Pre-test O1 Exg1 X Post-test O2 Exg2 and Cg Exg1 and Cg Cg Exg1 X Cg Exg1 X Cg Exg1 X Cg Pre-test O1 Exg2 X Exg2 group A Post-test O2 Cg Exg2 V Exg2 group A Cg Exg2 X Cg Exg2 X Cg Design codes Pre-test = O1 Post-test = O2
Experimental group one = Exg1 Experimental group two = Exg2 Control group = Cg
Introduction of the independent variable ICSS = (X) Treatment
120
The rationale behind the design was, firstly, to have comparable and accurate measures of the effect of the intervention, and secondly, to have authentic and rich data. Quantitative measures provided a base to compare between groups of students in terms of improvement the knowledge, concepts and understanding of topic (Chang, 2001; Frailich, Kesner, & Hofstein, 2009; Cepni, et al., 2006; Sun, et al., 2008; Talib, et al., 2005). Educational studies in the ‘real world’, however, are complicated and make it difficult to have high validity in quantitative measurements alone. The study, therefore, combined the traditional (quasi) experimental design, using quantitative measures, with qualitative data gathering. Patton (1990, p.14) suggests quantitative and qualitative methodology have different advantages:
“The advantage of a quantitative approach is that it is possible to measure the reactions of a great many people to a limited set of questions, thus facilitating comparison and statistical aggregation of the data. This gives a broad, generalizable set of findings, presented succinctly and parsimoniously. By contrast, qualitative methods typically produce a wealth of detailed information [and can support the quantitative result] about a much smaller number of people and cases. This increases understanding of the cases and situation studied but reduces generalizability”
According to Bryman (2006) studies that are based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative research are referred to as both ‘multi-method’ and ‘mixed-method’ designs. What is most important, however, is the purpose of using a combination of method.
Most recently, Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton (2006, p. 76) identified the following four justifications for conducting mixed research:
1- participant enrichment: e.g., mixing quantitative and qualitative research to optimize the sample, using techniques that include recruiting participants, engaging in activities
2- instrument fidelity: e.g., appraising the appropriateness and utility of existing instruments, creating new instruments, and monitoring the performance of participant instruments;
3- treatment integrity: i.e., assessing the fidelity of an intervention
4- Significance enhancement: e.g., facilitating the thickness and richness of data and improve the interpretation and usefulness of the outcomes.
121
Greene, Caracelli, & Grahaml (1989) suggest these purposes can be put in five categories: triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation and expansion (see table 8 for an expansion on these).
Table 8
Source: Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989)
Purposes for mixed-method evaluation designs Types of mix-
method Purpose Rational
Triangulation
Seeks convergence, corroboration, correspondence of results from the different
methods
To increase the validity of constructs and inquiry results by counteracting or
maximizing 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 context.
Complementarity
Seeks elaboration, enhancement, illustration, clarification of the results from
one method with the results from the other method
To increase the interpretability, meaningfulness, and validity of constructs and inquiry results by both capitalizing 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 capitalizing on inherent
method strengths.
Initiation
Seeks the discovery of paradox and contradiction, new perspectives of frameworks, the recasting of questions or results from one method with questions or
results from the other method
To increase the breadth and depth of inquiry results and interpretations by analyzing 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.
The current study sought the two first of these.
Complementarity, which refers to use the quantitative and qualitative research paradigms combined in order to more fully explain the results of analysis. in addition use the strengths of an additional method to overcome weaknesses in another (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002).
122
Denzin (1978) defines triangulation as “the combination of methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon” (p.291). This combination commonly uses quantitative and qualitative methods, which must be implemented at the same time and with equal weight (Creswell & Plano, 2007).
Jick (1979) suggest the following advantages and reasons why triangulation is important: (a) it allows researchers to be more confident of their outcomes; (b) it motivates the development of creative ways of gathering data; (c) it can lead to deeper, richer data; (d) it can lead to the synthesis or integration of theories and (e) it can uncover contradictions.
In combination, Schutez, Chambless, & DeCulir (2004) and Greene et al. (1989) offer many reasons why triangulation is important. For example, it provides corroboration and correspondence of results from different methods. Triangulation allows researchers an opportunity to find compatible results between these methods. What is needed is that one result has the same or a similar conclusion to other results using different methods, and this lends credibility to the research study. Triangulation also elaborates on and enhances the results from one method with the results from another method used in the same phenomenon or study. Schutez et al. explain in the following way:
There are a variety of combinations and advantages to combining methods in this way. A quantitative study may also employ a qualitative dimension to guide the sample selection or to help explain unusual results. A qualitative study may implement a quantitative dimension to guide sampling or help determine what to pursue in depth or to help generalize results to different samples and test emerging theories. (2004, p. 277)
Moreover, the triangulation method helps to increase the interpretability, meaningfulness and validity of constructs and inquiry results, both by capitalising on inherent method strengths and by counteracting inherent biases in the methods and in other sources. Triangulation also makes it possible to use the results from one method to revise those obtained from another. It is then possible to use the results from one method to direct the development of a later stage of the research in sampling, measurement, or both. Triangulation also makes it possible to use a combination of methods to increase the potential of proposed claims and results in question, by means of utilising different method strengths. It helps when questions are posed from one method and can be answered by another. In the same way, a number of results from one method can be restated in light of another. Finally, certain components of questions are better addressed through a certain method. Using a number of methods increases the scope of inquiry if they are suitable for measuring multiple question components.
123
The current study used triangulation by comparing results from qualitative and quantitative instruments as illustrated in figure 21 Frailich, et al. (2007) indicated that “the diverse range of data collected enabled triangulation of the results obtained from the conversations between the students during the activities, the achievement tests, and the interviews with the students and teachers” (p.295).
Figure 21. The research method of measurement tools to collect date in this study