the text for information and contrast it with their world knowledge,
helping them to make sense of what is written. The focus here is on the knowledge and
information the reader creates as they interact with the text.

According to Paran (1996), top-down processing also known as concept-driven model .It
emphasizes on contextual factors such as socio-cultural knowledge and proceeds from
whole to part. In other words, top-down processing happens when the reader activates their
world knowledge to facilitate comprehending the text.

● The Bottom-Up Approach

The bottom-up approach, otherwise referred to as the serial approach operates on the
principle that the written text is hierarchically organized (that is on the graphophonic,
phonemic, syllabic, morphemic word and sentence levels) and that the reader first processes
the smallest linguistic input (for example, gradually compiling the smallest units to decipher
and comprehend higher units such as sentence syntax.

The emphasis in this approach is on text processing. It stipulates that the meaning of any
text must be "decoded" by the reader and that students are reading when they can "sound
out" words on a page (phonics). It emphasises the ability to de-code or put into sound what
is seen in a text. It however ignores helping emerging readers to recognize what they, as
readers,bring to reading.

● The Interactive Approach.

The Interactive Approach. The ability to read the written language at a reasonable rate with
good comprehension has long been recognized to be as important as oral skills, if not more
important (Eskey, 1988).

Giorgdze& Dgebuadze(2017) highlight advantages of the interactive method and underline

its effectiveness to activate creative thinking, analytic and argumentation skills in students.
An interactive approach encapsulates a form of learning and communicative method in
which students are involved in the learning process and reflect on what they know and what
they are thinking.Unlike in a traditional teaching method ,which is oriented on the teacher
whose main function is to assist learners and facilitate, interactive learning focuses on
students 'needs, abilities,previous language and existing skill set and knowledge store and
interests enabling the learner to actively engage in the learning process .
Based on these knowledge and experience, learners categorise, analyse, assume opinions,
acquire new skills which shows synthesis.

The schema theory makes clear, efficient and effective reading and requires both top-down
and bottom-up strategies operating interactively, thus, interactive model (Rumelhart, (1977).

Both the top- down and bottom-up processes, functioning interactively, are necessary to an
adequate understanding of reading and reading comprehension (Carrell, 1988:1-4). The
level of reader comprehension of the text is determined by how well the reader variables
(interest level in the text,purpose for reading the text, knowledge of the topic, foreign
language abilities,awareness of the reading process and the level of willingness to take
risks),interact with the text variables; text types, structure, syntax and vocabulary Hosenfeld,
(1979).

Stanovich (1980) proposes a model, which suggests,"any stage may communicate with any
other and any reader may rely on better developed knowledge sources when other sources
are temporarily weak because top-down processing may be easier for the poor reader who
may be slow at word recognition but has knowledge of the text topic". The bottom-up
processing may be easier for the reader who is skilled at word recognition but does not know
much about the text topic.

To properly achieve fluency and accuracy, developing readers must work at perfecting both
their bottom-up recognition skills and their top-down interpretation strategies. Good reading
(that is fluent and accurate reading) can result only from constant interaction between these
processes. Fluent reading therefore entails both skillful decoding and relating information to
prior knowledge (Eskey, 1988).

The Schema Theory in Practice

Ajideh, (2003:1) worked with a group of intermediate-level students for one academic term,
with special focus on schema- based pre-reading activities. At the end of the term, student's
feedback on their impressions and thoughts of the strategies covered during the term were
positive. According to some of the students, they were not afraid of unfamiliar texts as they
were previously, because thinking about the key words and making relationships among
them helped the in getting the main idea.

Not much research has been found on the use of the schema Reading Theory in teaching
reading comprehension in Ghana. However, one research that was found at the Department
of Linguistics in the University of Ghana focused on this approach.

In 2004, French worked with primary six pupils of some selected basic schools in the
Greater Accra Metropolis in Ghana (Teshie South Cluster of Schools) and reported positive
results from the research. She used the experimental method to conduct her research in
which there was a pre-test and a post-test to determine the outcome. She undertook a six-
week survey of the basic schools she worked with. Since she used an experimental and a
control group for the study, the Schema Reading Theory was used as an intervention
exercise fothe experimental group. At the end of the intervention period, she compared the
results of both the experimental and the control groups and writes that "the results revealed
that the Schema Reading Approach had a positive effect on the reading performance of the
pupils who were instructed through it.

Prior Knowledge and Cognitive Load Theory

Quoting from www.frontiersin.org Cognitive load theory states that when acquiring new
knowledge, novel information is processed in the working memory, which has a limited
capacity, and a new cognitive schema is constructed in the long-term memory (Sweller et al.,
1998).

Cognitive load influences engagement (Kirschner et al., 2011), self-regulated learning

(Hughes et al., 2018), and achievement (Leppink et al., 2014; Chang, 2018).Paas et al.
(1994) listed the influential factors of cognitive load as subject characteristics, task
characteristics and subject–task interactions.

Prior knowledge is a subject characteristic, and students with more prior knowledge may
have more working memory capacity available to process their current learning tasks
(Mihalca et al., 2011). According to schema theory, prior knowledge is a critical factor in
forming a new cognitive schema to gain new knowledge (Bartlett., 1995). Prior knowledge
decrease cognitive load leading to good learning engagement (Myhill and Brackley, 2004;
Mihalca et al., 2011). Students with low prior knowledge need more assistance to decrease
cognitive load, while those with high prior knowledge more easily form new schema and
perceive a lower cognitive load (Myhill and Brackley, 2004; van Riesen et al., 2019).
CHAPTER THREE( RESEARCH METHODOLOGY PLAN )

This research as a descriptive research design focuses on describing existing conditions,

behaviours, or characteristics undellying the pactice of synthesis as well as teacher ,
learnervad text competencies . Information will systematically gathered information without
manipulating any variables.

