Mixed Methods Research and Action Research: A Framework for the Development of Preservice and Inservice Teachers

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Ph.D., P.G.C.E., F.S.S.
Professor
College of Education
Sam Houston State University
E-mail: tonyonwuegbuzie@aol.com

Wendy B. Dickinson, Ph.D.
Liberal Arts Program
Ringling School of Art and Design
E-mail: wdickins@rsad.edu 

Although professional researchers (e.g., university faculty, program evaluators, institutional researchers) tend to conduct and disseminate research on effective practice that is then implemented by classroom teachers and administrators, it is research that is conducted by classroom teachers that often is the most relevant and timely for the teaching profession. Research conducted by teachers is most commonly referred to as action research. Indeed, action research is “the systematic study of attempts to change and improve educational practice by groups of participants by means of their own practical actions and by means of those actions” (Ebbutt, 1985, p. 156).  More specifically, as noted by McLean (1995), action research is:

the process of systematically evaluating the consequences of educational decisions and adjusting practice to maximize effectiveness. This involves teachers and administrators delineating their teaching and leadership strategies, identifying their potential outcomes, and observing whether these outcomes do, indeed, occur. Essentially, action research is examining one’s own practice….Action research takes maximum advantage of the assumption that the best sources of educational practice are those most directly involved with teaching. (pp. 3-4)

Action research represents a deliberate, solution-oriented investigation that is designed, conducted, and implemented by teachers themselves in order to improve teaching in the classroom. Teachers study their own practices to solve personal educational problems that occur daily in the classroom. Research questions come from the concerns of the practitioner (Mills, 2006). We recently undertook an extensive review of the literature on action research and identified the following positive outcomes associated with the conduct of action research (2006):

• develops an increased awareness of the discrepancies between goals and practices
• improves teachers’ ability to be analytical about their practices  
• increases receptiveness to educational change
• improves instructional effectiveness
• improves decision-making skills/awareness
• helps teachers view teaching as a type of inquiry or experimentation
• increases reflection about teaching
• increases understanding about the dynamics of a classroom
• heightens the curiosity of teachers
• empowers teachers by giving them greater confidence in their ability to promote change
• can expand career opportunities and roles for teachers
• can revitalize teaching and reduce burn-out
• increases appreciation for theory as well as provides an avenue for informing theory, and demystifies research
• encourages positive change and enables teachers to become agents of change
• identifies or verifies which methods work
• increases awareness, evaluation, and accountability of decisions made
• promotes ownership of effective practices
• promotes the selection of research questions that are personally meaningful
• encourages teacher-researchers to be active learners
• increases willingness to accept research findings for use in teaching
• encourages more critical and responsive consumers of research
• increases teachers’ knowledge about situations and contexts
• facilitates defense of pedagogic actions
• strengthens connection between pure and applied research
• increases commitment to goals they have formulated themselves rather than those imposed on them
• increases opportunity to gain knowledge and skill in research methodology and applications
• makes distinction between researcher and teacher irrelevant

There are several myths associated with action research—such as that action research derives research from other people’s studies. However, by far the most damaging myth to the action research movement is that action research involves mono-method techniques—either consisting of traditional quantitative research approaches (e.g., large samples, control groups, complex statistical analyses) or traditional qualitative research approaches (e.g., small samples, non-use of numbers). For example, Craig (2004) classifies the action research process as being “qualitative in nature” (p. 324). Yet, teachers have a myriad of ways of collecting quantitative and qualitative data (Johnson & Turner, 2003). For example, teachers can utilize numbers to quantify certain attributes of students (e.g., achievement, attendance rates, attitudes), themselves and other teachers (e.g., performance, attitudes), and other professionals working in schools (e.g., school psychologists, school counselors, special education teachers) via instruments such as standardized tests (e.g., Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test [FCAT]), attendance records, discipline records, rating scales, self-reports, symptom checklists, and personality inventories. At the same time, teachers can examine words/actions via approaches such as direct observations, interviews, discipline records, and social and medical histories to gain insights into particular psychological, educational, social, and/or cultural processes and practices that exist within a specific classroom or school setting, location, time, context, event, incident, activity, and/or experience. Thus, for teachers, the integration of qualitative and quantitative methodologies is not a new or unique concept. In fact, by definition, assessment, whether for purposes of instructional planning or program development, necessitates the consideration of multiple sources of data (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). Indeed, only such a comprehensive approach of collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data permits the practical evaluation of the infinite array of cognitive, social, and interpersonal factors affecting individual and/or group attributes, thoughts, behaviors, opinions, and the like.

When teachers utilize quantitative and qualitative data within the same framework to inform their decisions, they are using what researchers refer to as a mixed methods technique (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Moreover, when action research studies are conducted using mixed methods research approaches these are termed mixed action research studies (MARS).  MARS involve teachers collecting, analyzing, and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data concurrently or sequentially in order to examine their own practices with a view to maximizing the behavioral and educational outcomes of their students. Unfortunately, in general, teacher education institutions formally do not prepare teachers to conduct action research (Schwartz, Slate, & Onwuegbuzie, 1999). In particular, few teaching training institutions, if any, require teacher candidates to enroll in research methodology courses, including action research courses, as part of their degree programs. As such, the vast majority of teacher candidates graduate from their training programs without being taught to appreciate the importance of conducting action research studies in general and mixed action research studies in particular. Moreover, the leading textbooks used in methods courses taken by teacher candidates provide no mention of the role that action research can play in helping teachers optimize their teaching effectiveness.

With this in mind, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate the utility of mixed action research studies to the teaching profession. Here, we will summarize the MARS research process. Further, we will provide some examples of problems that can be addressed using MARS approaches. Finally, we will introduce the concept of participatory mixed action research studies (PMARS) that involve the inclusion of stakeholders in the action research process (e.g., general education teachers, special education teachers, resource teachers, school site administrators, related services personnel, paraprofessionals, target students, parents of target students) for the purpose of analyzing both program processes and outcomes. Specifically, we will outline our 10-step model for conducting PMARS. We contend that our MARS and PMARS frameworks will enable both preservice and inservice teachers to become teacher-researchers and help optimize their teaching effectiveness.

MARS Research Process

Our work as public school teachers, teacher educators, professional researchers, and research methodology instructors has led us to view MARS as an eight-step process that involves the following elements: (1) identifying an issue or problem to investigate; (2) gathering and reviewing relevant literature; (3) formulating research questions and/or hypotheses; (4) developing a research plan of action; (5) collecting the data; (6) analyzing the data; (7) interpreting the findings; and (8) taking action. These steps represent a cyclical, recursive, spiral, and dynamic process (Craig, 2004).

Identifying an Issue or Problem to Investigate

Most teachers and administrators have one or more pressing issues that they would like to address. The first step in the process of addressing these issues is to identify the general problem area(s).  In most instances, the individual teacher should address one issue at a time. In addressing an issue the teacher-researcher should decide which goal is most pertinent: (a) predict; (b) add to the knowledge base; (c) have a personal, social, institutional, and/or organizational impact; (d) to measure change; (e) understand complex phenomena; (f) test new ideas; (g) generate new ideas; (h) inform constituencies; or (i) examine the past (Newman, Ridenour, Newman, & DeMarco, 2003). The goal that is selected by the teacher-researcher plays an important role in determining the scope of the MARS.

Teacher-researchers have five major standard research objectives that are pertinent for the quantitative and qualitative phases of their action research study: (1) exploration, (2) description, (3) explanation, (4) prediction, and (5) influence (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). Specifically, exploration involves the teacher-researcher primarily using inductive methods to explore an idea, concept, construct, phenomenon, or context in order to develop tentative hunches, hypotheses, or inferences. Description entails identifying and describing the antecedents, etiology, and nature of phenomena. Explanation pertains to developing or expanding theory in an attempt to explicate the relationship among themes, concepts, constructs, or phenomena and determine reasons for occurrences of events. Prediction involves using prior knowledge, existing theory, or inductive methods to forecast what will occur at a later point in time. Finally, influence relates to the manipulation of one or more variables, conditions, or settings in order to produce a desired or expected outcome. Both the qualitative and quantitative phases of each MARS can be linked to one or more of these five research objectives.

