Mixed-methods research 57

To generate a basic definition of mixed-methods research, Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007: 123) asked numerous leaders in mixed-methods research for their definitions of the approach and compiled their responses. They concluded that mixed- methods research is a combination of elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (the use of qualitative and quantitative view points, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration.

According to John and Onwuegbuzie (2004: 17), mixed-methods research is a class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study. Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) also provided a comprehensive definition of mixed- method as follows:

‘Mixed-method 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).

Similar to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010) who defined the methodology of mixed- methods as:

‘The broad inquiry logic that guides the selection of specific methods and that is informed by conceptual positions common to mixed methods practitioners. This definition of methodology distinguishes the mixed method research approach to conducting research from that practiced in either the quantitative or qualitative approach’ (p: 5).

As noted by Sechrest and Sidana (1995), growth in the mixed-methods has the potential to reduce some of the drawbacks associated with singular methods. It also can incorporate the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative methods. The goal of mixed- methods research is to draw from strengths and also to minimise the weakness of both approaches in single research studies (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004: 15). By narrowing the divide between quantitative and qualitative researchers, mixed-methods research has a great potential to promote a shared responsibility in the quest for attaining accountability for educational quality (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004: 23-24). Moreover, combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a mixed-methods approach provides comprehensiveness (O’Cathain, Murphy and Nicholl, 2007), greater knowledge, which yields a whole greater than the sum of the parts (Barbour, 1999) and more in-depth understanding (Greene, 2007).

For the benefits of mixed-methods, it has usually been compared with mono method research (Molina-Azorin, 2011: 15). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) pointed out two main areas in which mixed-method studies may be superior to mono method approaches. Firstly, mixed-methods research can answer research questions that the other methodologies cannot and it also enables the researcher to simultaneously generate and verify theory in the same study. Secondly, it provides stronger inferences. Moreover, there are potential benefits of mixed-methods research: comprehensive findings, increased confidence in results, increased conclusion validity, and more insightful understanding of

approaches have several purposes that can be considered as advantages of this approach Bryman and Bell, 2003; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). Thus, the combination of multiple methodological practices in a single study is best understood as a strategy that contributes rigour, breadth, validity, richness and depth to any inquiry (Denzin and Lincolun, 2005). Mixed-method approach is also of interest in this study because this kind of study cannot depend on a single data collection method and is likely to use several sources of evidence.

Thus, a decision to employ mixed-methods approach was undertaken in this study. The reason for using both quantitative and qualitative approaches for the methodology was because of the nature of the research objectives. Moreover, the aim of this study was not only quantitative; it provided an overall picture of the data collection followed by qualitative data: a narrative and detailed account of the data. The research seeks to understand the teacher training programme relating to promoting preschoolers’ self- discipline in one nursery school from the views of participants, behaviour of both teachers and preschoolers, and also teacher’s knowledge. In order to gain the best understanding of the whole picture, quantitative and qualitative approaches needed to be integrated (Creswell, 2009: 121). Using mixed-methods can enhance the credibility of the research findings by triangulating information from both quantitative and qualitative methods (Hesse-Biber, 2010: 3-4).

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were conducted at the same time. In the quantitative approach, the survey method was used to gather the teachers and preschoolers’ behaviour on a larger scale, which was not possible to obtain from qualitative approaches. In the qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews, semi- structured observations and classroom observations were employed to investigate deeper and richer information, whilst questionnaires and behaviour checklists were employed in the quantitative approach. Multiple data can help the researcher gain an in depth understanding of teacher training programmes. The use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches was necessary to explore the development and evaluation of the teacher training programme in promoting preschoolers’ self-discipline using the SECI model and then it was also essential to compare teachers' knowledge and behaviours in promoting preschoolers’ self-discipline and preschoolers’ self-discipline behaviour before and after the programme in order to test the effectiveness of the programme.