In order to properly answer the questions, this research used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods for data gathering. According to Bryman (2006), a combination of qualitative and quantitative research is referred to as a mixed method design. In the following three sub-sections, qualitative and quantitative research are discussed, before light is shed on mixed methods design.
3.2.1 Qualitative research
By adopting a qualitative research approach, researchers seek to acquire rich details of the topic being studied (Creswell, 2012; Johnson & Christensen, 2008). Perhaps the most important reason to acquire rich details is so that, as Newby (2014) argues, researchers are not limited by numerical considerations when seeking to create understanding and finding answers from any evidence that reflects motives, values and attitudes. This evidence is collected through what participants and researchers say, what they do, pictures, the writing they produce, and the objects they create which are then evaluated and interpreted (Newby, 2014; Check & Schutt, 2012). Secondly, this approach makes it possible for researchers to ask broad questions; therefore, open-ended questions can be posed (Creswell, 2012; Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen, Guest, & Namey, 2005). Thirdly, researchers can benefit from the flexibility that is inherent to this approach, such as modifying the procedures during the research period, refining the focus to change or develop a deeper understanding of the context or discovering new aspects of the area under discussion (Johnson & Christensen, 2008; Mack et al., 2005).
By asking open-ended questions, remaining flexible and collecting a variety of evidence based on what the participants do or say, this researcher was able to demonstrate a variety of perspectives and reveal the participant’s knowledge and practice, as well as take into account his/her social background. All of this falls under the category of qualitative research, as noted by Flick (2009). Thereby, this researcher could create a better understanding of an individual’s experiences of a particular topic, as noted by Johnson and Christensen (2008).
However, there are some weaknesses in qualitative research. First, the results might be unique to the people that are included in the study. Second, despite the lengthy amount of time that is often needed to complete the data analysis, it is very difficult to make quantitative predictions. Third, the results might be influenced by personal bias and idiosyncrasies. Fourth, the research might be accorded lower credibility by some program administrators and representatives (Johnson & Christensen, 2008).
3.2.2 Quantitative research
Descriptive quantitative research aims to discover the frequency and distribution of the topic that is under investigation (Flick, 2009). It can also analyse trends, discover or
explain a relationship, compare variables, or identify differences and similarities between groups (Mertens, 2015; Creswell, 2012). By adopting quantitative research, researchers can also use established methods in order to deal with, or discuss, numerical data (Gorard, 2008; Johnson & Christensen, 2008; Newby, 2014). These methods are structured and can include questionnaires or structured observation (Mack et al., 2005).
In adopting a quantitative research approach, the research has to be planned from start to finish so researchers cannot react to the participants’ responses. This is in contrast to the qualitative research approach in which researchers can determine how and in what order the questions are posed. However, through quantitative research, researchers can collect data from a large number of participants and analysis is less time-consuming (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). Consequently, in adopting quantitative research, this researcher was able to discover the frequency and distribution of the responses of a large number of teachers to gain their perspectives on the current teacher evaluation system and assess whether differences exist between teachers with regard to their gender, experiences, subjects taught and educational districts.
In terms of the weaknesses associated with quantitative research, firstly, the categories used by researchers might not reflect the local constituencies’ understanding. Secondly, the knowledge produced might be too abstract and general when attempting to apply it directly to specific contexts, situations or individuals. Thirdly, researchers might miss certain phenomena because of the heavily weighted focus on theory or hypothesis testing as opposed to theory or hypothesis generation. Fourthly, the specific theories outlined by researchers may not necessarily reflect the understanding of local constituencies (Johnson & Christensen, 2008).
3.2.3 Mixed method designs
Mixed method can be defined as the combination of both quantitative and qualitative research to use in a single study to answer the research questions. This can reflect a combination of different elements pertaining to data collection, analysis, integration of the results, and deduction techniques (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007; Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner 2007).
There are different purposes for using a mixed method design. Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989, p.259) suggest that these purposes can be divided into five categories: triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation and expansion (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1: Purposes for mixed method evaluation designs
• Greene et al. (1989, p.259).
The main purpose of using mixed method in the current study is expansion, wherein this researcher extended the range of inquiry by using different methods for data collection and data analysis. A questionnaire was used for the collection of data about teachers’ perspectives on the current teacher evaluation system. Interviews with head teachers and inspectors were conducted to collect data about the current teacher evaluation system and to test an alternative system; furthermore, a focus group composed of teachers was used to gather data on a potential alternative system.
Purpose Rationale
Triangulation Seeks convergence, corroboration, correspondence of results from the different methods.
To increase the validity of constructs and inquiry results by counteracting or maximising the heterogeneity of irrelevant sources of variance attributable especially to inherent method bias but also to inquirer bias, bias of substantive theory, biases of inquiry of context.
Complementarity Seeks elaboration, enhancement, illustration, clarification of results from one with the results from the other method.
To increase the interpretability, meaningfulness, and validity of constructs and inquiry results by both capitalising on inherent method strengths and counteracting inherent biases in methods and other sources.
Development Seeks to use the results from one method to help develop or inform the other method, where
development is broadly construed to include sampling and
implementation, as well as measurement decisions.
To increase the validity of constructs and inquiry results by capitalising on inherent method strengths.
Initiation Seeks the discovery of paradox and contradiction, new
perspectives of frameworks, the recasting of questions or results from the other method.
To increase the breadth and depth of inquiry results and interpretations by analysing them from the different perspectives of different methods and paradigms.
Expansion Seeks to extend the breadth and range of inquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components.
To increase the scope of inquiry by selecting the methods most appropriate for multiple inquiry components.
A secondary aim of using mixed method in the current study is development. This researcher used the results taken from the questionnaires and interviews that reflected the participants’ perspectives on the current teacher evaluation system in order to inform and help draft some of the points that were used when proposing an alternative system (see Chapter Six, Section 6.4).
Moreover, it is apparent from the evaluation of quantitative and qualitative research presented above that there is no right or wrong way to approach data collection; the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods might help to achieve better results. As Biesta (2012), by using mixed methods, this researcher tried to design a study that benefited from the strengths of both the two approaches. This researcher hoped that the weaknesses of one approach would be supported or counterbalanced by the strengths of the other.
This research took place in three stages, with each stage including several different methods of data gathering:
In the first stage, this researcher collected data perspectives to answer RQs 1, 2, 3 and 4 by giving a questionnaire to teachers and interviewing inspectors and head teachers.
In the second stage, this researcher proposed an alternative system to head teachers and inspectors in order to ascertain their views (RQ5). The system was introduced through written materials that were read by the participants beforehand and by data gathering carried out during the interviews.
In the third stage, this researcher proposed the alternative system to the teachers in order to elicit their views (RQ5). Teachers were introduced to the system through written materials, which were also described in the focus group interviews, and this served as a prompt for the data gathering.