Gathering and Reviewing Relevant Literature

The literature review involves a systematic identification, location, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of documents (e.g., periodicals, abstracts, books, and other research reports) containing information related to the research problem (Onwuegbuzie, Collins, Leech, Dellinger, & Jiao, 2006).  The purpose of the literature review is multifold, including the following: (a) to clarify the research problem and subproblems; (b) to determine or verify the importance of the research problem; (c) to help teachers to formulate research questions that logically flow from previous studies; (d) to provide the knowledge necessary for the development of a conceptual/theoretical framework into which the research problem fits; (e) to relate the proposed study to a larger, ongoing dialogue in the literature pertaining to the research problem, helping to bridge the gaps; (f) to help develop definitions of major variables; (g) to assist in identifying limitations and assumptions of the MARS; (h) to highlight research strategies and designs, specific procedures, and measuring instruments that have/have not been used previously to address the research problem; (i) to facilitate the research plan; (j) to help detect inconsistencies, contradictions, and methodological flaws; (k) to facilitate interpretation of the results that will arise from the proposed study; and (l) to provide a benchmark for comparing future results with previous findings (Schwartz et al., 1999).

The depth and breadth of literature review depends on the complexity of the research problem, the teachers’ background, the availability of sources, and the time frame for conducting the MARS.  However, because action research studies arise from teachers’ experiences and interests, they often might be knowledgeable enough about the problem to avoid having to conduct a comprehensive literature review.  Further, if the research problem is new or unique, then the literature review process also will be minimized. Teacher-researchers have an array of bibliographic databases from which to conduct their literature searches. The two most common types are (1) library subscription databases (e.g., PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE) and (2) Internet sources, comprising scholarly databases (e.g., www.scholar.google.com) and meta-search engines (e.g., http://vivisimo.com; http://www.copernic.com; http://www.surfwax.com).

Formulating Research Questions and/or Hypotheses

Once the research problem has been identified and a review of the literature undertaken, the teacher-researcher is now in a position to formulate her/his research question(s). A good research question has specific qualities and elements. In particular, it should give direction to the research process. Additionally, the research question should be stated clearly, be feasible, and be meaningful. The sample of interest and the primary independent variable (i.e., expected antecedent, correlate, or cause) and/or dependent variable (i.e., phenomenon or the object of study) also should be identifiable from the research question. When conducting MARS, teacher-researchers should strive to construct what Onwuegbuzie and Leech (in press-a) identified as mixed methods research questions, which represent

questions that embed both a quantitative research question and a qualitative research question within the same question. That is, mixed methods research questions combine or mix both the quantitative and qualitative research questions. Moreover, a mixed methods research question necessitates that both quantitative data and qualitative data be collected and analyzed either concurrently, sequentially, or iteratively before the question is addressed. (pp. 14-15)

Teacher-researchers can benefit from developing and addressing mixed methods research questions. Indeed, such questions have the potential to help teacher-researchers to explore processes to a greater extent.

Although the testing of hypotheses is not a common feature of MARS, there may be times when hypotheses are of interest. A hypothesis, which must be testable within a realistic time frame, indicates the teacher-researcher’s expectations concerning relationships between the independent and dependent variables. There are two major types of hypotheses:  inductive and deductive. Inductive hypotheses are generalizations based on observations that often do not relate to any larger body of research, whereas deductive hypotheses are derived from theory such that their testing provides empirical evidence that supports, expands, or contradicts a given theory (Johnson & Christensen, 2004).  Teacher-researchers can state hypotheses in either directional or nondirectional forms. Directional hypotheses specify the nature of the expected relationship or difference, whereas non-directional hypotheses state that a relationship or difference exists, but without specifying the nature of the expected finding (Johnson & Christensen, 2004).

Developing a Research Plan of Action

Once the research question has been formulated, the next step is to develop a plan for collecting the data.  The purpose of the research plan is to ensure that the mixed action research study is planned as thoroughly as possible in order to help to maximize the quality of research.  The research plan must include delineation of the target sample, as well as how the sample is to be selected (i.e., sampling scheme). Teacher-researchers should select their sample using one of the 5 random sampling schemes and 19 purposive (i.e., non-random) sampling schemes identified by Onwuegbuzie and Collins (in press). However, it should be noted that because most MARS will not involve the generalization of findings to populations beyond the immediate classroom or school, sampling schemes will tend to be purposive in nature. Teacher-researchers also should ensure that the sample size is consistent with the research goal(s), objective(s), and question(s). If interest was in generalizing the findings from the sample to a class, school, or even school district, then teacher-researchers should utilize power tables such as Table 1 below.
                                  ____________________________

Table 1

Minimum Number of Participants Needed for Adequate Representation of the Population

N stands for size of the population; n stands for size of the recommended sample. The sample sizes are based on a 95% confidence level.

