Historically, it has not been deemed appropriate to combine quantitative and qualitative research methods due to the different philosophical positions and paradigms underpinning each. This has led to what is referred to as the ‘incompatibility theory’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), where quantitative research is associated with a positivist paradigm, and qualitative research is subjective and involves the construction of knowledge. However, in 1988, Howe put forward his ‘compatibility thesis’, which contended that within a pragmatic philosophy both quantitative and qualitative methods could be used together. He suggested that a pragmatic philosophy that embraced mixed methods could allow for the flexibility ‘of the epistemological over the practical, of the conceptual over the empirical’ (Howe, 1988, p. 13). Creswell (2007) supported Howe’s stance when he remarked that pragmatic research supports ‘not just what works but also emphasises the research problem and uses all approaches available to understand that problem’ (p. 10). In their article Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods, Johnson,
Onwuegbuzie and Tumer (2007) define mixed methods as ‘the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration’ (p. 14).
The methodology chosen for this research is a mixed-methods approach and this section examines mixed methods in more detail. Section 3.6.1 outlines the main principles of quantitative research, and, in particular, quasi-experimental research, as this dissertation incorporated a quasi-experimental design to determine gains in children’s phonemic awareness skills. Section 3.6.2 will describe qualitative research, incorporated into this research to explore ‘how’ and ‘why’ the phonological awareness programme implemented in this dissertation did or did not work for those implementing it. A rationale for choosing a mixed-methods approach is discussed in section 3.6.3.
3.6.1 Quantitative research. Quantitative research can be defined broadly as empirical research into a social phenomenon that tests a theory consisting of variables. These variables are then measured with numbers and statistically analysed in order to determine if the theory explains or predicts phenomena of interest (Creswell, 1994). Quantitative research is informed by a positivist paradigm that looks objectively at the social world and seeks to develop explanatory universal laws in social behaviours by statistically measuring what it assumes to be a static reality.
In the past, studies examining reading interventions have focused predominantly on experimental, quantitative methods to determine the efficacy of interventions. Such studies were often performed in highly controlled, laboratory-like settings using pre/post test designs. While such studies have contributed greatly to our understanding of the reading process, they also have their limitations. Due to the decontextualised nature of many quantitative studies, some researchers have argued that the results from such studies do not influence classroom practice as much as one would have hoped. This is partly due to the fact that reading studies that take place in controlled, laboratory-like settings, do not take into account the many variables that exist in busy classroom environments.
Furthermore, the results from quantitative studies cannot explain the reasons for the results obtained.
According to Brown (2011), there are four main types of quantitative research: exploratory, descriptive, experimental, and quasi-experimental. The quantitative approach adopted to determine the effectiveness of the implemented phonological awareness
programme was a quasi-experimental approach. The rationale behind choosing this type of research is discussed in the next section, along with a description of the nature of quasi- experimental research.
3.6.1.1 Quasi-experimental research. A quasi-experimental, pre/post test design was employed to measure the effectiveness of the phonological awareness programme
implemented in this research. Quasi-experimental research is conducted to determine relationships, effects, and causes in an educational setting (Creswell, 2005) and employs quantitative methods, with numbers representing scores that are collected on tests. This research design is commonly used in educational research that is attempting to test the efficacy of a particular intervention programme.
While an experimental approach to quantitative research is often seen as the best method to choose when establishing cause-effect relationships, this is often not possible to implement in educational research that is classroom-based, as random sampling of
participants is not always possible. This leads to limitations regarding the generalisability of research results in quasi-experimental studies (see section 3.12.1). As a result, in quasi- experimental studies, the researcher must works with non-equivalent groups. This can also lead to issues relating to experimental error, such that the observed results might not be due to the target variable. To decrease experimental errors when working with non-equivalent groups, the researcher must take into account group differences and attempt to match, as much as possible, participants in the control and experimental groups.
