Advertisement

Mixed-methodology Research in Science Education: Opportunities and Challenges in Exploring and Enhancing Thinking Dispositions

Questions about the value of research in education, its paradigmatic orientation, and potential use and importance for advancing knowledge have resurfaced in the past decade, mainly as a result of the proliferation of standards-based reforms and highstakes accountability policies. The political agenda of accountability, manifested in such issues as the call for common standards, quality indicators, and evidence-based instructional programs, has created a demand for proven research strategies among educators, including literacy and science educators. Two acts in the United States— the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) and the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA, 2002)—have prompted epistemological questions regarding the disciplinary profile of educational research, maintaining that education research can and should shape knowledge, policy, and practice. Their demand for research-proven strategies along with hopes of making education an evidence-based field (US National Research Council, 2004) have helped to challenge and encourage fresh and mindful dialogue on the nature of worthwhile research in literacy and science education and the relation of research to both theory and practice.

For many decades, the quantitative paradigm has been the paradigm of choice for science education research—chiefly when investigating the relation between different types of instruction and student learning. More specifically, the dominant paradigm or Gold Standard for science studies and program evaluation has been experimental methodology. This standard is considered to have merit in particular because experimental research makes explanations possible as to cause and effect. This paradigm has often involved comparing instructional innovation with more traditional forms of instruction in an experiment building or drawing on theory-driven hypotheses, random assignment of participants to treatments, controlled manipulations uniformly applied to all participants under rigorously controlled conditions, and the use of quantitative measurement and statistical analysis (McCall & Green, 2004). The parameters of evaluating performance outcomes have also remained well within the empirical—analytic paradigm. This has involved assessing student responses and conceptions as right or wrong, giving little interpretation or consideration to the context. Scores have usually been standardized against such norms as statistical distributions or judgment by a panel of experts (Aikenhead, 1997).

Keywords

Qualitative Research Mixed Method Science Education Research Writing Task Actual Writing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (1997, May). A framework for reflecting on assessment and evaluation (pp. 195–199). Paper presented at the Korean Education Development Institute international conference Globalization of Science Education, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  2. Berends, M., & Garet, M. S. (2002). In (re)search of evidence-based school practices: Possibilities for integrating nationally representative surveys and randomized field trials to inform educational policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(4), 28–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borland, K. W., Jr. (2001). Qualitative and quantitative research: A complementary balance. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(112), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bresler, L., & Stake, R. E. (1992). Qualitative research methodology in music education. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 75–90). New York: Schirmer Books.Google Scholar
  5. Budd, J. M. (2001). Knowledge and knowing in library and information science. A philosophical framework. New York: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chaopricha, S. (1997). CoAuthoring as learning and enculturation: A study of writing in biochem istry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
  7. Classen, S., & Lopez, E. D. S. (2006). Mixed methods approach explaining process of an older driver safety systematic literature review. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation: The Older Driver, Part 2, 22(2), 99–112.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, T. D. (1995, November). Evaluation lessons learned. Paper presented at the International Evaluation Congress Evaluation ‘95, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Eberle, T. S. (2005, May). Promoting qualitative research in Switzerland. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 31. Retrieved from http:// www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-31-e.htmGoogle Scholar
  12. Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. Pub. L. No. 107–279, 116 Stat. 1940. (2002).Google Scholar
  13. Eisenhart, M., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edn., pp. 119–161). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  18. Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16–21.Google Scholar
  19. Flick, L. B. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd edn.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Gilman, R. (1993). The next great turning: A growing awareness of our interconnections could revolutionize our culture. In Context, 33(Winter), 11–12.Google Scholar
  21. Glanz, J. (1998). Action research: An educational leader's guide to school improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.Google Scholar
  22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1997(74), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.Google Scholar
  26. Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent scientific revolution (pp. 89–115). London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  28. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Halfpenny, P. (1979). The analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review, New Series, 27, 799–825.Google Scholar
  30. Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks' influence on science learning. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (Vol. 7 of Studies in Writing, pp. 105–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10–16.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Langer, J., & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning (NCTE Research Report No. 22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  40. Libarkin, J. C., & Kurdziel, J. P. (2002). Research methodologies in science education: The qualitative-quantitative debate [Column]. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 78–86.Google Scholar
  41. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/ mackenzie.htmlGoogle Scholar
  43. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—a research approach to investigating different aspects of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–94.Google Scholar
  44. Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & C. B. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 241–271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. McCall, R. B., & Green, B. L. (2004). Beyond the methodological gold standards of behavioral research: Considerations for practice and policy. Social Policy Report, 18(2), 3–19.Google Scholar
  46. McCall, R. B., & Groark, C. J. (2000). The future of applied child development research and public policy. Child Development, 71(1), 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nicolopoulou, A. (1997). Children and narratives: Towards an interpretive and sociocultural approach. In M. Bamberg (Ed.), Narrative development: Six approaches (pp. 175–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Niglas, K. (2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research (Dissertations on Social Science). Tallinn, Estonia: Tallinn Pedagogical University.Google Scholar
  50. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002).Google Scholar
  51. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of “significant” findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9(4), 770–792. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR9-4/onwuegbuzie.pdfGoogle Scholar
  53. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edn.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Peled, N. (1997). Genres in speaking and writing—Theory and practice in the arts of language in teacher training institutions. Tel Aviv, Israel: Mofet Institute.Google Scholar
  57. Petter, S. C., & Gallivan, M. J. (2004, January). Toward a framework for classifying and guiding mixed method research in information systems. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-37), Waikoloa, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  58. Phillips, D. C. (2005). The contested nature of empirical educational research (and why philosophy of education offers little help). Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(4), 577–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reichardt, C. S., & Rallis, S. F. (1994). Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: A call for a new partnership. In C. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives (Vol. 61, pp. 85–91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  61. Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., Perez-Prado, A., Alacaci, C., Dwyer, E. S., et al. (2003). The pragmatic and dialectical lenses: Two views of mixed methods' use in education. In A. Tashakkori & C. B. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 595–615). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shulha, L. M., & Wilson, R. J. (2003, May). Collaboration and mixed method inquiry: Theory and practice. Paper presented at the XXXI annual conference of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.Google Scholar
  64. Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  65. Sperling, M. (1995). Uncovering the role of role in writing and learning to write: One day in an inner-city classroom. Written Communication, 12(1), 93–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quanti tative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. B. (2003). The past and the future of mixed methods research: From “methodological triangulation” to “mixed model designs”. In A. Tashakkori & C. B. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 671–702). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: Learning and teaching in a culture of thinking. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  70. United States National Research Council. (2004). Advancing scientific research in education. Committee on research in education. L. Towne, L. L. Wise, & T. M. Winters (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  71. Visser, R. M. S. (n.d.). Trends in program evaluation literature: The emergence of pragmatism. TCALL Occasional Research Paper, (No. 5). Retrieved from http://www-tcall.tamu.edu/orp/orp5.htm
  72. Wasser, J. D., & Bresler, L. (1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5–15.Google Scholar
  73. Weinreich, N. K. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in social marketing research. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from http://www.social-marketing.com/research.html
  74. Yanchar, S. C., & Williams, D. D. (2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Yin, R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41–47.Google Scholar
  77. Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 5(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scien tific literacy. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationTel Aviv UniversityIsrael
  2. 2.School of EducationBeit Berl CollegeKfar SabaIsrael

Personalised recommendations