I studied events predicted by the theoretical framework of the study, and measured change in the variables identified by the theoretical framework using quantitative methods. When processes were identified, I investigated in depth, in their natural setting, the growth and development aspects of these processes over time using qualitative methods. I combined the two methodologies in order to study and to follow the development of processes that were elicited from the class by the intervention programme as well as measure the effect of my intervention on several variables. Researchers are increasingly combining the two methodologies in order to learn about causality as well as to benefit from an in-depth understanding of the processes and the human experience in the field. Both methods were used in my research. Such a combination of methods is called a 'mixed methods' design (O'Cathain and Murphy and Nicholl, 2007; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003).
Creswell (2016) claimed that conducting research with Mixed Methods involves multiple ways of knowing from databases that often present diverse pictures of reality that can be more inclusive of different standpoints than either quantitative or
qualitative research (Green, 2015). Green (2015) recognized that other scholars come into the mixed methods field with different orientations, such as an interest in the research process (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009), a focus on data analysis (Kuckartz, 2014), or an orientation toward transformation and social justice (Mertens, 2009). Creswell (2016) added that integration is the distinguishing factor that separates mixed methods from all other methodologies. Integration, a central feature of mixed methods, takes a researcher into mining their data further than other methodologies and provides a way to help new users understand the potential of combining quantitative and qualitative research. Mixed methods research involves more than simply collecting two types of data: It also involves linking or mixing the two databases.
I chose the mixed methodology, because the mixed methodology had two aspects: - The first one is the quantitative aspect. I measured the outcomes and
effectiveness of an event that I designed (my intervention) on several variables such as the unacceptable behaviour of students, the parents’ involvement, the teachers’ engagement, the students’ attendance, the students’ achievements and the class climate.
- The second aspect is the qualitative aspect. It investigated in depth the growth and the development of the processes that were elicited from the class by the intervention programme, the quality of the relationship between student and teacher, between students, between parents and student, the quality of parents’ involvement and engagement with the class and school. The development of student motivation, the overall class climate, and the quality of the learning processes.
More and more researchers have become aware of the need to combine qualitative and quantitative research methods (Bryman, 2006), but using this method requires that the researcher do so out of awareness of the limitations and threats to validity the choice of a single methodology design would cause (Flick, 1992, 2007). Crosschecking of findings collected with qualitative tools with the data collected with quantitative tools contributes to our ability to evaluate the internal validity of our findings (Flick, 1992, 2007). Flick (2009) argued that the integration of qualitative
and quantitative data collected by both methods provides the researcher with mutually supportive explanations:
To obtain knowledge about the issue of the study which is broader than the single approach provided, or to mutually validate the findings of both approaches (Flick, 2009: 29)
According to Mertens et al., (2016) Mixed Methods has the potential to contribute to finding solutions to complex human problems because it stimulates new kinds of questions and involves the use of innovations in methodology needed to address complexity. Future challenges include how to methodologically, technically, and creatively bring mixed methods to finding solutions to complex and critical problems in terms of the researchers’ roles as they advocate for social justice, engagement with policy makers and those in political power, and respectful relationships with members of marginalized communities.
The mixed design allows us to examine both processes and variables (Holliday, 2001). I used both qualitative and quantitative methods because the methods were related and because they complemented each other (Smith and Heshuius, 1986). This integration reinforced the internal and external validity of the research adding rigor to the design (Zabar Ben Yehoshua, 1997).
The mixed method approach is particularly well suited and has an essential role in studies of school improvement (Yin, 2006).
In order to improve educational interventions and environments, I argue that the Mixed Methodology is the most appropriate methodology in order to inform action in the field. Maxwell (2016) claimed that: There are also newer research approaches that involve integrating qualitative and quantitative methods and data, but that have received little if any recognition from the Mixed Methods community. An example is design-based research (DBR), a widely used approach to improving educational interventions and environments (Anderson and Shattuck, 2012; Bannan-Ritland, 2003; Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992; Kelly, Lesh and Baek, 2008).
This approach, originally conceptualized by Brown (1992) as beginning in an experimental setting, proceeds to more natural environments through multiple
iterations of an intervention, continuously testing and refining the intervention, and assessing not just whether the intervention is effective, but how and why it is.
