Mixed Methods Research: A Comprehensive Approach

To collect valid and reliable data for the investigation, the researcher combined qualitative and quantitative methods to conduct “mix methods research” (Creswell, Plano, Gutmann & Hanson, 2003, p.42) because Dörnyei (2007) claimed that qualitative and quantitative methods had equal contribution in theorising as they can support each other. Furthermore, the two methods were adopted to attain an entire understanding of a target phenomenon or to justify one series of results against the other (Sandelowski, 2003). As regards quantitative and qualitative methods, according to Conrad & Serlin (2011), qualitative research methods paid attention to exploring the experiences, perspectives, and mindsets of the participants. In other words, the qualitative

Research reliability was achieved by using his method as “observations are useful that they provide the researcher with the opportunity to collect large amount of rich data, the participant’s behavior and actions within a particular context” (Le, 2012, p.52). Mackey and Gass (2005, p.96) highlighted that commonly, the answers to questionnaires might be imprecise and unreliable. Hence, the main advantage of observing and collecting data was it enabled the researcher “see directly what people do without having to rely on what they say they do. Therefore, such data can provide a more objective account of events and behaviours than second-hand self-report data” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 185). The lessons were filmed by the staffs in the centre. As the researcher was not present in the classes to film the lessons, it was difficult for her to recognise the small details of the lessons; however, the researcher found a way to reduce the limitations by positioning the camera in a good position. The camera was put in the corners of the classrooms to capture the full scenes of the lessons including the actions of teachers and students. Filming the lessons instead of observing them directly was a plus point for the whole study as the participants including the teachers and students were not affected by the presence of the researcher; therefore, they performed naturally as in normal lessons. In addition, the researcher

Stimulated recall, was efficient as it “appeals to researchers because it provides a useful tool that helps uncover cognitive process which might not be evident through simple observation” (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.21). Nevertheless, to assure the reliability and validity since the teacher might forget what they had done in the lessons, the researcher had to invite the teachers to attend the recalls immediately after the lessons as the suggestion of Mackey & Gass (2005, p. 54) that “data should be collected as soon as possible after the event which is the focus of the recall”. Both questionnaire and observation had drawbacks; hence, the researcher decided to interview the teachers individually to compensate for the limitations that the two tools had. The detailed questions in stimulated recall interview were included in Appendix 4, the sample of an interview transcription was included in appendix