Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education pp 213–243Cite as

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

  • Chapter

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borland, K. W., Jr. (2001). Qualitative and quantitative research: A complementary balance. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(112), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Budd, J. M. (2001). Knowledge and knowing in library and information science. A philosophical framework. New York: Scarecrow Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaopricha, S. (1997). CoAuthoring as learning and enculturation: A study of writing in biochem istry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cook, T. D. (1995, November). Evaluation lessons learned. Paper presented at the International Evaluation Congress Evaluation ‘95, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. Pub. L. No. 107–279, 116 Stat. 1940. (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, L. B. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd edn.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Glanz, J. (1998). Action research: An educational leader's guide to school improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Halfpenny, P. (1979). The analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review, New Series, 27, 799–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—a research approach to investigating different aspects of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • McCall, R. B., & Groark, C. J. (2000). The future of applied child development research and public policy. Child Development, 71(1), 197–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edn.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quanti tative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Israel

    Tamar Levin

  2. School of Education, Beit Berl College, Kfar Saba, Israel

    Tili Wagner

Authors
  1. Tamar Levin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tili Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tamar Levin or Tili Wagner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Iowa State University, USA

    Mack C. Shelley II

  2. University of Victoria, Canada

    Larry D. Yore

  3. University of Iowa, USA

    Brian Hand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Levin, T., Wagner, T. (2009). Mixed-methodology Research in Science Education: Opportunities and Challenges in Exploring and Enhancing Thinking Dispositions. In: Shelley, M.C., Yore, L.D., Hand, B. (eds) Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation