Mixed Methods Research on Learning and Instruction—Meeting the Challenges of Multiple Perspectives and Levels Within a Complex Field

Authors

  • Mathias Mejeh Universty of Bern
  • Gerda Hagenauer University of Salzburg
  • Michaela Gläser-Zikuda University of Erlangen-Nürnberg

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-24.1.3989

Keywords:

learning, instruction, school, self-regulated learning, offer-and-use model, intervention, mixed methods

Abstract

In this paper, we present and discuss mixed methods research in the context of research on learning and instruction. Education as a field of research can be viewed as highly complex. This complexity is reflected at various levels of the educational system, which are highly interrelated, and where multiple perspectives must be considered, as well as in the reciprocal and intertwined relationships between factors related to learning and instruction. Therefore, we first introduce one of the central theories on the quality of learning and instruction: the offer-and-use model. Second, we review the methodological foundations of research on learning and instruction. Two methodological approaches are discussed in more detail and their strengths and weaknesses are elaborated. Third, we present two studies from our research program and focus on their methodological implementation. Thus, we illustrate significant challenges and opportunities for implementing a mixed methods study in schools. Finally, we discuss the implications for school-based mixed methods research. We conclude the paper with general suggestions on how mixed methods approaches might be further advanced in applied school-based research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Mathias Mejeh, Universty of Bern

Mathias MEJEH is senior researcher at the Institute for Educational Science at the University of Bern. His main research interests are self- and co-regulated learning, inclusive education and social network analysis. In this regard, he is also interested in the combination of qualitative and quantitative research approaches within the framework of mixed methods research.

Gerda Hagenauer, University of Salzburg

Gerda HAGENAUER is a full professor in the School of Education and the Department of Educational Science at the University of Salzburg. Her main research interests are emotions, motivation and social relationships in teaching and learning at school, in teacher education and in higher education. She is also interested in mixed methods research.

Michaela Gläser-Zikuda, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg

Michaela GLÄSER-ZIKUDA is a full professor and chair of the Research and Teaching Unit School Education and Instructional Research at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg. Her main research interests are emotions and self-regulation in school and higher education, instructional quality, and teacher and higher education. She is specifically interested in qualitative research methods and mixed methods research.

References

Altrichter, Herbert; Posch, Peter & Spann, Harald (2018). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn: UTB/Klinkhardt.

Bergman, Manfred M. (2010). On concept and paradigms in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(3), 171-175.

Berliner, David C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 205-213.

Biesta, Gert J.J. & Stengel, Barbara S. (2016). Thinking philosophically about teaching. In Drew H. Gitomer & Courtney A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.7-67). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Blömeke, Sigrid (2000). Medienpädagogische Kompetenz. Theoretische und empirische Fundierung eines zentralen Elements der Lehrerausbildung. München: kopaed.

Böder, Tim & Rabenstein, Kerstin (2021). Qualitative Ansätze in der Schulforschung. In Tina Hascher, Till-Sebastian Idel & Werner Helsper (Eds.), Handbuch Schulforschung (pp.1-24). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Boekaerts, Monique (1992). The adaptable learning process: Initiating and maintaining behavioral change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41(4), 377-397.

Boekaerts, Monique; Pintrich, Paul R. & Zeidner, Moshe (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Caena, Francesca & Redecker, Christine (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European digital competence framework for educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356-369, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejed.12345 [Accessed: December 12, 2022]

Creswell, John W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Creswell, John W. & Creswell, J. David (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, John W. & Plano Clark, Vicki L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, John W. & Plano Clark, Vicki L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Diriwächter, Rainer; Valsiner, Jaan & Sauck, Christine (2005). Microgenesis in making sense of oneself: Constructive recycling of personality inventory items. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Art. 11, https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-6.1.520 [Accessed: April 04, 2022].

Durlak, Joseph A. (2016). Programme implementation in social and emotional learning: Basic issues and research findings. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 333-345.

Erickson, Frederick (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Merlin C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.119-161). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Fend, Helmut (1980). Theorie der Schule. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

Fend, Helmut (2008). Schule gestalten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Flick, Uwe (2017). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. Hamburg: Rowohlt.

