Mixed method approach to research

Quantitative and qualitative methods are the main means available for use by researchers. Quantitative data form the “numerical representation and manipulation of observation for the purpose of describing and explaining the phenomena that those observations reflect” (Babbie, 2008, p. 527), whereas qualitative data become the “non-numerical examination and interpretation of observations, for the purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships” (Babbie, 2008, p. 527). In a quantitative study, the researcher might use a standardised questionnaire and measure the results quantitatively to test a hypothesis, whereas in a qualitative study the researcher needs to be more

subjective and be much more involved in the phenomenon being studied (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). The present study made use of a qualitative approach in Section A of Phase 2 (the survey questions) and also Phase 3 (the semi-structured interviews). However, Phase 1 (the inventory keeping phase) and Section B of Phase 2 (the grammar review) were more quantitative in nature. Therefore, this study can be legitimately termed a mixed method approach. It was considered that using only one of these approaches would be too restrictive. The use of qualitative data only would not have given the measureable data that was gained from the grammar review, while the use of quantitative data only would not have given the insights gleaned from comments in the survey questions or in the interviews.

The classic definition of mixed method research comes from Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989) who define this method as including “at least one quantitative method (designed to collect numbers) and one qualitative method (designed to collect words)” (p. 256). The current study produced two qualitative data categories and two quantitative data categories. This perspective is described in an article on the definition of mixed methods by Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) who state that mixed method research combines qualitative and quantitative aspects in

viewpoints, data collection, analysis and inferences. The decision to use mixed method in the current study is ably supported by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007), whose definition of mixed method is as follows:

Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone. (p. 5)

It was considered necessary to use both qualitative and quantitative methods in the current study for a more complete understanding of the situation. While the

qualitative data that were collected gave a more rounded aspect to the viewpoints, the quantitative data gave a numerical value which could more easily be analysed from the point of view of devising the professional development program. The quantitative data collected in Phase 1 (listing of grammar problems by teachers as they taught various grammar items) gave rise more readily to the points to be covered in the grammar review (Phase 2, Section B). Collection of these data in a qualitative way, for example through interviews, would have been too time- consuming and unwieldy. It would also have been difficult to use for the purposes of devising a professional development program. The quantitative data from Phase 1 (inventories) was analysed and this analysis gave rise to the grammar items included in the grammar review, which was then further analysed into a compilation of items that would be suitable for inclusion in a professional

development program on grammar for the teachers at the centre where the study was undertaken. Analysis was also undertaken in a qualitative way. Phase 2, Section A (survey) consisted of 10 questions where teachers could give as much or as little information as they wished. When these data were analysed, it gave rise to the formulation of Phase 3 (interviews) which was the final qualitative part of the data collected. From the qualitative data, inferences were more easily made about

participants’ words regarding their thoughts and feelings. The quantitative data from this study was more clear-cut than inferential.

Creswell and Tashakkori (2007) claim that the mixed method approach has been evolving over the last few decades, and although there appears to be some disagreement regarding whether mixed method is possible, they examine this approach from the method, methodological, paradigm and practice perspectives and conclude that “these perspectives may become less distinct over time as the field matures” (p. 306). More recently, mixed method research has been defined as “the research paradigm that encourages the combined use of qualitative and quantitative research elements to answer complex questions” (Heyvaert, Maes & Onghena, 2013, p. 2) when the use of only one method would not give a complete explanation. These authors define a primary level mixed methods study and a synthesis level mixed methods study and then show the difference between them. The definition given of a primary level mixed methods study relates to the current research:

In a primary level mixed methods study a researcher collects qualitative and quantitative data directly from the research participants, for example through interviews and questionnaires, and combines these diverse data in a single study. (p. 3)

The current study used mixed methods in the way described above to gain a rounded view of the research question, which was “How prepared are teachers of English to teach grammar?” The qualitative data and analysis gave a rounded view of teachers’ thoughts on the matter, while the quantitative data and analysis gave the hard facts on which grammar items were lacking in teachers’ knowledge. Therefore, the complex question of how prepared English teachers are to teach grammar was given a fuller treatment by employing a mixed method approach.