The dominant literature on research synthesis methods has positivist and neo-positivist origins. In recent years, the landscape of research synthesis methods has changed rapidly to become inclusive. This article highlights methodologically inclusive advancements in research synthesis methods. Attention is drawn to insights from interpretive, critical, and participatory traditions for enhancing trustworthiness, utility, and/or emancipatory potential for research syntheses. Also noted is a paucity of the literature that builds connections between methodologically diverse segments of the literature on research synthesis methods. Salient features of a methodologically inclusive research synthesis (MIRS) framework are described. The MIRS framework has been conceptualized by distilling and synthesizing ideas, theories, and strategies from the extensive literatures on research synthesis methods and primary research methods. Rather than prescribe how a research synthesis should be conducted or evaluated, this article attempts to open spaces, raise questions, explore possibilities, and contest taken-for-granted practices.

There is an increasing acceptance in the education literature and in classroom settings for `best practice' to be linked with verbal clarification of knowledge and reasoning, ideally in collaborative contexts where students construct both group and individual knowledge. Problem-based learning (PBL) is one such classroom context in which participation is viewed as leading to learning and where the nature of `good' participation is verbal contribution. Students who choose to participate without speaking, or `silent' students, are often seen as failing to learn, and significant tutor time is devoted to encouraging verbal input. This article examines the experience of four `silent participants' (two overseas-educated and two local Australian) in a PBL context. The analysis reported in this article suggests that students' choice to be silent is a consequence of multiple constraints — personal, contextual and cultural — and that silence should not be taken to signify lack of learning.

The important role of student agency in collaborative problem-solving has been acknowledged in previous mathematics education research. However, what remains unknown are the processes of agency in open-ended tasks that draw on real-life contexts and demand argumentation beyond “mathematical”. In this study, we analyse a video recording of two student groups (each consisting of four students) taking part in collaborative problem-solving. We draw on the framework for collaborative construction of mathematical arguments and its interplay with student agency by Mueller et al. (2012). This original framework is supplemented by (i) testing and revising it in the context of open-ended real-life tasks, with (ii) student groups rather than pairs working on the tasks, and by (iii) offering a strengthened methodological pathway for analysing student agency in such a context. Based on our findings, we suggest that the framework suits this new context with some extensions. First, we note that differences in student agency were not only identified in terms of the discourse students drew on, but in how students were able to shift between various discourses, such as between “mathematical” and “non-mathematical” discourses. We identify a novel discourse reflecting student agency, invalidation discourse, which refers to denying other students’ agency by framing their contribution as invalid. Finally, we discuss the need to reframe “mathematical” arguments—and indeed student agency—while the task at hand is open-ended and concerns real-life contexts.