Exploring the role of the mixed methods practitioner within educational research teams: A cross-case comparison of the research planning process

International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 314-331

  Poth, Cheryl anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Legitimation; Mixed methods practitioner; Mixed methods research; Planning; Research teams

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883801218     PISSN: 18340806     EISSN: 18340814     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5172/mra.2012.6.3.314     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 103-126. doi:10.1177/1558689809360805.
2. ©. (2012). (Version 6.2.25) [Computer software]. Berlin, Germany: Scientifi c Software Development.
3. Benjamin, J. (2000). The scholarship of teaching in teams: What does it look like in practice? Higher Education Research & Development, 19, 191-204. doi:10.1080/072943600445646.
4. Beran, T., Violato, C., Kline, D., & Frideres, J. (2009). What do students consider useful about student ratings? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 519-527. doi:10.1080/02602930802082228
5. Birenbaum, M. (1994). Toward adaptive assessment-the students angle. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 239-255. doi:10.1016/0191-491X(94)90011-6.
6. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research Journal, 6(1), 97-113. doi:10.1177/1468794106058877
7. Capraro, R. M., & Thompson, B. (2008). The educational researcher defi ned: What will future researchers be trained to do? The Journal of Education Research, 10, 247-253. doi:10.3200/JOER.101.4.247-253.
8. Carpenter, D. M. II, Crawford, L., & Walden, R. (2007). Testing the effi cacy of team teaching. Learning Environment Research, 10, 53-65. doi:10.1007/s10984-007-9019-y.
9. Christ, T. (2010). Teaching mixed methods and action research: Pedagogical, practical, and evaluative considerations. In A. Tashakkor & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods (2nd ed., pp. 643-676). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Clark, I. D., Trick, D., & Van Loon, R. (2011). Academic reform: The policy options for improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of undergraduate education in Ontario. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen's University Press.
11. Collins, K. M. T., & O'Cathain, A. (2009). Ten points about mixed methods research to be considered by the novice researcher. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), 2-7. doi:10.5172/ mra.455.3.1.2
12. Collins, K., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-100.
13. Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
14. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Curry, L. A., O'Cathain, A., Plano Clark, V. L., Aroni, R., Fetters, M., & Berg, D. (2012). The role of group dynamics in mixed methods health sciences research teams. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 5-20. doi:10.1177/1558689811416941.
16. Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a unifi ed validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 309-332. doi:10.1177/1558689807306147.
17. de Vaus, D. (2001). Surveys in social research. New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Dugan, K., & Letterman, M. (2008). Student appraisals of collaborative teaching. College Teaching, 56, 11-15. doi:10.3200/CTCH.56.1.11-16.
19. Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university: Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, measures and preliminary fi ndings. Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh.
21. Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating signifi cant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
23. Guder, F., Malliaris, M., & Jalilvand, A. (2009). Changing the culture of a school: The effect of larger class size on instructor and student performance. American Journal of Business Education, 2(9), 83-90.
24. Hanusch, F., Volcic, Z., & Obijiofor, L. (2009). Theoretical and practical issues in team-teaching a large undergraduate class. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 66-74.
25. Hart, L. C., Smith, S. Z., Swars, S. L., & Smith, M. E. (2009). An examination of research methods in mathematics education (1995-2005).Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 26-41. doi:10.1177/1558689808325771.
26. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A Research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 14-26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014.
27. Joughin, G. (2009) Introduction: Refocusing assessment. In G. Joughin (ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Springer Science?Business Media BV.
28. Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & Kwan, K. P. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 411-425. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009294.
29. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Leech, N. L., Dellinger, A. B., Brannagan, K. B., & Tanaka, H. (2010). Evaluating mixed research studies: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 17-31. doi:10.1177/1558689809345262
31. Lester, J. N., & Evans, K. R. (2009). Instructors' experiences of collaboratively teaching: Building something bigger. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 373-382.
32. Ludlow, L. H. (2005). A longitudinal approach to understanding course evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(1). Retrieved from http:// pareonline.net/getvnp/v=10&n=1
33. Luhanga, U. (2012). Confi rmatory factor analysis of the short revised experiences of teaching and learning questionnaire (SR-ETL-Q): Examining the internal structure within a Canadian undergraduate population. (Unpublished Masters Thesis), University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
34. Luth, R. (2010). Assessment and grading at the University of Alberta: Policies, practices, and possibilities. A report to the Provost and the University (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved from www.ualberta.ca/
35. Miles, A., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Moore, E., Chu, M., Poth, C., & Daniels, L. (2011, March). The impact of a team instructional approach: The perspectives of students, teaching assistants, and instructors involved in multiple sections of large classes. Poster at Festival of Teaching and Learning, Edmonton, AB.
37. Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges andopportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 175-185. doi:10.1080/13562511003620001
39. O'Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Daniel, L. G., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A meta-validation model for assessing the score-validity of student teaching evaluations. Quality & Quantity, 41, 233-249. doi:10.1007/ s11135-006-9000-3
41. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
42. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, B., & Collins, K. M. T. (2009). Assessing legitimation in mixed research: A new framework. Quality & Quantity, 45, 1253-1258. doi:10.1007/s11135-009-9289-9
43. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11, 474-498.
44. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2011). Toward a new era for conducting mixed analysis: The role of quantitative dominant and qualitative dominant crossover mixed analysis. In M. Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), The Sage handbook of innovation in social research methods (pp. 353-384). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Plano Clark, V. L., Garrett, A. L., & Leslie-Pelecky, D. L. (2010). Applying three strategies for integrating quantitative and qualitative databases in a mixed methods study of a nontraditional graduate education program. Field Methods, 22, 154-174. doi:10.1177/1525822X09357174.
46. Poth, C. (2010). Examining the contributions of a mixed methods exploratory sequential design: A qualitative perspective. In M. Pourkos & M. Dafermos (Eds.), Qualitative research into social sciences: Epistemological, methodological and ethical issues (pp. 525-539), Athens, Greece: Topos.
47. Poth, C. (2012, May). Assessing the impact of a team instructional approach: A mixed methods study of effective large class learning environments. Paper at 8th International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
48. Poth, C., Bustos, M., Chu, M-W., Seitz, P., Chudnovskaya, E., Luhanga, U.,Coates, T. (2012, July). 'Help me learn in a big class!': Key features of an effective team instructional approach. Poster at Centre for Teaching and Learning's Teaching Big: The Joy of Large Classes, Edmonton, AB.
49. Poth, C., Reidel, A., & Luth, B. (2011, March). Undergraduate experiences and attitudes related to assessment: The Canadian context. Paper at Global Learn Asia Pacifi c annual meeting on Learning and Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
50. Ross, A., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). Mixed methods research design: A comparison of prevalence in JRME and AERJ. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(3), 233-245. doi:10.5172/ mra.2010.4.3.233
51. Sandler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 1, 1-25.
52. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
55. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students' perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 325-341. doi:10.1080/02602930500099102
56. Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
57. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 671-701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in education: Principles, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 11, 49-65. doi:10.1080/0969594042000208994
60. Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Wulff, D. H., Nyquist, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1987). Students' perceptions of large classes. In M. Weimer (ed.), Teaching large classes well: New directions for teaching and learning (pp. 17-30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
62. Zhou, G., Kim, J., & Kerekes, J. (2011). Collaborative teaching of an integrated methods course. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3, 123-138.