This article describes the development of a joint display in a mixed methods research case study, using a theoretical framework as the start point. A case study of professional development on Web 2.0 technologies for teachers of Spanish illustrates how the qualitative results from interviews, observations, and documents, and quantitative results from pre, post, and follow-up surveys were integrated via a joint display using the TPACK model. The discussion focuses on the role of joint displays in data merging and how they facilitate the representation of fit of data integration, enriching the results in convergent designs.
BaranE.ChuangH.ThompsonA. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and development tool for teacher educators. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 370-377.
2.
BrymanA. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 97-113.
3.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
4.
BustamanteC. (2014). Professional development on Web 2.0 for teachers of Spanish: A mixed methods case study. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
5.
ClausenJ. M. (2007). Beginning teachers’ technology use: First-year teacher development and the institutional context’s affect on new teachers’ instructional technology use with students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 245-261.
6.
CollinsK. M. T.OnwuegbuzieA. J.SuttonI. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-100.
7.
CreswellJ. W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W.MillerD. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
9.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DoeringA.VeletsianosG.ScharberC.MillerC. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41, 319-346.
11.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134-2156.
12.
GrayL.ThomasN.LewisL. (2010). Teachers use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf
13.
GuettermanT.CreswellJ. W.KuckartzU. (2015). Using joint displays and MAXQDA software to represent the results of mixed methods research. In McCruddenM.SchrawG.BuckendahlC. (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 145-175). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
14.
GuettermanT. C.FettersM. D.CreswellJ. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13, 554-561.
JaipalK.FiggC. (2010). Expanding the practice-based taxonomy of characteristics of TPACK. In GibsonD.DodgeB. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3868-3875). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
17.
JensenJ. L.RodgersR. (2001). Cumulating the intellectual gold of case study research. Public Administration Review, 61, 235-246.
18.
LewinS.GlentonC.OxmanA. D. (2009). Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: Methodological study. British Medical Journal, 339, b3496.
19.
LuckL.JacksonD.UsherK. (2006). Case study: a bridge across the paradigms. Nursing Inquiry, 13, 103-109. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1800.2006.00309.x
20.
MillerD.BustamanteC. (2016). Drawing mixed methods procedural diagrams. In MoellerA. J.CreswellJ. W.SavilleN. (Eds.), Second language assessment and mixed methods research (pp. 84-118). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
21.
MishraP.KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
22.
MoellerA.Plano ClarkV. L.HustadA. (2011). Chinese Language Teaching Institute Survey (Unpublished instrument). University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
23.
Moore-HayesC. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher-efficacy. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 37(3). doi:10.21432/T2B597
24.
MorseJ. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120-123.
25.
NiessM.Gillow-WilesH. (2010). Advancing K-8 mathematics and science teachers knowledge for teaching with technology through an online graduate program. In GibsonD.DodgeB. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3911-3919). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
26.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13, 92-98.
27.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed methods research. In Plano ClarkV. L.CreswellJ. W. (Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. 273-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
SchmidtD. A.BaranE.ThompsonA. D.KoehlerM. J.MishraP.ShinT. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 123-149.
29.
ScholzR. W.TietjeO. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
SchrumL.LevinB. (2009) Leading 21st century schools: Harnessing technology for engagement and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
31.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
32.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
StakeR. (2003). Case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 169-204). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
StoilescuD.McDougallD. (2010). Case studies of teachers integrating computer technology in mathematics. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 2944-2952). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Designs and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