In the current research, a phonological awareness programme was introduced at a single point in time to one group, for which there is also a pre- and post-test evaluation period. The pre- and post-test differences between the two groups were then compared. In this design, the researcher identified a control group that was similar in age and gender to the experimental group, and both groups attended the same school; however, the control group can never be exactly the same as the experimental group, and, thus the term non- equivalent is important to use to clarify that there are inherent differences between the two groups.
Quasi-experimental designs often make use of symbols to indicate the experimental procedure. The research design of Study Two is represented as:
G1 01……….………..02, 03 (JI school year 2015) G2 01………..X………..02, 03 (JI school year 2016)
G1 = Control group G2 = Experimental group X = Intervention programme O1 = Pre-instruction assessment O2 = Post-instruction assessment O3 = End-of-school-year assessment JI = Junior Infants
While it is possible to conduct quasi-experimental research in such a way that cause and effect can be linked, it is important to state that the results of a quasi-experimental study cannot be interpreted or generalised as readily as an experimental design.
3.6.2 Qualitative research. Creswell (2007) defines qualitative research as ‘an
enquiry process of understanding a social or human problem, based on building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting’ (p. 2). Unlike the positivist paradigm, which views reality as objective and measureable, the interpretivist paradigm aims to understand phenomena through the meanings that people assign to them. While it was considered important to empirically test the efficacy of the phonological awareness programme, the researcher also wanted to establish the efficacy of the programme for those who were implementing it: the class
teachers. Therefore, a more subjective approach was required that involved interacting with the class teachers in order to get a glimpse into their ‘reality’ and explore the views, experiences, beliefs and motivations of the teachers.
Qualitative research makes use of multiple data collection methods such as
photographs, interviews, and ethnographic prose, amongst others, to capture the subjective experiences of individuals in naturalistic settings. As qualitative researchers make use of first-person accounts to capture such phenomena, this was considered an appropriate research approach to take to capture the teachers’ views, experiences and dispositions towards the implemented programme. The data collection methods, in this research, included the use of documentary sources and focus-group interview. These methods are described in more detail in section 3.7
3.6.3 Rationale for and advantages of choosing a mixed-methods approach. A
mixed-methods approach was chosen by the researcher as pragmatic researchers call for ‘epistemological ecumenism’ (Onwuegbuzie, 2002, p. 518), and believe that the best research methods are those that solve the problems posed by their research questions. In this dissertation, quantitative data collection was required to establish whether
children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds begin school with lower levels of phonemic awareness
the implemented phonological awareness programme was successful in improving junior infant children’s phonemic awareness skills
However, the researcher also wished to investigate whether the implemented programme worked for those implementing it: the class teachers. Regardless of whether the programme improved the children’s phonemic awareness skills or not, if the teachers found it too onerous or cumbersome to implement, they would not be likely to replicate it into the future. Therefore, qualitative data collection methods were employed to provide a deeper insight into the teachers’ views, experiences and dispositions towards the
phonological awareness programme. In the context of this dissertation, both qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed to address and understand the research questions more completely, and to ensure the methodology was responsive to the
complexity of the current research undertaken in an authentic educational setting. Denzin (2009) highlights a further benefit of using a mixed-methods approach when he stipulates that by using multiple methods, the strengths of one method can offset the weaknesses associated with another, and this, in turn, leads to more in-depth and reliable research. Such a procedure is known as ‘triangulation’, which was defined by Denzin (2009) as ‘the combination of methodologies in the study of the same
phenomenon’ (p. 291). Triangulation enables the exploration of the research questions from multiple angles and allows for a more robust description of the implementation of the programme while also allowing for the collaborative participation of the principle
stakeholders, eg. class teachers. According to Morse (2003), by combining the number of research methods used within a research study, we are able to broaden the dimensions and hence the scope of our research. Creswell (2005) also argued that qualitative and
quantitative research “used together produce more complete knowledge necessary to inform theory and practice” (p. 39). By using more than one method within a research study, we are able to obtain a more complete picture of human behaviour and experience. Therefore, a further rationale for using mixed methods was to better understand the research questions by triangulating numeric data from quantitative research with the rich detail of descriptive qualitative research.