SOURCE: Krejecie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 608.  Reprinted with kind permission of Sage Publications.
                                  ____________________________

The research plan also should include a decision about which instruments to use.  Instruments often involve measures from either the cognitive, affective, or psychomotor domains. Data collection strategies include standardized instruments (e.g., test, questionnaires, and scales), self-developed instruments, recording naturally available data (e.g., grade point averages and tardiness rates), interview schedules, physiological measurements, and observational measurements.  It is important that teacher-researchers use quantitative instruments that have good psychometric properties (i.e., yield scores that are both reliable and valid) and qualitative instruments that are appropriate, meaningful, and legitimate. Teacher-researchers should consult university researchers for help in selecting non-standardized instruments and, most importantly, for assistance in developing teacher-made instruments.

All procedures should be planned in a step-by-step manner and in sufficient detail to permit replication of the study.  In addition, teacher-researchers should plan to leave an audit trail, which is recommended by many qualitative researchers as a method of evaluating legitimation or increasing legitimation, or both (Halpern, 1983; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The research question(s) should drive the selection of the mixed methods research design. Several researchers have developed typologies (e.g., Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2005; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2006). Two of the most important dimensions for teacher-researchers to consider when selecting a mixed methods research design are level of mixing and time orientation. Level of mixing refers to whether the mixed methods research is partially mixed or fully mixed. Fully mixed methods designs, which involve the highest degree of mixing, involve using both qualitative and quantitative research within or across the following four components in a single research study: (1) the research objective; (2) type of data and operations; (3) type of analysis; and (4) type of inference. Conversely, when partially mixed methods are utilized, the quantitative and qualitative phases are not mixed within or across stages. Instead, both the quantitative and qualitative components are implemented in their entirety before being mixed at the data interpretation stage (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2005). Time orientation pertains to whether the quantitative and qualitative phases of the research study occur at approximately the same point in time (i.e., concurrent) or whether these two components occur one after the other such that one phase informs the next phase (i.e., sequential).

Collecting the Data

We recommend that teacher-researchers use Johnson’s and Turner’s (2003) typology. These methodologists identified the following six specific data collection strategies in mixed methods research:
 
(1) mixture of open- and closed-ended items on one or more questionnaires (Johnson and Turner refer to this as Type 2 data collection style)
(2) mixture of depth and breadth interviewing (Type 5)
(3) mixture of ‘a priori’ and ‘emergent/flowing’ focus group strategies (Type 8)
(4) mixture of standardized open- and closed-ended pre-designed tests (Type 11)
(5) mixture of standardized/confirmatory and less structured/exploratory observation,     alternating between participatory and nonparticipatory researcher roles (Type 14)
(6) mixture of non-numeric and numeric documents, consisting of archived data based on open- and closed-ended items (Type 17)

Teachers should monitor all data collection activities carefully, systematically, and continuously to ensure use of correct procedures--that is, to ensure that the protocols are followed as closely as possible, and to record any deviations that may arise.

Analyzing the Data

Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2003) identified the following seven stages of the mixed-methods data analysis process: (1) data reduction, (2) data display, (3) data transformation, (4) data correlation, (5) data consolidation, (6) data comparison, and (7) data integration. According to Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie, data reduction refers to reducing the dimensionality of the qualitative data (e.g., via exploratory thematic analysis, memoing) and quantitative data (e.g., via descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, cluster analysis). Data display involves describing pictorially the qualitative data (e.g., graphs, charts, matrices, networks, lists, rubrics, Venn diagrams) and quantitative data (e.g., tables, graphs). This is followed (optionally) by the data transformation stage, whereby qualitative data are converted into numerical codes that can be represented statistically (i.e., quantitized; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) and/or quantitative data are converted into narrative data that can be analyzed qualitatively (i.e., qualitized; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Data correlation involves quantitative data being correlated with qualitized data or qualitative data being correlated with quantitized data. This is followed by data consolidation, whereby both qualitative and quantitative data are combined to create new or consolidated variables or data sets. The next stage, data comparison, involves comparing data from the qualitative and quantitative data sources. In the data integration stage, the final stage, both qualitative and quantitative data are integrated into either a coherent whole or two separate sets (i.e., qualitative and quantitative) of coherent wholes. While the first two stages—data reduction and data displays—will be relevant in virtually all MARS, the use of the other stages will depend on the research goal(s), objective(s), and question(s), as well as the sampling design, research design, and type(s) of data collected.
           