Fraillon, Julian; Ainley, John; Schulz, Wolfram; Friedman, Tim & Duckworth, Daniel (2020). Preparing for life in a digital world. IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018. International report. Cham: Springer Open, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-38781-5 [Accessed: December 11, 2022].

Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela & Fuß, Stefan (2008). Impact of teacher competencies on students' emotion—a multi-method approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 136-147.

Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela & Göhring, Anja (2007). Analyse und Förderung selbstregulierten Lernens auf der Grundlage des Portfolio-Ansatzes – ein Forschungsprogramm in der Sekundarstufe I. Empirische Pädagogik, 21(2), 174-208.

Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela & Järvelä, Sanna (2008). Application of qualitative and quantitative methods to enrich understanding of emotional and motivational aspects of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 79-83.

Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela; Hagenauer, Gerda & Stephan, Melanie (2020). The potential of qualitative content analysis for empirical educational research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 21(1), Art. 17, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-21.1.3443 [Accessed: May 02, 2022].

Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela; Fuß, Stefan; Laukenmann, Matthias; Metz, Kerstin & Randler, Christoph (2005). Promoting students' emotions and achievement—instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE-approach. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 481-495.

Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela; Seidel, Tina; Rohlfs, Carsten; Gröschner, Alexander & Ziegelbauer, Sascha (2012). Mixed Methods in der empirischen Bildungsforschung. Münster: Waxmann.

Gopalan, Maithreyi; Rosinger, Kelly & Ahn, Jee B. (2020). Use of quasi-experimental research designs in education research: Growth, promise, and challenges. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 218-243, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0091732X20903302 [Accessed: December 12, 2022].

Guba, Egon G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialogue. In Egon G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue (pp.17-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hagenauer, Gerda & Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela (2019). Mixed-Methods. In Marius Harring, Carsten Rohlfs & Michaela Gläser-Zikuda (Eds.), Handbuch Schulpädagogik (pp.801-812). Münster: Waxmann.

Hammersley, Martyn (2008). Paradigm war revived? On the diagnosis of resistance to randomized controlled trials and systematic review in education. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(1), 3-10.

Hammersley, Martyn (2012). Methodological paradigms in educational research. Working Paper, https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/methodological-paradigms-in-educational-research [Accessed: November 29, 2021].

Helmke, Andreas (2015). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts. Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer.

Helsper, Werner & Klieme, Eckhard (2013). Quantitative und qualitative Unterrichtsforschung – eine Sondierung. Einführung in den Thementeil. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 3, 283-290, https://doi.org/10.25656/01:11938 [Accessed: December 12, 2022].

Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E.; Duncan, Ravit G. & Chinn, Clark A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Hsiao, Cheng (2007). Panel data analysis—advantages and challenges. TEST, 16(1), 1-22.

Järvelä, Sanna & Bannert, Maria (2021). Editorial. Temporal and adaptive process of regulated learning—what can multimodal data tell?. Learning and Instruction, 72, Art. 101268, 1-2.

Johnson, R. Burke (2015). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173.

Johnson, R. Burke & Christensen, Larry B. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, R. Burke; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony & Turner, Lisa (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Kalkstein, Fiona & Mey, Günter (2021). Methoden im Zentrum! Methoden ins Zentrum? Potenziale und Grenzen universitärer Methodenzentren für die Erweiterung der qualitativen Methodenausbildung. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 22(2), Art. 26, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-22.2.3736 [Accessed: May 02, 2022].

Kelle, Udo (2014). Mixed Methods. In Nina Baur & Jörg Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp.153-166). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Kelle, Udo (2015). Mixed methods and the problems of theory building and theory testing in the social sciences. In Burke Johnson & Sharlene Hesse-Biber (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multi and mixed methods research inquiry (pp.594-605). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kelle, Udo (2017). Die Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Forschung – theoretische Grundlagen von "Mixed Methods". Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 39-61.

Kirschner, Paul A.; Sweller, John & Clark, Richard E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Klieme, Eckhard (2019). Unterrichtsqualität. In Marius Harring, Carsten Rohlfs & Michaela Gläser-Zikuda (Eds.), Handbuch Schulpädagogik (pp.393-408). Münster: Waxmann.

Kuckartz, Udo (2014). Mixed Methods. Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012 [1962]). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: Phoenix.

