Theory-focused joint displays represent an innovative approach to data and results integration with potential to build understanding of complex constructs, including factors that influence change over time. However, the extant literature offers few examples for doing so, particularly in convergent research designs. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide a replicable framework for developing and refining an emergent theoretical model in a convergent research design. Through an illustrative example of a study on preservice teachers’ growth in practice, we detail a seven-step process in which a theoretical model served as the guide and culminating purpose of the research. In addition to this primary contribution, we also explore the role of visuals in joint display analyses to support meta-inference generation.
Al-HazzaT.FleenerC.HagerJ. (2008). Primary teachers’ knowledge and knowledge calibration of early literacy practices. The Reading Matrix, 8(1), 1–11.
2.
AllenJ. P.GregoryA.MikamiA. Y.LunJ.HamreB.PiantaR. C. (2013). Observations of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087492
3.
BellS. M.ZieglerM.McCallumR. S. (2004). What adult educators know compared with what they say they know about providing research-based reading instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(7), 542–563.
BrownellM. T.LauterbachA. A.DingleM. P.BoardmanA. G.UrbachJ. E.LekoM. M.BenedictA. E.ParkY. (2014). Individual and contextual factors influencing special education teacher learning in literacy learning cohorts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713487179
6.
Burke JohnsonR.RussoF.SchoonenboomJ. (2017). Causation in mixed methods research: The meeting of philosophy, science, and practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689817719610
7.
BustamanteC. (2019). TPACK and teachers of Spanish: Development of a theory-based joint display in a mixed methods research case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689817712119
8.
CarsonK.BayettoA. (2018). Teachers’ phonological awareness assessment practices, self-reported knowledge and actual knowledge: The challenge of assessing what you may know less about. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(6), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.5
9.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
10.
CharmazK. (2015). Grounded theory. In SmithJ. A. (Ed), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (3rd ed., pp. 53–84). Sage.
11.
CollinsP. H. (2019). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press.
12.
CreamerE. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Sage.
13.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
14.
CunninghamA. E.PerryK. E.StanovichK. E.StanovichP. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K–3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-004-0007-y
15.
CunninghamA. E.ZibulskyJ.CallahanM. D. (2009). Starting small: Building preschool teacher knowledge that supports early literacy development. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9164-z
16.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08331140
17.
DesimoneL. M.GaretM. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society and Education, 7(3), 252. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.515
18.
FettersM. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage.
19.
FettersM. D.FreshwaterD. (2015). Publishing a methodological mixed methods research article. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815594687
20.
FettersM. D.GuettermanT. C. (2021). Development of a joint display as a mixed analysis. In OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (Eds), The Routledge reviewer’s guide to mixed methods analysis (pp. 259–275). Routledgehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203729434-23
21.
FettersM. D.TajimaC. (2022). Joint displays of integrated data collection in mixed methods research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2001), 100067. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221104564
22.
FirestoneA. R.AramburoC. A.CruzR. A. (2021). Special education teachers’ knowledge of high-leverage practices: Validation of a pedagogical knowledge measure. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100986
23.
FirestoneA. R.CruzR. A.RodlJ. E. (2020). Teacher study groups: An integrative literature synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 90(5), 675–709. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320938128
24.
GinnC. S.MughalK. M.SyedH.StorteboomA. R.BenziesK. M. (2017). Sustaining engagement in longitudinal research with vulnerable families: A mixed-methods study of attrition. Journal of Family Nursing, 23(4), 488–515. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1074840717738224
25.
GoldhaberD.RonfeldtM.CowanJ.GratzT.BardelliE.TruwitM. (2022). Room for improvement? Mentor teachers and the evolution of teacher preservice clinical evaluations. American Educational Research Journal, 59(5). https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312211066867
26.
GregoryA.HafenC. A.RuzekE.MikamiA. Y.AllenJ. P.PiantaR. C. (2016). Closing the racial discipline gap in classrooms by changing teacher practice. School Psychology Review, 45(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr45-2.171-191
27.
