Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Mixed Methods Research

No description

Kamelia D

on 24 March 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Mixed Methods Research

Mixed Methods Research
A mixed methods research design
is a procedure for collecting, analyzing, and “mixing” both quantitative and qualitative research and methods in a
single study to understand a research problem. (Creswell, 2008)

To utilize this design effectively, one must understand both quantitative and qualitative research.
Mixed Methods explained
Example 2
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Newby, Peter (2013). Research Methods in Education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Plano Clark, V.L., Creswell, J.W. (2008) Mixed Methods Reader. Sage Publications

Rankin, J.L. and Aksamit, D.L. (1994).Perceptions of Elementary, Junior High, and High School Student Assistant Team Coordinators, Team Members, and Teachers. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 5, 229-256.

Schulte ,A.C. Osborne,S.S., Kauffman, J.M. (1993). Teacher Responses to Two Types of Consultative Special Education Services. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 4, 1-27.

Tashakorri, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: from data triangulation to mixed model designs’ in (eds) A Tashakorri A and C Teddlie C (2003) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
When to use Mixed Methods

When both quantitative and qualitative data, together, provide a better understanding of your research problem than either type by itself.

When one type of research (qualitative or quantitative) is not enough to address the research problem or answer the research questions.


Utilizes both quantitative and qualitative data
collection methodologies.

Interviews and Questionnaires

Performance Tests and Observation

Questionnaires and follow up Focus groups

Document analysis, Performance Tests, Questionnaire, and Interviews

Ethnographic and case study
What skills are needed
Origins and Development
“The emergence of mixed
methods as a third
methodological movement
in the social and behavioral
sciences began during the
1980’s.” (p. 697)

-Tashakkori &
Teddlie (2003)

Types of Research Methods

A type of educational research in which the research decides what to study; asks specific, narrow questions, collects quantifiable data from participants (a large number of participants); analyzes these numbers using statistics; and conducts the inquiry in an unbiased, objective manner.
Generally involves collecting numerical data that can be subjected to statistical analysis

The data is generally referred to as “hard” data

A type of educational research in which the researcher relies on the views of participants; asks broad, general questions; collects data consisting largely of words (or text) from participants; describes and analyzes these words for themes; and conducts the inquiry in a subjective, biased manner.
Generally involves listening to the participants’ voice and subjecting the data to analytic induction (e.g.,
finding common themes)
More Exploratory in nature
Examples of data collection methods
Open-ended questionnaires
Content analysis
Focus Groups
Mixed Methods
Why Use Mixed Methods?
It can increase the accuracy of the data
Gives a complete picture of the research
To overcome the weaknesses of a single design
When going beyond showing cause and effect to understand how the cause creates the effect
What are some of the design strategies?
Sequential Explanatory
Purpose: To use qualitative results to assist in explaining and interpreting the findings of
a quantitative study.
Collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by collection and analysis of qualitative data
Sequential Exploratory
Purpose: To explore a phenomenon. This strategy may also be useful when developing and testing a new instrument.
An initial phase of qualitative data collection and analysis followed by a phase of quantitative data collection and analysis.

Sequential Transformative
Purpose: To employ the methods that best serve a theoretical perspective.
Collection and analysis of either quantitative or qualitative data first. The results are integrated in the interpretation phase.

Concurrent Triangulation
Purpose: Generally, both methods are used to overcome a weakness in using one method with the strengths of another.
Two or more methods used to confirm, cross-validate, or corroborate findings within a study. Data collection is concurrent
Concurrent Nested
Purpose: The purpose of the nested method is to address a different question than the dominant or to seek information from different levels.
A nested approach that gives priority to one of the methods and guides the project, while another is embedded or “nested.”

Concurrent Transformative
Purpose: To evaluate a theoretical perspective at different levels of analysis.
The use of a theoretical perspective reflected in the purpose or research questions of the study to guide all methodological choices.