In terms of research methodologies, the Mixed Methods community has moved far beyond the idea that good practice of Mixed Methodology means that the researcher includes a survey and focus groups. While these two data collection practices may indeed be appropriate for a specific study, the development of newer approaches to design, data collection, and presentation of findings provides opportunities and challenges. Developments in Mixed Methodology design such as cyclical designs seen in design research (Philip and De Bruyn, 2013) and transformative Mixed Methods cyclical designs (Mertens, 2015a; Mertens and Wilson, 2012) are providing frameworks for flexible designs in which information from early phases of the study inform the next steps in the research. Cyclical design–based designs are used to progressively inform the development, implementation, and revision of intervention research studies. Transformative Mixed Methods cyclical designs are similar in some respects to this, but they are planned and implemented with a social justice lens. These elaborate designs call for the use of a Mixed Methodology in different ways at different times in the study while enhancing the quality of the findings by providing opportunities for adjusting the research design to be responsive to early results (Mertens et al., 2016).
The Combination of elements from the objectivist and interpretive paradigms
"...is very useful for explaining …change process" (Hall and Hord, 2006: 235)
Each approach adds to the body of knowledge by building on the "information
derived from the other approach" (Newman, 1998: 20) it takes into account the need
to use measurements to validate findings and enables the understanding of the world and the behaviour of people through their own descriptions.
In summary the ‘best fit’ methodology for this study was found to be the mixed methodology. A co - relational research, using quantitative tools, with in depth exploration of processes using qualitative tools within a quasi-experimental design using both experimental and control groups and before and after measurements of variables.
3.8 The Pilot
The research tools developed and used in this study were tested prior to their use. The RAMA student questionnaire was a simplified version of a validated National Questionnaire. The office of the Head Scientist of the Ministry of Education examined the version used by me before permission was granted to conduct the study. The questions of the interview were examined as well.
The questionnaire and interview questions were presented to a group of colleagues and stakeholders comprised of four teachers from a parallel elementary school, the Principal of my school and a colleague of his from another elementary school, and the Head of the Department of Education in my village. This group was asked to examine the questionnaire and the interview questions for clarity, language and flow. Each was debriefed and the feedback was noted.
In the last step of the Pilot phase I asked three (3) students who were not scheduled to participate in the study, to answer the questionnaire and I debriefed them as soon as they completed the questionnaire. The students understood the questions and were able to answer them fully.
The original version of the questionnaire asked students to provide anecdotes of violent behaviour directed at them that they had experienced during the previous month. Students had difficulty recounting such examples in writing. After consulting with my advisor I decided to delete the request for such examples.
3.9 The Data
The data collected was both qualitative and quantitative. In order to answer the research questions and to draw conclusions from the data semi-structured interviews and focused non-participatory observations were used. Parents and teachers were used in the interview because they were knowledgeable verbal informants. When the qualitative data was examined, I looked for depth and power in the reports of complex changing perceptions among teachers and parents.
The quantitative data was collected with the help of a questionnaire and by examining the class register. The class-register provided information regarding the quality of the learning outcomes produced by teachers and students (grades), frequency of attendance (absenteeism levels) and reported instances of unacceptable behaviour. These data were simple, numeric, sharp and well defined.
The quantitative data were evaluated statistically and produced a well-focused simple picture of the behaviour of the variables measured and the relationship between them. The students were the responders on the questionnaire. The class-register is a record created by the teachers to record the grades, attendance of students and teachers and classroom events such as instances of unacceptable behaviour, student volunteering and special projects. The class-register was in fact the most reliable record for the variables tested.
Once it became clear to me that students saw me as a teacher-educational counsellor, I decided not to interview students because I feared that interviewed students would try to please me and answer in a way that they thought would please me. This decision was meant to prevent biasing the study data.
The combination of the two types of data created a holistic, multidimensional representation of the student, teacher and parent experience before and after the counselling intervention. Without the use of the mixed method methodology such a picture would not have been possible.
The selection of each method, its advantages and shortcomings and how specific shortcomings were de-fused are being discussed in the following subchapters.