While inferential statistics (e.g., t-tests, analysis of variance, multiple regression) are extremely useful for generalizing findings from the sample to the population—assuming an adequate sample size is involved—many teacher-researchers do not have sufficient training to conduct such analyses. However, many of the research problems of interest to teacher-researchers do not necessitate inferential statistics. Indeed, many of these problems can be addressed by combining qualitative data analysis techniques with descriptive statistics (e.g., means, proportions, totals). With respect to qualitative data analyses, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (in press) have provided a step-by-step guide for using seven of the most popular analytical tools.

Interpreting the Findings

As part of interpreting the findings, teacher-researcher should validate the data. This data validation stage involves assessing the trustworthiness, credibility, dependability, legitimation, validity, plausibility, applicability, consistency, neutrality, reliability, objectivity, confirmability, and/or transferability of data collected. Frameworks such as the Quantitative Legitimation Model (Onwuegbuzie, 2003; which contains 50 sources of invalidity for the quantitative component of the mixed methods research at the data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation stages of the study) and the Qualitative Legitimation Model (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, in press-b; which contains 29 elements of legitimation for the qualitative component of the mixed methods research at the data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation stages of the study) can be used to assess the legitimacy of the qualitative and quantitative phases of the study, respectively. In addition, very recently, Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) outlined a new typology of legitimation types that teacher-researchers can use in their MARS. This typology contains the following nine legitimation types: (1) sample integration legitimation; (2) insider-outsider legitimation; (3) weakness minimization legitimation; (4) sequential legitimation; (5) conversion legitimation; (6) paradigmatic mixing legitimation; (7) commensurability legitimation; (8) multiple validities legitimation; and (9) political legitimation. Each of these legitimation types is defined in Table 2 below. By attempting to optimize as many of these legitimation types as possible, teacher-researchers will improve their ability to make “meta-inferences” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. 686), in which they combine inferences stemming from both the quantitative and qualitative data into a coherent whole.
                                  ____________________________

Table 2

Typology of Mixed Methods Legitimation Types

SOURCE: This table was adapted from Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006). Reprinted with kind permission from the Mid-South Educational Research Association and the Editors of Research in the Schools.
                                  ____________________________

Taking Action

Once meta-inferences have been made, the teacher-researcher will be in a position to take action. Acting upon the findings involves making decisions that stem directly from the results. These decisions might be pedagogically based, discipline based, administrative based, or the like. Part of taking action involves communicating the findings. The form of the communication can range from informal discussion between teachers involved in the action research project, to inservice workshops held by the teacher-researchers, to formal research presentations at professional conferences, to publications of research findings in periodicals, books, monographs, or newspapers.  Regardless of the chosen venue, the research findings should be communicated as effectively and efficiently as possible to the intended audience. Even if the teacher-researcher has no intention of publishing the findings, at the very least, he/she should communicate the results to his/her immediate colleagues. Communication of findings also should include suggestions for future research.  Moreover, at this stage, teachers involved in the MARS should attempt to redefine their original research problem and then repeat the above cycle, as many times as needed, until the research question is answered.

Participatory Mixed Action Research Studies (PMARS)

Where possible, teacher-researchers should involve stakeholders in the MARS for the purpose of analyzing both program processes and outcomes. Stakeholders include general education teachers, special education teachers, resource teachers, related services personnel, paraprofessionals, target students, and parents of target students. However, in many instances, the stakeholders who are in the best position to use the findings to facilitate change are the school site administrators. However, whoever the stakeholders are, teacher-researchers should attempt to involve them in the MARS decision-making process whenever they are interested in effective systems changes being made that are acceptable to its members. In such instances, we recommend participatory mixed action research studies (PMARS). In PMARS, key stakeholders serve as full partners in the MARS. By involving the stakeholders, the understandings of the whole system can be incorporated into the MARS research process (Greenwood, Whyte, & Harkavy, 1993).
           
