Mixed quantitative and qualitative analysis

Some of the themes from the qualitative data were examined to establish any possible relationships between variables, including gender, timeframe of reflection (R1, R2 & R3) and topic of reflection (objects-RO and actions-RA) and the MCK categories. The decision to focus on objects and actions relates to the discovery of the theme of dispositions of reflections and the two categories of ‘objects and I’ and ‘know and do’ which were identified.

The Chi Square test was chosen for statistical analysis because it allows exploration of the possibility of variables being dependent or independent of each other. The SPSS package was used to compute the values. The level of risk was set at 0.05 for all calculations. The different variables were considered in pairs, so the degree of freedom is 1, therefore using the Chi Square table, the critical value is 3.84 at p=0.05.

‘Today there were obvious divides between activity of the children and think this might be typical. When the children were sat and the activities were obviously adult led then children were quiet. Some answered questions and took part in singing etc. but not really easy to spot MCK or reflecting. There were times though when teacher was actively promoting MC, for example when sharing examples of children’s work on visualiser and asking them to tell class what they had done. Other times when child initiated play there was more noise but more chances to see/ hear MCK behaviour as well as reflection’.

159

Hypothesis

 Hypothesis 4a

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males or females reflecting on past events R1.

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

P1= Male , P2 = Female , P3 = R1 (Reflects on past) P4 =No R1

The research Hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of males and females reflecting on past events R1.

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

 Hypothesis 4b

The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males or females reflecting on present or immediate past events, R2.

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

P1= Male , P2 = Female , P3 = R2 (Reflects on present) P4 =No R2

The research Hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of males and females reflecting on present or immediate past events R2.

160

 Hypothesis 4c

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males or females reflecting on future events R3.

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

P1= Male , P2 = Female , P3 = R3 (Reflects on future) P4 =No R3

The research Hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of males and females reflecting on future events R3.

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

 Hypothesis 5a

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males or females reflecting on Objects RO.

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

P1= Male , P2 = Female , P3 = RO (Reflects on objects) P4 =No RO

The research hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of males and females reflecting on objects RO.

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

 Hypothesis 5b

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males or females reflecting on actions RA.

161

P1= Male , P2 = Female , P3 = RA (Reflects on actions) P4 =No RA

The research Hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of males and females reflecting on actions RA.

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

 Hypothesis 6a

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of reflective utterance where reflection was on objects, RO and demonstrating MCK-U Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Understanding.

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

P1= RO, P2 = No RO , P3 = MCK-U, P4 =No MCK-U

The research hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of reflective utterances reflecting on objects (RO) and demonstrating MCK-U Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Understanding.

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

 Hypothesis 6b

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of reflective utterance where reflection was on actions, RA and demonstrating MCK-U Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Understanding.

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

162

The research Hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of reflective utterances reflecting on actions (RA) and demonstrating MCK-U Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Understanding.

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

 Hypothesis 7a

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of reflective utterance where reflection was on objects RO and demonstrating MCK-K Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Knowledge.

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

P1= RO, P2 = No RO , P3 = MCK-K, P4 =No MCK-K

The research Hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of reflective utterances reflecting on objects (RO) and demonstrating MCK-K Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Knowledge.

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

 Hypothesis 7b

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of reflective utterance where reflection was on actions RA and demonstrating MCK-K Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Knowledge.

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

163

The research Hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of reflective utterances reflecting on actions (RA) and demonstrating MCK-K Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Knowledge.

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

 Hypothesis 8a

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of reflective utterance where reflection was on objects (RO) and demonstrating MCK-S Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Self .

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

P1= RO, P2 = No RO , P3 = MCK-S, P4 =No MCK-S

The research Hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of reflective utterance on objects (RO) demonstrating MCK-S Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Self.

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

 Hypothesis 8b

The null Hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of reflective utterance where reflection was on actions (RA) and demonstrating MCK-S Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Self .

Hₒ: P1 =P2 =P3 =P4

164

The research hypothesis was that there may be a difference in the proportion of reflective utterance on actions (RA) demonstrating MCK-S Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Self .

H1: P1≠P2 ≠P3 ≠P4

The Chi square values and significance value are recorded in Table 4.9 below.

Table 4.9: Chi square values

Hypothesis Variables N Chi Square

value df P value 4a Gender and R1 438 0.227ª 1 0.633 4b Gender and R2 438 0.188ª 1 0.665 4c Gender and R3 438 0.481ª 1 0.488 5a Gender and RO 438 0.977ª 1 0.032 5b Gender and RA 438 2.249ª 1 0.134 6a RO and MCK-U 438 23.551ª 1 0.000 6b RA and MCK-U 438 6.351ª 1 0.012 7a RO and MCK-K 438 15.282ª 1 0.000 7b RA and MCK-K 438 0.180ª 1 0.671 8a RO and MCK-S 438 11.313ª 1 0.001 8b RA and MCK-S 438 1.910ª 1 0.167

Research Hypothesis, 6a, 7a, 8a which state that there may be a difference in the proportion of reflective utterance on objects (RO) demonstrating MCK- U (Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Understanding), MCK- K (Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Knowledge), MCK-S (Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Self), respectively, may be the most attractive explanations for the difference in occurrences. This is illustrated by higher obtained values of 23.551ª,

165

15.282ª and 11.313ª and the low probability values of 0.000, 0.000 and 0.001 respectively (see Tables 4.10, 4.11 & 4.12).

Table 4.10: Chi square for RO and MCK-U

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Exact Sig. (2- sided) Exact Sig. (1- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 23.551a 1 .000 Continuity Correctionb 22.583 1 .000 Likelihood Ratio 24.263 1 .000

Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000

Linear-by-Linear

Association 23.497 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 438

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 66.07. b. Computed only for a 2x2 Table

Table 4.11: Chi square for RO and MCK-K

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Exact Sig. (2- sided) Exact Sig. (1- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 15.282a 1 .000 Continuity Correctionb 14.458 1 .000 Likelihood Ratio 15.034 1 .000

Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000

Linear-by-Linear

Association 15.247 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 436

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 50.69. b. Computed only for a 2x2 Table

166

Table 4.12: Chi square for RO and MCK-S

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Exact Sig. (2- sided) Exact Sig. (1- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.313a 1 .001 Continuity Correctionb 10.609 1 .001 Likelihood Ratio 11.143 1 .001

Fisher's Exact Test .001 .001

Linear-by-Linear

Association 11.287 1 .001

N of Valid Cases 438

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 51.18. b. Computed only for a 2x2 Table

The research Hypothesis 6b which states that there may be a difference in the proportion of reflective utterances reflecting on actions (RA) and demonstrating MCK-U (Metacognitive Knowledge-aspect Understanding), may be the most attractive explanation of the difference in occurrences, reflected by the obtained value of 6.351ª and probability value of 0.012.

4.5 Conclusion

This convergent, parallel, mixed method approach to data analysis provided a transparent and logical strategy, which has enabled results to be clearly identified and articulated. Keeping the quantitative and qualitative data separate until the final stage was constructive and ensured that data sets were handled ethically. Identification of themes from the qualitative data and then re-examining these quantitatively for potential relationships between MCK behaviour offered scope for creative perspective taking and

167

interpretation which would not necessarily be possible considering data from one paradigmatic stance. Implications of these findings are discussed in the next chapter.

168