Also as a case study research design, investigations will be limited to Eden Inrernatioanl
School only a s a single case study to gain an in-depth understanding of their experiences,
behaviours or outcomes. In this case ,the research seeks to explore synthesis as part of the
Bloom's taxonomy, the intricacies of its practice narrowed to British and Cambridge
curriculum schools and Eden international school as its specific case group .

Plan for Data Collection

● Interviews with teachers

● Questionaires for teachers and students
● Formative Assessments
● Small group discussions(Observation)
● Student presentations in small groups()nservation)
● Q & A (oral, clickers, one-minute papers) Questions may be convergent or divergent.
● Summative Assessments
Exam items of the form: develop, plan, prepare, propose, construct, design,
formulate, create, assemble.
Procedures : Three standardised synthesis lessons will be given and after these
assessments shall take place , aside the formative ones .questionnaires , discussions and
interviews will be done concurrently .

● Criteria for validity and reliability of research

● Data collection

● Sampling

● Ethical and Philosophical considerations to handling and collection of data

CHAPTER FOUR (RESULTS OF RESEARCH)

● Statistical analysis.

● Descriptive statistics

● Inferential statistics

● Description of results' relevance to research

CHAPTER FIVE (DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION OF RESULTS )

● Interpretations

● Implications

● Limitations

● Recommendations

● Answering the research question.

● Summary and reflection on the research

REFERENCES.
Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewers: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) |
April

Khan, M. A., & Law, L. S. (2015). An Integrative Approach to Curriculum Development in

Higher Education in the USA: A Theoretical Framework. International Education Studies,
8(3), 66-76.

Simanjuntak, M.B., Suseno, M., Setiadi, S., Lustyantie, N. and Barus, I.R.G.R.G., 2022.
Integration of Curricula (Curriculum 2013 and Cambridge Curriculum for Junior High School
Level in Three Subjects) in Pandemic Situation. Ideas: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial, dan
Budaya, 8(1), pp.77-86.

Swaffar, J. K., Arans, K. M., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning. Integrated approach
to language learning. N Jersey:Prentice Hall

Fullan, M., 1994. Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform.
Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education, pp.7-24.
King, P. M., & Vanhecke, J. R. (2006). Making Connections: Using Skill Theory to Recognize
How Students Build and Rebuild Understanding. About Campus: Enriching the Student
learning Experience , 11( 1) , 1 0 –1 6 .https://doi.org/10.1002/ABC.155

Baron, J.B.E. and Sternberg, R.J., 1987. Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. WH
Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.

Giorgdze, M. and Dgebuadze, M., 2017. Interactive teaching methods: challenges and
perspectives. International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 3(9), pp.544-548.

McVee, M.B., Dunsmore, K. and Gavelek, J.R., 2005. Schema theory revisited. Review of
educational research, 75(4), pp.531-566.

Stevani, M., & Tarigan, K. E. (2023). Evaluating English textbooks by using Bloom’s
taxonomy to analyze reading comprehension question. SALEE: Study of Applied Linguistics
and English Education, 4(1), 1-18.

SivaKumar, A. (2023). Augmenting the flipped classroom experience by integrating Revised

Bloom's Taxonomy: A faculty perspective. Review of Education, 11(1), e3388.

Köksal, Dinçay, Ömer Gökhan Ulum, and Nurcihan Yürük. "Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in
Reading Texts in EFL/ESL Settings." Acta Educationis Generalis 13, no. 1 (2023): 133-146.

Ekwueme, C. O., Meremikwu, A., & Uka, N. K. (2012). The National Mathematics Curriculum
for Basic Education Programme (BEP) and the Millennium Development Goals for
Mathematics teachers in Cross River State: Teachers’ Perception and Readiness. US-
CHINA Education Review Journal, 3, 162-171.

Amadieu, F., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., and Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior
knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learn.
Instruct. 19, 376–386. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.005.

Marchand, G. C., and Furrer, C. J. (2014). Formative, informative, and summative

assessment: the relationship among curriculum-based measurement of reading, classroom
engagement, and reading performance. Psychol. Schools 51, 659–676. doi:
10.1002/pits.21779

Dong A, Jong MSY and King RB (2020) How Does Prior Knowledge Influence Learning
Engagement? The Mediating Roles of Cognitive Load and Help-Seeking. Front. Psychol.
11:591203. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591203

Bloom, B. (1956). Bloom’s taxonomy.

Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the
Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 152.

Ben Johnson ( 2016) Using the Rule of Three for Learning,retrieved

from :https://www.edutopia.org/blog/using-rule-three-learning-ben-johnson

Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and
writing on word knowledge. Studies in second language acquisition, 27(1), 33-52.

Cambriddge Assessment International Education (2023) The Cambridge learner

attributes,retreived from:https://www.cambridgeinternational.org

Van Ockenburg, L., van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2023). Choosing how to plan
informative synthesis texts: Effects of strategy-based interventions on overall text quality.
Reading and Writing, 36(4), 997-1023.