A Mixed Methods approach

During this research, I employed several data collection tools to capture the complexities of my classroom reality. This encompassed both quantitative and qualitative forms of data, each designed to capture information relating to a specific aspect of my enquiry. The use of multiple data collection tools provided a means of comparing - and therefore supporting or contradicting - the information gathered, significantly reducing the risk of bias. Mixed methods research is considered by many - including researchers such as Symonds and Gorard (2010), as well as Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2007) - to be essential to the generation of reliable findings. Multiple methods, each with their own advantages and perspectives, will always produce more comprehensive data than a single method alone, facilitating capture of what Pring describes as ‘the richness which is present in that non- technical everyday understanding of experience’ (2000: p. 248).

The idea that qualitative and quantitative methods combine to allow greater insight links to the concept of synergy in which ‘two or more options interact so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects’ (Hall & Howard, 2008: p. 251). Indeed, I believe that this study can be classified as synergistic mixed methods research because I am ‘less interested in highlighting the similarities between methods of a mixed methods study but more interested in using methods that inherently contribute multiple points of view on

120

the topic of interest’ (Hall & Howard, 2008: p. 252). Consequently, I believe that the use of these multiple forms of data allows me to more accurately reflect the reality of the Thinking Classroom that the focus cohort and I created together, and that this, in turn, allows me to present a form of education research which serves the informative purpose outlined by Hammersley (2003) in that it does not seek‘to control the way in which people derive practical or policy implications from the knowledge provided, or to try to control what people do on the basis of it’ (p. 18) but rather attempts only to provide practitioners with information which may be relevant to the development of their own classroom practice. Therefore, the ‘only obligation and right, in this context, is to seek to correct any

misrepresentation of the knowledge supplied’ (Hammersley, 2003: p. 18): in other words, it is the duty of the researcher to represent findings as fully and honestly as possible.

The data collection tools thus included quantitative methods, such as attainment data – which aimed to address the research question relating to the impact of the Thinking Skills approach upon pupils’ progress and attainment - and the Self Description Questionnaire (Marsh, Smith and Barnes, 1983) – which aimed to gather data to address the research question relating to the impact upon pupils’ self-concept relating to Maths. In addition, more qualitative methods were also used, such as pupil views templates, which aimed to address the research question relating to the impact of the Thinking Skills approach upon pupils’ metacognition. These tools were specifically chosen to encompass multiple learning styles, as well as both paper and I.C.T. based formats, to provide a wide range of means by which I, as teacher-researcher, could ‘listen’ to pupils’ experiences of Maths. It is also important to note that these distinct data collection tools, together with the different forms of data they collected, were considered equally valuable. This again corresponds to a synergistic approach to mixed methods research, in which neither a qualitative nor quantitative approach ‘inherently overrides the other because researchers value the contributing epistemologies, theories, and methodologies equally all the time despite

necessary fluctuations in the use of either quantitative or qualitative methods throughout the research process’ (Hall & Howard, 2008: pp. 251 – 252).

It is interesting, with hindsight, to reflect upon my thinking here, particularly with regard to the lengths that I go to here to emphasise my beliefs surrounding the equal value that must

121

be places upon quantitative and qualitative evidence. This chapter was initially written whilst the data collection process, as well as the subsequent analysis, was still underway. Moreover, it was written at a time when my thinking about my own research as well as my beliefs about myself as a teacher-researcher were still very much in development. Consequently, it was written at a point before I had fully recognised my subconscious bias towards quantitative methods and fully embraced the shift towards a more interpretivist approach. Yet, I think it is important, in reading the above, to acknowledge the previous discrepancy between my acknowledged beliefs and the realities of my practice as a teacher-

researcher. I hope that, through the adaptation of this research – in particular the eventual inclusion of the embedded case studies – I have ultimately succeeded in bridging the gap between my beliefs and practice.

Further detail of the different formats of these data collection tools and the information they collect can be found in Table 3.1.

The tools used during the first phase of research formed part of a ‘cycle of complementary phases and activities’ (Gorard & Cook, 2007: p. 316), with quantitative and qualitative methods serving to enhance and verify the data obtained from the other. Figure 3.5 contains a representation of the data collection tools used during the first cycle of research,

122

Figure 3.4 Cycle 1 data collection

As the diagram illustrates, the cycle of research was repeated throughout the academic year. The S.D.Q. – or Self-Description questionnaire, developed by Marsh, Smith and Barnes (1983) to analyse self-concept in preadolescents and adolescents - for example, was completed three times during the data collection process, whilst the pupil views templates were completed on four separate occasions. This was a conscious decision, ensuring that the information collected by each data collection tool was compared with that produced by the others, as well as by the data collected at each of the stages of the data collection process, thereby facilitating the identification of patterns and anomalies.

It is also important to note the impact that the repeated use of these data collection tools had upon the validity of this research. These tools formed an integral part of the Thinking Classroom: because each tool was specifically chosen to allow, and even encourage pupils to reflect upon their experiences of Maths, it is logical to expect that repeated use also helped pupils to develop their ability to do so. The repeated use of these distinct data collection tools can thus be seen to have served to enhance both research – in terms of providing a means of comparing different data sets in order to identify patterns and

anomalies, ultimately combining through use of a mosaic approach to capture the richness of our classroom reality - and pedagogy – in terms of providing pupils with frequent

123

opportunities to reflect upon their learning and Maths, thereby presumably developing the familiarity and skill with which they did so.

The second cycle of research focused more closely upon the impact of the Thinking Skills approach upon progress and attainment and, as a result, the data collected primarily related to this aspect of pupils’ experiences of Maths. However, it is important to note that this second cycle of research also included the collection of comparative pupil views templates and S.D.Q. data from pupils across Key Stage Two, as well as a final set of S.D.Q. data in July 2013 and, consequently, the mixed methods approach extended for the duration of the research process. A representation of the data collection tools used during this second phase of research can be found in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 Cycle 2 data collection

The adoption of these two distinct cycles of research meant that the data collection process for this investigation as a whole was complex, with multiple forms of data collected at several different points in the research process. As a result, the final research design is testament to my beliefs regarding the importance of pragmatism – in terms of flexibility and the willingness to adapt research in order to meet the needs of my pupils – as well as

124

my belief in the importance of the use of mixed methods research. Table 3.2 contains a brief timetable outlining when the different forms of data were collected.