Mixed methods research in inquiry-based instruction: an integrative review

References

• Adam, J. M. 2011. Les Textes: Types Et Prototypes: Récit, Description, Argumentation, Explication Et Dialogue. Paris: Armand Colin.
   Google Scholar
• Akkus, R., M. Gunel, and B. Hand. 2007. “Comparing an Inquiry-Based Approach Known as the Science Writing Heuristic to Traditional Science Teaching Practices: Are There Differences?” International Journal of Science Education 29 (14): 1745–1765. doi: 10.1080/09500690601075629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrew, S., and E. J. Halcomb. 2009. Mixed Methods Research For Nursing And The Health Sciences. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., J. Gu, S. Armbrust, and B. Cook. 2015. “Scaffolding Argumentation about Water Quality: A Mixed-Method Study in a Rural Middle School.” Educational Technology Research and Development 63 (3): 325–353. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggers, M., C. T. Forbes, and L. Zangori. 2013. “Elementary Teachers’ Curriculum Design and Pedagogical Reasoning for Supporting Students’ Comparison and Evaluation of Evidence-Based Explanations.” The Elementary School Journal 114 (1): 48–72. doi: 10.1086/670738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. 2006. “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How is it Done?” Qualitative Research 6 (1): 97–113. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058877
   Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A. R. 2010. “Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy: A Review of Argument Interventions in K–12 Science Contexts.” Review of Educational Research 80 (3): 336–371. doi: 10.3102/0034654310376953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y. C., B. Hand, and L. Norton-Meier. 2017. “Teacher Roles of Questioning in Early Elementary Science Classrooms: A Framework Promoting Student Cognitive Complexities in Argumentation.” Research in Science Education 47 (2): 373–405. doi: 10.1007/s11165-015-9506-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y. C., B. Hand, and S. Park. 2016. “Examining Elementary Students’ Development of Oral and Written Argumentation Practices Through Argument-Based Inquiry.” Science & Education 25 (3-4): 277–320. doi: 10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung, Y., J. Yoo, S. W. Kim, H. Lee, and D. L. Zeidler. 2016. “Enhancing Students’ Communication Skills in the Science Classroom Through Socioscientific Issues.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 14 (1): 1–27. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9557-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms.” Science Education 84 (3): 287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2015. Science Education for Responsible Citizenship. Report to the European Commission of the Expert Group on Science Education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Evagorou, M., and J. Osborne. 2013. “Exploring Young Students’ Collaborative Argumentation within a Socioscientific Issue.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50 (2): 209–237. doi: 10.1002/tea.21076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freidenreich, H. B., R. G. Duncan, and N. Shea. 2011. “Exploring Middle School Students’ Understanding of Three Conceptual Models in Genetics.” International Journal of Science Education 33 (17): 2323–2349. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.536997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C. 2005. “The Generative Potential of Mixed Methods Inquiry.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 28 (2): 207–211. doi: 10.1080/01406720500256293
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C., V. J. Caracelli, and W. F. Graham. 1989. “Toward A Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs.” Educational Evaluation And Policy Analysis 11 (3): 255–274. doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255
   Google Scholar
• Grooms, J., V. Sampson, and B. Golden. 2014. “Comparing the Effectiveness of Verification and Inquiry Laboratories in Supporting Undergraduate Science Students in Constructing Arguments Around Socioscientific Issues.” International Journal of Science Education 36 (9): 1412–1433. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.891160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hand, B., and C. W. Keys. 1999. “Inquiry Investigation.” The Science Teacher 66 (4): 27–29.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, R. L., and T. M. Reilly. 2011. “Mixed Methods Designs in Marketing Research.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 14 (1): 7–26. doi: 10.1108/13522751111099300
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, K. N., Ch. S. Lee, R. DiStefano, D. O’Connor, and J. C. Seitz. 2016. “Measuring Science Instructional Practice: A Survey Tool for the Age of NGSS.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 27 (2): 137–164. doi: 10.1007/s10972-016-9448-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohenshell, L. M., and B. Hand. 2006. “Writing-To-Learn Strategies in Secondary School Cell Biology: A Mixed Method Study.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (2-3): 261–289. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P. 2008. “Designing Argumentation Learning Environments.” In Argumentation in Science Education, edited by S. Erduran, and M.-P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, 91–116. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., and A. J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.” Educational Researcher 33 (7): 14–26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., A. J. Onwuegbuzie, and L. A. Turner. 2007. “Toward A Definition of Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (2): 112–133. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., and M. Pease. 2008. “What Needs to Develop in the Development of Inquiry Skills?” Cognition and Instruction 26 (4): 512–559. doi: 10.1080/07370000802391745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litman, C., and C. Greenleaf. 2018. “Argumentation Tasks in Secondary English Language Arts, History, and Science: Variations in Instructional Focus and Inquiry Space.” Reading Research Quarterly 53 (1): 107–126. doi: 10.1002/rrq.187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litman, C., S. Marple, C. Greenleaf, I. Charney-Sirott, M. J. Bolz, L. K. Richardson, A. H. Hall, M. A. George, and S. R. Goldman. 2017. “Text-Based Argumentation with Multiple Sources: A Descriptive Study of Opportunity to Learn in Secondary English Language Arts, History, and Science.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 26 (1): 79–130. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2016.1256809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, N., and S. Knipe. 2006. “Research Dilemmas: Paradigms, Methods and Methodology.” Issues in Educational Research 16 (2): 193–205.
