Mixed-methodology research in science education: Opportunities and challenges in exploring and enhancing thinking dispositions

Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 213-243

  Levin, Tamar ^a   Wagner, Tili ^b  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b BEIT BERL COLLEGE   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955843708     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_11     Document Type: Chapter

References (76)

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.
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.
3. Borland, K. W., Jr. (2001). Qualitative and quantitative research: A complementary balance. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(112), 5-13.
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.
5. Budd, J. M. (2001). Knowledge and knowing in library and information science. A philosophical framework. New York: Scarecrow Press.
6. Chaopricha, S. (1997). Coauthoring as learning and enculturation: A study of writing in biochemistry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
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.
8. Cook, T. D. (1995, November). Evaluation lessons learned. Paper presented at the International Evaluation Congress Evaluation '95, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
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.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.htm
12. Eisenhart, M., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. D. Le Compte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
14. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15. Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23.
16. 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.
17. Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16-21.
18. Flick, L. B. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
19. Gilman, R. (1993). The next great turning: A growing awareness of our interconnections could revolutionize our culture. In Context, 33(Winter), 11-12.
20. Glanz, J. (1998). Action research: An educational leader's guide to school improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
21. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
22. Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Halfpenny, P. (1979). The analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review, New Series, 27, 799-825.
29. Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. London: Routledge.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.
33. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
34. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130.
35. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
37. Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 43-50.
38. Langer, J., & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning (NCTE Research Report No. 2). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
39. 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.
40. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41. 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.html
42. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography - a research approach to investigating different aspects of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28-94.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. McCall, R. B., & Groark, C. J. (2000). The future of applied child development research and public policy. Child Development, 71(1), 197-204.
46. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376.
47. 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.
48. Niglas, K. (2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research (Dissertations on Social Science). Tallinn, Estonia: Tallinn Pedagogical University.
49. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
50. 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.pdf
51. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
52. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edn.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
53. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
63. 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.
64. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66. 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.
67. Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: Learning and teaching in a culture of thinking. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
68. 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.
69. 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
70. Wasser, J. D., & Bresler, L. (1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5-15.
71. 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
72. 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.
73. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
74. Yin, R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-47.
75. 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.
76. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559-589.