Mixed Evaluation Designs in the Evaluation of Educational Programs and Systems

Ahmadi Deh Ghotbaddini, Mohammad

doi:10.30473/t-edu.2022.9162

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Mohammad Ahmadi deh Ghotbaddini

Assistant Professor, Educational Measurement and Assessment, Anar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Anar, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30473/t-edu.2022.9162

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to review of paradigms, dominant Epistemologies and mixed methods research approach in educational evaluation and planning and mixed methods research and evaluation designs. Paradigmatic mixing approach in research and evaluation included the extent to which the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, axiological, methodological, and theoretical beliefs that underlie the quantitative and qualitative approaches are successfully blended into a usable package. Nowadays with advent of this approach, Interest in mixed methods in applied research contexts has increased substantially. This matter arrested attention to scientific realism as a point against logical positivism and basis of epistemology sensitive toward context and using of pluralism methods research. For entrancing to this domain to be familiar with pluralistic evaluation by advancing an enhanced conceptual framework that extends beyond the technical level for planning implementing mixed-method evaluation studies is essential. With each new application of mixed methods in evaluation research, the need for further change, adaptation and evolution becomes apparent. The key to the future of mixed methods research will be to continue building on what has been learned and to replicate designs that produce the most robust outcomes.

Keywords

References

Baumgartner. E. Bell, P. Brophy, S. Hoadley, C. His, S. Joseph, D. Orrill, C. Puntambekar, S. Sandoval, W & Tabak, I. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry, Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8

Bazeley, P. (2003). Teaching Mixed Methods, Qualitative Research Journal, 3. 117-126.

Betzner, A. E.(2008). Pragmatic and Dialectic Mixed Method Approaches: An EmpiricalComparison, PHD Dissertation, Faculty of the graduate school of the university of Minnesota, Retrived on 3 February 2009 from: http:// www.conservancy .umn.edu/bitstream/46961/3/Betzner_umn_0130E_10139.pdf

Caracelli, V.J & Greene. J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 19-32.

Creed, C. Freeman, R., Robinson, B & Woodley, A. (2004). Mixed research methods, Retrived on 22 February 2009 from www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/A5.pdf.

Creswell, J. W. Plano Clark, V. L. Gutmann, M. L & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrived on 3 February 2009 from : http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/19291_Chapter_7.pdf

Doyle, L. Brady, A. M & Byrne, G. (2009). An overview of mixed methods research, Journal of Research in Nursing, 14 (2) 175–185

Greene. J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(2). 190-198

Greene, J. C & Caracelli, V. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. Greene&V. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation (74, pp. 5–17).San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Hall, B & Howard, K. (2008). A Synergistic Approach: Conducting Mixed Methods Research With Typological and Systemic Design Considerations, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 248-269

Jang, E. E. McDougall, D. E. Pollon, D.,

Herbert, M., & Russell, P. (2008). Integrative Mixed Methods Data Analytic Strategies in Research on School Success in Challenging Circumstances, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 221-247

Johnson, R. B & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004).

Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come, Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26.

Kadudhin, C. Hecht, S. Sasson, T & Saxe, L. (2008). Triangulation and Mixed Methods Designs: Practicing What We Preach in the Evaluation of an Israel Experience Educational Program, Field Methods,20(1), 46-65.

Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer, The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758-770.

Lawrenz, F & Huffman, D. (2002). The Archipelago Approach To Mixed Method Evaluation, American Journal of Evaluation, 23(3), 331–338.

Lawrenz, F. & Huffman, D. (2005). Mixed Method STEM Evaluation –, Retrived on 22 February 2009 from :http://www..eval.org/Publications/example_NDE _Proposal.pdf

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T.,& Voegtle, K. H.,(2006). Methods in educational research: From Theory to Practice, Published by Jossey-Bass

Luo, M. & Dappen, L.(2005). Mixed-methods design for an objective-based evaluation of a magnet school assistance project, Evaluation and Program Planning 28, 109–118

Miller, S. I., & Fredericks, M. (2006).NMixed-Methods and Evaluation Research: Trends and Issues, Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 567-579.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., Collins, K. M. T., Filer, J. D., Wiedmaier, C. D & Moore, C. W.(2007). Students’ Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective College Teachers: A Validity Study of a Teaching Evaluation Form Using a Mixed-Methods Analysis, American Educational Research Journal,44(1), 113–160.

Reeves, T. (2006). Educational paradigms, Retrived on 28 February 2009 from: www.wikieducator.org/images/f/f3/Educational_paradigms.pdf

Waysman, M & Savaya, R. (1997). Mixed Method Evaluation: A Case Study, Evaluation Practice, 18(3), 227-237.