GuettermanT. C.CreswellJ. W.KuckartzU. (2015). Using joint displays and MAXQDA software to represent the results of mixed methods research. In McCruddenM. T.SchrawG.BuckendahlC. W. (Eds), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 145–176). Information Age Publishing.
28.
GuettermanT. C.FabreguesS.SakakibaraR. (2021). Visuals in joint displays to represent integration in mixed methods research: A methodological review. Methods in Psychology, 5, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100080
29.
Haynes-BrownT. K.FettersM. D. (2021). Using joint display as an analytic process: An illustration using bar graphs joint displays from a mixed methods study of how beliefs shape secondary school teachers’ use of technology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1609406921993286
30.
HammondL. (2015). Early childhood educators’ perceived and actual metalinguistic knowledge, beliefs and enacted practice about teaching early reading. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2015.1023208
31.
HamreB. K.PiantaR. C.DownerJ. T.DeCosterJ.MashburnA. J.JonesS. M.BrownJ. L.CappellaE.AtkinsM.RiversS. E.BrackettM. A.HamagamiA. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1086/669616
32.
Haynes-BrownR. K. (2022). Using theoretical models in mixed methods research: An example from an explanatory sequential mixed methods study exploring teachers’ beliefs and use of technology. Journal of mixed methods research, 70. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F15586898221094970
33.
Howell SmithM. C.BabchukW. A.StevensJ.GarrettA. L.WangS. C.GuettermanT. C. (2020). Modeling the use of mixed methods–grounded theory: Developing scales for a new measurement model. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(2), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689819872599
34.
JayanthiM.DiminoJ.GerstenR.TaylorM. J.HaymondK.SmolkowskiK.Newman-GoncharR. (2018). The impact of teacher study groups in vocabulary on teaching practice, teacher knowledge, and student vocabulary knowledge: A large-scale replication study. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(1), 38–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1327625
35.
KennedyM. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching?Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
LiuM. H.KleinsasserR. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers’ knowledge and competencies: In-service program perspectives. Language, Learning and Technology, 19(1), 119–138.
38.
MaggioniL.ParkinsonM. M. (2008). The role of teacher epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, and calibration in instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9081-8
39.
McDonaldJ. P. (1992). Teaching: Making sense of an uncertain craft. Teachers College Press.
40.
McLeskeyJ.MaheadyL.BillingsleyB.BrownellM. T.LewisT. J. (Eds), (2017). High-Leverage Practices for inclusive classrooms. Routledge.
41.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. A.SaldañaJ. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.
42.
MillienC.ManziA.KatzA. M.GilbertH.Smith FawziM. C.FarmerP. E.MukherjeeJ. (2021). Assessing burden, risk factors, and perceived impact of uterine fibroids on women’s lives in rural Haiti: Implications for advancing a health equity agenda, a mixed methods study. International Journal for Equity in Health, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01327-9
43.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.YamaguchiR.GallagherL. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221
44.
PiantaR. C.HamreB. K.HayesN.MintzS.LaParoK. M. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system-secondary (CLASS-S). University of Virginia.
45.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.
46.
SantagataR.KerstingN.GivvinK. B.StiglerJ. W. (2010). Problem implementation as a lever for change: An experimental study of the effects of a professional development program on students’ mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.498562
StarkH. L.SnowP. C.EadieP. A.GoldfeldS. R. (2016). Language and reading instruction in early years’ classrooms: The knowledge and self-rated ability of Australian teachers. Annals of Dyslexia, 66(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-015-0112-0
49.
VossT.ZachrichL.FauthB.WittwerJ. (2022). The same yet different? Teaching quality differs across a teacher’s classes, but teachers with higher knowledge make teaching quality more similar. Learning and Instruction, 80, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101614
50.
WaitollerF. R.ArtilesA. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 319–356. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483905
51.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge University Press.