LeCompte, Margarete & Preissle Goetz, Judith (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60.

Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Guba, Egon G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lorenz, Ramona & Endberg, Manuela (2019). Welche professionellen Handlungskompetenzen benötigen Lehrpersonen im Kontext der Digitalisierung in der Schule? Theoretische Diskussion unter Berücksichtigung der Perspektive Lehramtsstudierender. MedienPädagogik, 19, 61-81, https://www.medienpaed.com/article/view/695 [Accessed: December 12, 2022].

Mackenzie, Noella & Knipe, Sally (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205, https://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html [Accessed: December 12, 2022].

Mayring, Philipp; Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela & Ziegelbauer, Sascha (2005). Auswertung von Videoaufnahmen mit Hilfe der Qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse. MedienPädagogik, 9, 1-17, https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-3414 [Accessed: December 12, 2022].

Mejeh, Mathias & Hagenauer, Gerda (2021). Mixed Methods. In Tina Hascher, Till-Sebastian Idel & Werner Helsper (Eds.), Handbuch Schulforschung (pp.1-20). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Mejeh, Mathias & Held, Tanja (2022). Understanding the process of self-regulated learning: An intervention study to promote self-regulated learning in vocational schools. Vocations and Learning, 15(3), 1-38, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12186-022-09298-4 [Accessed: December 12, 2022]

Mishra, Punya & Koehler, Matthew J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Morgan, David L. (2007). Paradigms lost and paradigms regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.

Moss, Pamela A. & Haertel, Edward H. (2016). Engaging methodological pluralism. In Drew H. Gitomer & Courtney A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.127-247). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

OECD (2021). 21st-century readers. Developing literacy skills in a digital world. Paris: PISA, https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en [Accessed: August 4, 2021].

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. & Leech, Nancy L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.

Praetorius, Anna-Katharina; Martens, Matthias & Brinkmann, Malte (2021). Unterrichtsqualität aus Sicht der quantitativen und qualitativen Unterrichtsforschung: Methodische Ansätze, zentrale Ergebnisse und kritische Reflexion. In Tina Hascher, Till-Sebastian Idel & Werner Helsper (Eds.), Handbuch Schulforschung (pp.1-20). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Prediger, Susanne; Gravemeijer, Koeno & Confrey, Jere (2015). Design based research with a focus on learning processes—an overview on achievements and challenges. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(6), 877-891.

Redecker, Christine (2017) European framework for the digital competence of educators. DigCompEdu. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fcc33b68-d581-11e7-a5b9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en [Accessed: December 12, 2022].

Reusser, Kurt (2018). Allgemeine Didaktik – quo vadis?. Beiträge zur Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, 36(3), 311-328.

Schreier, Margrit (2017). Kontexte qualitativer Sozialforschung: Arts based research, mixed methods und emergent methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(2), Art. 6, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.2.2815 [Accessed: May 02, 2022].

Schunk, Dale H. & Greene, Jeffrey A. (Eds.) (2018). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York, NY: Routledge.

Seidel, Tina (2014). Angebots-Nutzungs-Modelle in der Unterrichtspsychologie. Integration von Struktur- und Prozessparadigma. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60, 850-866, https://doi.org/10.25656/01:14686 [Accessed: December 12, 2022].

Seidel, Tina & Shavelson, Richard J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454-499.

Tashakkori, Abbas & Teddlie, Charles (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In Abbas Tashakorri & Charles Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp.3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, Charles & Tashakkori, Abbas (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Volet, Simone & Vauras, Marja (Eds.) (2013). Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation. Methodological advances. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge.

Winne, Philip H. (2019). Paradigmatic dimensions of instrumentation and analytic methods in research on self-regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 285-290.

Winne, Philip H. & Hadwin, Allyson F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In Douglas J. Hacker, John Dunlosky & Arthur C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp.277-304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, Barry J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Monique Boekaerts, Paul R. Pintrich & Moshe Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, Barry J. & Schunk, Dale H. (Eds.) (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York, NY: Routledge.

Downloads

Published

2023-01-31

How to Cite

Mejeh, M., Hagenauer, G., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2023). Mixed Methods Research on Learning and Instruction—Meeting the Challenges of Multiple Perspectives and Levels Within a Complex Field. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-24.1.3989