Educational accountability: A qualitatively driven mixed-methods approach

Qualitative Inquiry

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 105-115

  Hall, Jori N ^a   Ryan, Katherine E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

case study framework; educational accountability; mixed methods; qualitatively driven research

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650247884     PISSN: 10778004     EISSN: 15527565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077800410389761     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2. Boudett, K. P., City, E., & Murnane, R. (Eds.). (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
3. Caracelli, V.J., & Greene, J.C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195-207.
4. Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., & Siskin, L. (2003). The new accountability: High school and high-stakes testing. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
5. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Creswell, J.W., Slope, R., Plano Clark, V., & Green. (2006). How interpretative qualitative research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1-11.
7. DeBray, E., Parson, G., & Avila, S. (2003). Internal alignment and external pressure: High school responses in four state contexts. In M. Carnoy, R. Elmore, & L. S. Siskin (Eds.), The new accountability: High schools and high stakes testing (pp. 55-85). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
8. Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
9. Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
10. Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Fowler, F.J. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Fuhrman, S. (1999). The new accountability (No. RB-27). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
13. Goertz, M., & Massell, D. (2005). Holding high hopes: How high schools respond to state accountability policies (No. RB-42). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
14. Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15. Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
16. Hall, J. (2008). Educational accountability: Investigating the collective capacity of a middle school (AAT No. 3314784). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
17. Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 455-468.
18. Heubert, J.P., & Hauer, R.M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. Horn, R.A. (2004). The new federal definition of educational research: Implications for educators. The Teacher Educator, 39, 196-211.
20. Kim, J.S., & Sunderman, G.L. (2005). Teacher quality: Equalizing educational opportunity and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project of Harvard University.
21. Kirkhart, K.E. (1995). Seeking multicultural validity: A postcard from the road. Evaluation Practice, 16(1), 1-12.
22. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73-84.
23. Luck, L., Jackson, D., & Usher, K. (2006). Case study: A bridge across the paradigms. Nursing Inquiry, 13(2), 103-109.
24. Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively-driven way. Qualitative Research 6(1), 9-25.
25. Meier, D., & Wood, G. (Eds.). (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
26. Morgan, D.L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 362-376.
27. Morse, J. (1991). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddle (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Newmann, F.M., King, M.B., & Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 41-74.
29. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
30. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Johnson, R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
31. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Rallis, S., & MacMullen, M. (2000). Inquiry-minded schools: Opening doors for accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 766-773.
33. Rebell, M.A., & Wolff, J.R. (2009). NCLB at the crossroads: Reexamining the federal effort to close the achievement gap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
34. Robertson, E.J. (2003). Teachers perceptions of accountability at an iinternational school. Journal of Research in International Education, 2, 277-300.
35. Roderick, M., Jacob, B., & Bryk, A. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in the promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 333-357.
36. Ryan, K. (2008). Performance measurement and educational accountability: The U.S. case. In P. Julnes, F. Berry, M. Aristigueta, & K. Yang, (Eds.), Practice-based performance management: An international handbook (pp. 213-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, National Research Council, Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
38. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Stake, R.E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Elementary & secondary education: No child left behind: A desktop reference. Retrieved from http://www.2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/index.html.