Rationale for use of mixed methods research design (case

The proposed CoLeCTTE framework is underpinned by the interlacing and interacting socio-cognitivistic (collaboration, critical thinking, learning approaches,

and eductive ability), environmental (technology), emotional and value-laden

rigorously explore these interactions, the design of this study drew on mixed method approaches influenced by both positivist and post-positivist epistemologies based on the views of Yin as described by Steenhuis and de Bruijn (2006). This chapter explains the theoretical constructs that the positivist and post-positivist perspectives provide and the lens through which the investigations in this study was conducted.

Positivism works from the assumption of subject selection as guided by generalisability to a universe or population. Generalisability to a universe or

population is used as the basis for determining validity and reliability of the variables to be explored and measured. Shavelson and Towne (2002, p. 68) characterised positivism as having objective measurability and the capacity to estimate “magnitude of error that must be made in order to signal the level of certainty with which

conclusions have been drawn”. The starting baseline for this study was quantitative data to the extent that psychometric measures of eductive ability and cognitive learning styles and motivation, and their comparisons to general norms were conducted.

However, the reductionist processes set out by ensuring comparability of sample groups may altogether ignore phenomena that can be derived from

unrestricted and less controlled environments. Also, Newell (1990) contends that empirically-driven results often force investigators to limit the findings of study to a sub-unit of a whole, in what he calls “microtheories”. This reductionist approach has been criticised because it has often been leveraged at psychological research and in the earlier versions of human-computer interaction research. The critics argued for a more holistic and socialistic approach to the study of human cognition and learning, seeking more unified theories that can deal with more complex real-life activities (Creswell, 2009; Kieras & Meyer, 1997; Newell, 1990; Noor, 2008). However,

these attempts were behaviourally focused and relied largely on non-normative psycho-sensori-motor determinants as indicators of change. These research genres did not answer socio-cognitivistic, emotional or value-laden influences in learning and the way students process information.

Post-positivism, on the other hand, is a paradigm that is generally defined by a recognition of the delimitations or boundaries of investigations that are objective and dissociated from the researcher’s biases and values to determine meaning and “establishing a definitive cause-and-effect relationship with social phenomenon” (Mertens, 1998, p. 124). Post-positivism emphasises “multiplicity and complexity as hallmarks of humanity. Post-positivist approaches are interpretive and this has led to an emphasis on meaning, seeing the person, experience and

knowledge” (Ryan, 2006, p. 16).

An approach that allowed the researcher to explore in-depth the variables mentioned above is the use of a case study method. Given the limitations of time and participants in the study, and to take advantage of the rich insights that can be gained from a socio-cognitivistic, emotional or value-laden investigation, a case study approach to this research was deemed to be appropriate. When one considers the notion of critical thinking as a function of expert discourse (Facione P., 1990), “contextual knowledge and experience… lie at the center of the case study as a research and teaching method or to put it more generally still, as a method of learning” (Fkyvberg, 2006, p. 222). Particularly relevant in this research is a reference to Yin’s (2008, p. 18) second technical definition of case study inquiry presented below:

… because phenomenon and context are not always distinguishable in real-life situations, a whole set of other technical characteristics, including

data collection and data analysis strategies, now become the second part of our technical definition:

The case study inquiry

 copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variable of interest than data points, as one result

 relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result

 benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis.

The premise described so far is seen to lend itself to using a mixed method approach which offers the benefits of enhanced validity by combining quantitative measures with meaning provided by qualitative investigation (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). Mixed methods research is not restricted by the epistemology of the research design but rather, the use of both quantitative and qualitative research methods liberates the analysis from this restriction and therefore, enhances representation and legitimation of the results of analyses. More insights into the phenomenon under investigation can be gained by combining elements of both methodologies such as closeness and contextualised understanding of local meanings (Caracelli & Greene, 1997). According to Caracelli and Green (1997), the elements of validity and reliability are present and can complement each other in both

methodologies through complementary data analyses and triangulation.

Onwuegbuzie (2003) provides a framework that uses the process of data reduction, display, transformation, correlation, consolidation, comparison and integration. These processes can be applied to case study research that is supported by descriptive and content analysis techniques. More specifically for this study, triangulation and interpretation was applied at two levels: at the level of Cases 1, 2 and 3; and at the whole-of-study level.

At the level of Cases 1, 2 and 3, descriptive analysis and content analysis were used. Descriptive analysis of individual and group case samples (three within-class groups) (Caracelli & Greene, 1997) to determine differences in critical thinking were based: on learner perceptions of their technological self-efficacy, level of eductive ability, and learning approach and motivation. The relationship between critical thinking performance with level of eductive ability, and learning approach and motivation during performance of authentic learning tasks was determined with information derived from participant interviews and video observations within groups (the latter was not done for the Case 1). It should be noted that numerical data were provided only to profile the cases and help define the boundaries of the cases. There was no intention to draw statistical inferences or comparisons based on numerical data but rather, the numerical data served a qualitative function.

The study used a cross-over mixed analysis which is characterised as “an analysis technique more associated with one traditional paradigm (e.g. quantitative) to analyse data that originally represented the type of data collected associated with the other traditional paradigm (e.g. qualitative)” (Onwuegbuzie, 2009, p. 118). This is demonstrated in the coding of critical thinking statements done for all three case groups (see Section 3.5.2). A sequential explanatory strategy at the level of each case group was used, where qualitative data are used to explain quantitative data, followed by triangulation occurring at the interpretation stage of the analysis (Creswell, 2003; 2009; Creswell, Plano, Guttmann, & Hanson, 2010). The

presentation of data and analysis conducted in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 used activity as a framework for analysis which included descriptions of the: case context or purpose to which learners in Cases 1, 2 and 3 directed their activity; conceptual models, tools and equipment used; and the rules that govern how the students performed the

activity, as adapted from Crawford and Hasan (2006). These are presented according to the processes of the CoLeCTTE framework (see Section 2.5.2). Profile analysis of group and individual learners, followed by findings and analysis related to the research questions, were also completed.

So far, the rationale for using mixed method approach at the case level has been discussed. The next section will discuss the approach and rationale at the whole-of-study level.