We view PMARS as involving the following 10-step process:

(1) identifying an issue or problem to investigate
(2) forming collaboration with key stakeholders
(3) understanding the context, system, and relevant literature
(4) formulating research questions and/or hypotheses
(5) developing a collaborative research plan of action
(6) collecting the data
(7) analyzing the data
(8) interpreting the findings
(9) designing data-driven action/intervention
(10) evaluating the action/intervention.

The major differences between the MARS and PMARS processes involve Steps 2, 9, and 10. With respect to Step 2, an important aspect of this step is to identify those members of the school, at all levels, with a vested interest in the PMARS of interest and the action/interventions that would stem from the findings. The teacher-researcher plays an important role in recruiting these stakeholders. The teacher-researcher also should consider including university researchers.

Once the PMARS team has been assembled, the teacher-researcher should make it clear that they are equal partners and full participants in the PMARS process. With regard to Step 9, the PMARS team should use the findings to engage in decision-making that yields data-driven, culturally responsive interventions. Depending on the findings, as well as the Pre-PMARS system being used, the intervention design may be brand new or involve the modification of an existing intervention. The teacher-researcher plays an important role in designing or modifying the intervention. Finally, Step 10 involves the PMARS team and implementers of the planned intervention evaluating its appropriateness, acceptability, efficacy, and sustainability of the intervention. The results of the evaluation should inform future redesign of the intervention to promote its future success. The teacher-researcher plays an important role in designing the evaluation model.

Conclusions

Our experience has shown that teachers who conduct action research studies find them to be empowering.  Unfortunately, many teachers do not engage themselves in such endeavors. Of those who do, many do not optimize their action research designs. In particular, they do not take account of the fact that for any given research problem, there will be both quantitative and qualitative data to collect and analyze.

Too often, teachers may have developed attitudes that educational research is not within their reach nor is it their responsibility. Thus, we recommend that preservice teachers be exposed to the concepts of MARS and PMARS throughout their program. Here, they should be taught how to design such studies using the framework provided in this article. Also, we recommend that inservice teachers be given the opportunity to attend workshops that continually train them on how to conduct MARS and PMARS. If the focus of the research is of interest and/or benefit to teachers, they will quickly become immersed in acquiring new skills and expertise. As empowered action researchers, teachers can become important participants in improving schools, and, ultimately, educational outcomes for all our children.

References

Craig, D. V. (2004). Practitioner action research: Action research to improve practice. Work
Based Learning in Primary Care, 2, 324-337.

Ebbutt, D. (1985).  Educational action research: Some general concerns and specific quibblers.
In R.G. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods (pp. 152-174).  London: The Falmer Press.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.

Greenwood, D. J., Whyte, W. F., & Harkavy, I. (1993). Participatory action research as a process and as a goal. Human Relations, 46, 175-191.

Halpern, E. S. (1983). Auditing naturalistic inquiries: The development and application of a model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krejecie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 608.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2005, April). A typology of mixed methods research
designs. Invited James E. McLean Outstanding Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (in press). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call
for qualitative data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McLean, J. E. (1995). Improving education through action research: A guide for administrators
and teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mills, G. E. (2006). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd ed.).

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools, 10, 71-90.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (in press). A typology of mixed methods sampling
designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T., Leech, N. L., Dellinger, A. B., & Jiao, Q. G. (2006). A
meta-framework for conducting mixed research syntheses. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Dickinson, W. B. (2006). Action research: An update. Unpublished
manuscript. University of South Florida.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (in press-a). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (in press-b). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron? Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods
research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, R., Slate, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1999).  Empowering teachers: Acting upon action research. GATEways to Teacher Education, 11(2), 44-59.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From
data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 671-701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed
methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-28. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2001a). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L
No. 107-110. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from http://www.NoChildLeftBehind.gov

U.S. Department of Education. (2001b). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved September 27, 2006,
from https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.pdf

You are invited to join AE Extra staff!
Send your ideas and/or writing sample to the Editor-in-chief:
Elizabeth Haller
Kent State University (e-mail: editoraee@hotmail.com)

Return to AE Home

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader response to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.