Chapter 7: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations
4.3 Research Approach
Research approaches provides the intersection between the philosophical expectations, different procedures and methods of conducting a research. Creswell (2013 and 2014) identified three approaches to research, which include quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Research methods are commonly classified into qualitative and quantitative (Thomas 2010). VanderStoep and Johnston (2009) were of the opinion that the quantitative and qualitative when used separately have their shortcomings. They further noted that for studies that employ only a quantitative approach, research participants might give superficial answers because of the large number of participants. In a pure qualitative research, the findings may not generalizable to a greater population because the sample sizes are usually small and non- random (VanderStoep and Johnston 2009). Thus, it is not advisable to limit scope to a single approach to research methodology.
85
The mixed methods research approach, among others, is becoming common in studies, because it can help to shed light on a phenomenon by drawing findings from various methods. Other terms used to explain mixed methods include multimethods, quantitative and qualitative methods and mixed methodology (Creswell 2013). The notion of merging qualitative and quantitative methods into one methodology with different typologies is needed to extend the range of social science and health research (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann and Hanson 2003 and Giddings 2006). The mixed methods approach allows for the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches (Gray 2004; Leedy and Ormrod 2005, Creswell 2013 and Creswell 2014) and has helped to improve social science and education research (Gorard 2004 and Mertens 2014). This method is also recommended by VanderStoep and Johnston (2009) because it comprises of the best of both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thus, the integration of both qualitative and quantitative aspects of research has gained immense popularity (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2010). This method allows data to be collected and analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods, either concurrently or sequentially, so as to provide better understanding of the research problems (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie and Turner 2007; Creswell and Plano-Clark 2007 and Creswell 2014). Its ability to elaborate on the findings of one method with another method (Creswell 1998) and its capability to overcome the weakness and biases of single approaches (Elia 2013) allows for a better understanding of research problems.
Greene (2007) pointed out that it is helpful to specifically describe qualitative and quantitative research methods from broader philosophical perspectives so as not to intermingle methods and philosophy. Quantitative methods are predominantly used within the post-positivist paradigm along with qualitative methods (Mertens 2005). Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) were also of the opinion that qualitative methods are often used in the mixed methods approach in order to provide a supportive role for the quantitative methods. Qualitative research involves an in-depth understanding of human behaviour and the reasons that govern such behaviour.
Hence there is the need for smaller but focused samples, rather than the large random samples used in quantitative method (Bryman 2012). This study employed the mixed method research approach using qualitative methods to support the quantitative methods, so as to enhance the understanding of the use of Web 2.0 technologies in TAL among students and academics. This approach seemed suitable for the current investigation as a larger quantity of data was obtained
86
and analysed quantitatively. Results from the quantitative approach helped to correctly reveal the overall population, while the results from the qualitative approach provided a richer and broad understanding of the population studied (VanderStoep and Johnston 2009). Quantitative method was required to capture and represent data solicited from undergraduate students and academics numerically through the use of questionnaires, while the qualitative method was required to solicit information from faculty heads and faculty librarians through the use of interview schedules.
Literature reveals similar studies on adoption and use of Web 2.0 technologies in education and TAL such as Neyland (2011); Zakaria, Watson and Edwards (2012); Che, Vaughan and Penelope (2013); and Holland and Howell (2013) adopted the mixed method approach to collect and analyse data in their research. Malhiwsky (2010) conducted a mixed method study to determine the effect of Web 2.0 technologies on Spanish college students. The study used the quantitative method to specifically examine students‟ achievements based on pre-test and post-test scores and also the level of classroom community, connectedness and learning.
Likewise, the qualitative method was employed in investigating ways in which students used Web 2.0 technologies in their language learning and their perceptions. Neyland (2011) in a study on factors influencing the integration of online learning in high schools in Sydney, Austratia used both quantitative and qualitative methods in data collection and analysis.
Zakaria, Watson and Edwards‟ (2012) study recommends investigating the adoption of Web 2.0 in the classroom for learning by both academics and students using mixed methods for data collection and analysis.
Holland and Howell (2013) in a pilot study in the US adopted the mixed method research approach to examine Web 2.0 and e-learning tools and instructional implementation. Class observations and pilot study surveys were used to determine students‟ levels of satisfaction after using various Web 2.0 technologies and varying student work group sizes. Che, Vaughan and Penelope (2013) also examined the effect of Web 2.0 technologies on Malaysian university students‟ informal learning practices using a mixed-methods approach which combined multiple data sources (that is, on-line self-reported surveys and focus group interviews) and analytical methods. In their study, questionnaires were used to generate quantitative data from 400 university students through the online self-reported survey. The study result showed that a majority of the Malaysian university students surveyed found informal learning mediated by
87
Web 2.0 technologies to be a useful and motivating practice. From the aforementioned, it can be implied that use of a mixed method research or approach is very common when examining the use of Web 2.0 technologies for educational purposes. It was therefore adopted for this study.