This chapter will provide information on the mixed methods design used for this study on flow experience in middle level band. The first section will discuss the rationale for using mixed methods. The mixed methods design for this study will be presented in the second section, including a discussion of the sampling design used. The third section of this chapter will introduce the site for and participants in the study. The fourth section will outline the quantitative data collection materials and procedures, as well as provide a detailed plan for data analysis. The fifth section will outline the qualitative data
collection procedures and accompanying data analysis plan. Verification procedures, including a statement of researcher bias, will be included in this section. The final section will outline the procedure for integrating the two strands of data in order to answer the mixed methods research question regarding flow experience in the middle school instrumental music classroom.
Rationale for Mixed Methods
Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) described four philosophical assumptions, or worldviews, that underlie research studies. Each worldview influences “how researchers conduct and report their inquiries” (p. 41). The first worldview is postpositivism.
Researchers who adopt a postpositivist worldview approach study design with “cause- and-effect” thinking, in that they make hypotheses and test predetermined variables (p. 40). A postpositivist view is most closely associated with quantitative research. A second worldview is constructivism. Constructivist researchers seek to understand phenomena from the participants’ viewpoints, drawing from individual perspectives to
form patterns and understandings. Constructivism is most closely associated with qualitative research. Third, participatory worldviews approach research through a political lens, in that the “researcher plans for the social world to be changed for the better” (p. 41). The final worldview is pragmatism, which is most typically associated with mixed methods research. Pragmatist researchers use whatever practical means necessary to answer their research questions, whether that be traditionally quantitative approaches, qualitative approaches, or both approaches. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) stated, that in using a pragmatist worldview, a mixed methods researcher takes
quantitative and qualitative approaches “seriously but then develops a synthesis for each research study” (p. 73). In this sense, both objective (traditionally identified as
quantitative) and subjective (traditionally identified as qualitative) points of view occur during the study. Therefore, assumptions traditionally associated with quantitative or qualitative methods may co-exist in mixed methods research.
Similar to a pragmatic approach, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) refer to mixed methods as “methodological eclecticism,” defined as researchers who “select and then synergistically integrate the most appropriate techniques from a myriad of QUAL [qualitative], QUAN [quantitative], and mixed strategies to thoroughly investigate a phenomenon of interest” (p. 5). Bresler and Stake (1992) echoed this “eclectic” approach to research in this statement regarding design and analysis:
In actual life, no research study is purely qualitative or quantitative. In each qualitative study, enumeration and recognition of differences in amount have a
interpretation are expected. The distinction as we see it is an epistemological distinction that can be identified as the distinction between inquiry for making explanations versus inquiry for promoting understanding. (p. 78)
Other researchers subscribe to this same view, such as Gorard (2010) and S. Schensul, Schensul, and LeCompte (2013).
It is important to articulate one’s reasoning for a using a mixed methods approach in a research study. According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), possible reasons for mixed methods include (a) the need to supplement one data source with a second data source to explain, generalize, or enhance the results; (b) the need to use a theoretical framework to “bring about change or simply provide a lens through which the entire study might be viewed” (p. 10); or (c) the research is be best conducted in multiple steps or phases. Yin (2009) stated that mixed methods research allows for “a richer and
stronger array of evidence than can be accomplished by any single method alone” (p. 63). In this study, the qualitative data complemented and enhanced the quantitative data in that it helped to explain factors that may influence student flow experiences in middle school band (Bryman, 2006; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Greene et al., 1989).
Researchers who have studied flow recommend the use of mixed methods to provide a deeper understanding of this multidimensional construct. Martin and Jackson (2008) and Sinnamon et al. (2012), who both used a survey to measure participants’ self- reports of flow on a single occasion, recommended that collecting both quantitative and qualitative data from the same sample would provide a more complete picture of flow in athletes and musicians, respectively. Three mixed methods studies about music and flow
were reviewed in Chapter Two. Montanez (2011) and O’Neill (2009) first gathered quantitative data from participants: Montanez used a single occasion survey and O’Neill used the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) to gather repeated measures data. Then, they interviewed participants who had higher levels of flow. Freer (2008) gathered multiple forms of data for his study on teacher instructional language in middle school choir ensembles. First, he recorded middle school choral rehearsals and coded the teachers’ instructional language as scaffolding (i.e., providing prompts for students to assist with higher-level thinking) or non-scaffolding. Freer also asked the students to fill out an exit survey regarding their flow experiences in class. Teacher language data and student flow experience data were the variables included in a regression analysis. Second, Freer used the recorded rehearsals during interviews with the teachers for stimulated recall discussions. The quantitative and qualitative data collection methods used in the present study will be outlined in the next several sections.
Design of the Study
This study used a convergent parallel mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed separately, and then merged. The reason for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data was to converge the two forms of data in order to create a more comprehensive picture of student flow in a middle school band context. The quantitative data collection consisted of two types of surveys: a single occasion survey that measured students’ perceptions of relationships in their classroom and a researcher-designed ESM survey for
student. The qualitative method of inquiry was a case study of an eighth grade band. Data collection for the case study consisted of observations, field notes, rehearsal transcripts, and interviews. An overview of the design for this study is provided in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Mixed Methods Design for this Study
Quantitative Qualitative
Data Collection
• Students completed surveys; • Assessment scores,
instrument played, grade level, and teacher ratings collected; and
• Teacher instructional
segments coded into activity types.
Data Collection • Observed rehearsals,
resulting in field notes and rehearsal transcripts; and • Conducted one teacher
interview and four student interviews, resulting in interview transcripts.
Data Analysis
Multilevel regression model of response data (level 1) and student data (level 2), using covariates in order to model factors that contribute to a flow
experience.
Data Analysis Data from field notes and transcripts analyzed for patterns
and categories, codebook developed, and themes developed in order to build an explanation as to how flow may appear in the
context of the ensemble. (Case Study of an Eighth Grade Band)