Some researchers believe that it was used and described as early as the 1950's (Newby, 2013)
Example 1:
Quantitative: 2 Pre/post questionnaires using rating scales (CPS and PPBI)
Qualitative: Open-ended interviews

Subjects were selected randomly from 11 elementary schools and had no relationships with the researchers. Following agreement for school participation by principals, four students with learning disabilities in each school who met study criteria (receiving learning disability services, IQ > 85, ability/achievement discrepancy in reading or written language) were randomly selected as potential recipients of consultative services. The students' general classroom teachers were then approached and asked to agree to participate in the study. If the teacher agreed, parents were approached to provide consent for their child's participation, and if they agreed, proposed changes in the student's program were brought before the special education placement committee for approval. If a teacher, parent, or the placement committee did not consent to participation, another student was randomly selected and the consent process repeated.
Teacher Responses to Two Types of Consultative Special Education Services
Elementary general education teachers who had students with learning disabilities in their classes received consultation from experienced special education teachers using one of two models: a model combining teacher consultation and direct instruction (C/D, n=20), or indirect services consisting solely of consultation (C/L, n= 14). The teachers completed a pre/post questionnaires and an interview to assess their responses to the two models. A third group also responded to the questionnaires did not receive consultation (Control, n= 13).
On the Preference for Consultation Scale of the PPBI, teachers in all three conditions initially expressed a preference for consultation over referral across a range of child problems. At the close of the study, teachers in the C/D and control conditions continued to prefer consultative services to referral, while the mean preference rating for teachers in the C/I condition did not differ significantly from neutral. Results of CPS showed that there was a marked preference for a consultation model that involves collaboration between the consultant and teacher throughout all phases of problem solving.

Interview responses seemed to indicate teachers saw different strengths and weaknesses for the two models of consultative services, and there was some indication that participation in C/I may have changed teachers' preferences for consultation over referral.
the teachers participating in this study received services for a restricted subset of the children who would be receiving special education services. Only students with learning disabilities in reading or written language with IQs above 85 were eligible for participation.
the consulting teachers who provided services here (a) had smaller caseloads (12-14 students) than the typical resource teacher; (b) were external to the school system; and (c) had master's degrees, experience as consultants, intensive training in consultation, and 8 hrs of continuing training and supervision per month while implementing consultative services.
the small sample size and the failure to obtain complete questionnaire data from over 35% of the participating teachers.
Perceptions of Elementary, Junior High, and High School Student Assistant Team Coordinators, Team Members, and Teachers
Rankin, J.L. & Aksamit, D.L. (1994)
Schulte ,A.C. Osborne,S.S., Kauffman, J.M. (1993)
Researchers examined whether differences in perceptions of problem-solving teams exist based on the role one plays in the process (i.e., team coordinator, team member, or teacher) and/or level of school (i.e.,elementary, junior high,or senior high).
Participants were 563 educators employed in 35 elementary,
9 junior high, and senior 5 high schools of a large midwestern
school district. Participants represented the following groups:
building coordinators of the Student assisted teams (SATs) (n=46), teachers and other school personnel who had recently
served as SAT members (n=219), and a random sample of general educators from each building (n=298).
The SAT coordinator, SAT member, and teacher all completed a questionnaire. Although the questionnaires were similar, each group responded to a combination of questions related directly to their role in the process.
They also had open-ended questions
Principals of each school was contacted and provided with a description of the study, procedures and the questionnaires. The principals were asked to identify the person responsible for coordinating the SAT in their building. SAT coordinators were then contacted and provided with a packet of materials, including questionnaires and cover letters for all participants. SAT questionnaires were given to those who attended the last meeting and the teacher questionnaires were randomly given to 10 teachers within each school. No names were used on any questionnaires. The questionnaires were collected from 32 elementary schools, 9 junior high and 5 high schools.
MANOVA was used to analyze the quantitative data. The qualitative open-ended questions were analyzed using a procedure called grounded theory described by Strauss and Corbin (1990)
The need for competent, committed individuals; explicit and functional procedures; and
adequate time and resources were recurrent themes. It was found that perceptions, and perhaps needs, of individuals in various roles differ. Perceptions, and likely the needs, of educators serving in different roles vary partially as a function of those roles.
Although not specifically examined in this study, it was assumed that some of the differences observed according to school level were a result of differences in organizational structure of the schools and the philosophy of the administration and faculty within those schools. The findings also are from one school district and therefore generalized
"Mixed methods researchers must write -up their research in such a way that the quantitative and the qualitative components are mutually illuminating"
Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2007), p. 24
"Mixed methods are themselves 'mixed metaphors' in that qualitative research and quantitative research are views as standing for different approaches to inquiry."
Plano Clark & Creswell, 2008 p. 328
Full transcript