Mixed Method Research Experience Based on an Educational Technology Study

Abstract

Mixed method studies have an increasing research paradigm considered as a separate category for the classification of research methods. In addition, it is pointed out that there are various problems with the application and understanding of mixed method studies reported in related literature. Since the field of educational technologies is considered to be interdisciplinary, this field inherently provides mixed method research with a large framework. The present study aimed at sharing mixed design experiences gained based on a study designed with the mixed research method in the field of educational technologies. The study was designed as questions related to the mixed method and responses given to these questions within the scope of a doctorate thesis conducted in the field of educational technologies. In the study, the mixed method of research was examined based on the research mentioned, and the purposes of use of this method were explained. In addition, the study also focused on the foundations, classifications, phases and application of the mixed method research. In the study, the contributions of the mixed method research as well as its types and phases were explained based on the mixed method research conducted. Consequently, the results revealed critical implications regarding the use of the mixed method especially in the field of educational technologies.

Keywords

• Mixed method research, research experience, paradigm, quantitative and qualitative research, educational technology.

Bir Eğitim Teknolojisi Araştırmasına Dayalı Olarak Karma Yöntem Araştırması Deneyimi

Abstract

Karma yöntem araştırmaları, araştırma yöntemlerinin sınıflandırılmasında ayrı bir kategori olarak ele alınan ve yükselen bir araştırma paradigması özelliğindedir. Bununla birlikte, alanyazındaki araştırmalardan karma yöntem araştırmalarının anlaşılmasında ve uygulanmasında çeşitli sorunlar olduğu vurgulanmaktadır. Eğitim teknolojileri disiplinlerarası bir alan olduğundan, doğası gereği karma yöntem araştırmalarına geniş bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, eğitim teknolojisi alanında karma araştırma yönteminde desenlenen bir araştırmaya dayalı olarak elde edilen karma desen deneyimlerinin paylaşılması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma, karma yönteme ilişkin sorular biçiminde düzenlenen alt başlıklar ile eğitim teknolojilerinde gerçekleştirilen bir doktora tezi kapsamında bu sorulara verilen cevaplar kapsamında sunulmuştur. Buna bağlı kalınarak çalışmada, belirtilen araştırmaya dayalı olarak öncelikle kavramsal açıdan karma yöntem araştırması irdelenmiş ve bu yöntemin kullanım amaçları açıklanmıştır. Ayrıca, çalışma kapsamında karma yöntem araştırmalarının dayanakları, sınıflandırmaları, aşamaları ve uygulanması konuları ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada karma yöntem araştırmalarının katkıları, türleri ve aşamaları, gerçekleştirilen karma yöntem araştırmasına dayalı olarak açıklanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, karma yöntemin özellikle eğitim teknolojisi alanında kullanımına ilişkin eleştirel çıkarımlarda bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Karma yöntem araştırması, araştırma deneyimi, paradigma, nicel ve nitel araştırma, eğitim teknolojisi.

References

1. Betzner, A. (2008). Pragmatic and dialectic mixed method approaches: An empirical comparison, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
2. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson.
3. Brannen, J. (2005). Mixed methods research: A discussion paper. Economic & Social Research Council [ESRC] National Center of Research Methods (NCRM Methods Review Papers NCRM/005). http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/89/1/ MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-005.pdf adresinden 25 Kasım 2013 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
4. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
6. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. International Pearson Merril Prentice Hall.

9. Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 321–333.
10. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Understanding mixed methods research. In J. Creswell (Ed.), Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 1-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. D. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
13. Hunt, O. (2007). A mixed method design. Article Valley. http://www.articlealley.com/ adresinden 27 Ekim 2013 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
14. Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2003). Multimethod research in sociology. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 577-594). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Hsu, Y. C. (2006). The effects of metaphors on novice and expert learners’ performance and mental-model development. Interacting with Computers, 18(4), 770–792. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
16. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn ve Bacon.
17. Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
18. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 43, 2652
19. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
20. Morse, J. M., Niehaus, L., Wolfe, R. R., & Wilkins, S. (2006). The role of the theoretical drive in maintaining validity in mixed-method research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 279-291.
21. O’Reilly, L., Thorkelsson, P., Nobert, M., & McLaughlan, M. (2009). Mixed methods research: An emerging paradigm? http://admn502awiki.pbworks.com adresinden 27 Ekim 2013 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
22. Randolph, J. J. (2008). Multidisciplinary methods in educational technology research and development. Hämeenlinna, Finland: HAMK University of Applied Sciences Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combing quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627–643.
23. Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 321-350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358-394
25. Sieber, S. D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 1335-1359.
26. Smith, D. W. (2008). Phenomenology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology adresinden 18 Eylül 2011 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
27. Smith, D. W., & Thomasson, Amie L. (Eds.), (2005). Phenomenology and philosophy of mind. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori ve C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, (pp. 671-701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
30. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quart. Yazarlar İletişim Dr. Mehmet FIRAT, Açıköğretim Fakültesi, uzaktan eğitim alanında öğretim elemanıdır. Çalışma alanları arasında eğitim teknolojisi ve uzaktan eğitim, e-öğrenme, siber davranışlar, eğitsel hiperortam ve çokluortamlar konuları yer almaktadır.