A research design is a systematic plan of how to conduct research, including strategies and procedures underlying the choice of specific methods (Crotty, 1998). The selection of a design
is bound up with the choice of paradigm (Crotty, 1998). In alignment with the stance of pragmatism, I employed a mixed-methods research design. As described by Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007, p. 123), a mixed-methods design is a type of plan in which a researcher “combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g. use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the purpose of breadth of understanding or corroboration”.
According to Creswell (2009), there are three elements that should be considered when designing a mixed-methods study: timing, weighting and mixing. As regards timing, two situations occur, either in parallel or in sequence, when quantitative and qualitative data are collected. Parallel mixed designs mean that the two kinds of data are collected simultaneously or with some time lapse, addressing relevant aspects of the same basic research questions (Morse, 2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). In contrast, data are collected in a chronological manner in sequential mixed designs, with one strand emerging from, or depending on, the results of the other (the qualitative strand followed by the quantitative strand, or vice versa) (Morse, 2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). My study aimed to investigate the effects of thinking style on the relationship between participation in classroom dialogue and learning outcomes. The quantitative component was designed with the aim of identifying the patterns. Once this core component had been addressed, a supplemental component (qualitative methods) was then to be used to enhance understanding of why the pattern occurred. The qualitative step needed to be based on the results of the quantitative one. Thus sequential mixed-method design was appropriate for my study.
The second element requiring consideration is whether priority should be given to the quantitative or qualitative strands in a particular study. Theoretical drive plays a critical role here (Morse & Niehaus, 2007). Research has its overall purposes, which oblige researchers to “identify the study as using an inductive or deductive theoretical drive” (Morse & Niehaus, 2007, p. 42). As stated by Richards and Morse (2007), the inductive drive is usually associated with an overall purpose of making sense of a phenomenon and eliciting meanings. If induction serves as the theoretical drive, qualitative methods should be accorded a heavier weighing. Conversely, deduction often relates to the purpose of testing hypotheses based on a priori facts or theories. Research built on deduction emphasizes quantitative methods. A quantitatively driven mixed-methods design was suitable for my study. This was because the overall purpose of my study was to investigate whether thinking style moderates the relationship between participation in classroom dialogue and learning. This assumption was motivated by existing research evidence and theoretical propositions. Appropriate methods were then selected to
verify or disprove the hypothesized model. Although I used qualitative methods to learn about students’ views regarding classroom participation, this was merely for the purpose of compensating for the inadequacies of quantitative methods in understanding data. The overall purpose of my study was deductive, regardless of the supplemental qualitative components. Thus, a quantitatively driven mixed-methods design met my research purpose and was applied in my study.
The last element is mixing, which concerns when and how quantitative and qualitative approaches should be combined (Creswell & Clark, 2007). There are several points at which mixing might occur: data collection, data analysis, or data discussion (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). As regards my research design, I collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data separately, and then mixed them in the findings phases. I integrated supplementary findings collected using qualitative methods with those collected employing quantitative methods. At the same time, I kept the format of qualitative description and did not transform qualitative data into a numerical format. This type of mixture was for two main reasons: one was that I employed semi-structured interviews to understand why students with certain kinds of thinking style preferred to participate in particular ways and to explore if this had any influence on their learning outcomes. Students’ views and reflections are diverse. It is hard to code the descriptions with only a few pre-set categories, as there could be the risk of missing essential information. Moreover, using qualitative descriptions rather than transforming the data into numerical information makes up for the inadequacies of statistical results. This helps researchers gain deeper insights into a problem. The overarching research design, procedures and strategies, are illustrated in Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Research design for my study (see Morse & Niehaus, 2009) Research questions
Theoretical drive QUAN (Deductive)
Select core methods (i.e. questionnaires, systematic observation) for QUAN
Draw a random sample (6 classes from 3 schools) for
QUAN
Collect core data (thinking style, participation, learning outcome) for QUAN
Analyse core (QUAN) data (i.e. three variables respectively and their relationships) Research findings for QUAN Mixed method research findings Research findings for QUAN Inform the research question
Enhancing description, understanding, or explanation by simultaneously including a qual (inductive) component
Select appropriate supplementary data collection (i.e. interviews) and analysis strategies (i.e. thematic analysis) for qualitative supplemental component
Sequentially identify a sample (12 students) for qual
Sequentially collect supplementary data for qual
Sequentially analyze supplementary qual data separately
Sequentially integrate qual supplementary findings with
those of core component
Core component of project
Simultaneous supplemental component of project
Results point of interface
Preliminary QUAN results