   Google Scholar
• Mertens, D. M. 2007. “Transformative Paradigm: Mixed Methods and Social Justice.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (3): 212–225. doi: 10.1177/1558689807302811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse, J. M. 1991. “Approaches to Qualitative-Quantitative Methodological Triangulation.” Nursing Research 40 (2): 120–123. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse, J. M. 2003. “Principles of Mixed Methods and Multimethod Research Design.” Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research 1: 189–208.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and The Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA and CCSSO). 2010. Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Newell, G. E., R. Beach, J. Smith, and J. VanDerHeide. 2011. “Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research.” Reading Research Quarterly 46 (3): 273–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. A., J. Dolin, and S. Tidemand. 2018. “Transforming Assessment Research: Recommendations for Future Research.” In Transforming Assessment, edited by J. Dolin, and R. Evans, 279–290. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Niglas, K. 2004. “The Combined Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Educational Research.” (Phd Diss.). Tallinn Pedagogical University.
   Google Scholar
• NRC (National Research Council). 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patchen, T., and D. W. Smithenry. 2013. “Framing Science in a New Context: What Students Take Away from a Student-Directed Inquiry Curriculum.” Science Education 97 (6): 801–829. doi: 10.1002/sce.21077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponce, O. A., and N. Pagán-Maldonado. 2015. “Mixed Methods Research in Education: Capturing the Complexity of the Profession.” International Journal of Educational Excellence 1 (1): 111–135. doi: 10.18562/IJEE.2015.0005
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., J. Grooms, and J. P. Walker. 2011. “Argument-Driven Inquiry as a Way To Help Students Learn How To Participate In Scientific Argumentation and Craft Written Arguments: An Exploratory Study.” Science Education 95 (2): 217–257. doi: 10.1002/sce.20421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strimaitis, A. M., Sh. A. Southerland, V. Sampson, P. Enderle, and J. Grooms. 2017. “Promoting Equitable Biology Lab Instruction by Engaging All Students in a Broad Range of Science Practices: An Exploratory Study.” School Science and Mathematics 117 (3-4): 92–103. doi: 10.1111/ssm.12212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teddlie, C., and A. Tashakkori. 2006. “A General Typology Of Research Designs Featuring Mixed Methods.” Research in the Schools 13 (1): 12–28.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, K. A., and D. L. Zeidler. 2007. “Promoting Discourse about Socioscientific Issues Through Scaffolded Inquiry.” International Journal of Science Education 29 (11): 1387–1410. doi: 10.1080/09500690601068095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittemore, R., and K. Knafl. 2005. “The Integrative Review: Updated Methodology.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 52 (5): 546–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, I. A. G., A. Reznitskaya, K. Bourdage, J. Oyler, M. Glina, R. Drewry, M.-Y. Kim, and K. Nelson. 2017. “Toward A More Dialogic Pedagogy: Changing Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Through Professional Development in Language Arts Classrooms.” Language and Education 31 (1, SI): 65–82. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2016.1230129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolley, C. M. 2009. “Meeting the Mixed Methods Challenge of Integration in a Sociological Study of Structure and Agency.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3 (1): 7–25. doi: 10.1177/1558689808325774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, G. P., and J. L. Endacott. 2016. “Historical Inquiry and the Limitations of the Common Core State Standards.” The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (4): 309–324. doi: 10.1016/j.jssr.2015.07.003
   Google Scholar