Mixed methods

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Mixed methods: positivists are from Mars, constructivists are from Venus

Full text

Pdf (250 KB)

Source

ACM SIGCSE Bulletin archive
Volume 37 , Issue 4 (December 2005) table of contents

COLUMN: CS research table of contents

Pages: 18 - 19

Year of Publication: 2005

ISSN:0097-8418

Author

Raymond Lister

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 17, Downloads (12 Months): 542, Citation Count: 2

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1113847.1113857 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

You can't work in Computer Science Education Research for very long without stumbling into a religious war over qualitative versus quantitative methods. Recently, I read a general education paper [1] where the authors were brave (or foolish) enough to advocate "mixed methods". That is, they advocate the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Burke Johnson, R. and Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004) Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 14--26
	2	Raymond Lister , Elizabeth S. Adams , Sue Fitzgerald , William Fone , John Hamer , Morten Lindholm , Robert McCartney , Jan Erik Moström , Kate Sanders , Otto Seppälä , Beth Simon , Lynda Thomas, A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.36 n.4, December 2004
	3	Sally Fincher , Marian Petre, Computer Science Education Research, 2004
	4	Wilson, B. (2002) A Study of Factors Promoting Success in Computer Science Including Gender Differences. Computer Science Education. Vol. 12, No. 1-2, pp. 141 -- 164.
	5	Margolis, J, and Fisher, A. (2002) Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press.
	6	Lecia Jane Barker , Kathy Garvin-Doxas , Michele Jackson, Defensive climate in the computer science classroom, Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 27-March 03, 2002, Cincinnati, Kentucky
	7	Lecia J. Barker , Kathy Garvin-Doxas , Eric Roberts, What can computer science learn from a fine arts approach to teaching?, Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 23-27, 2005, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
	8	Stasko, J. and Hundhausen, C. (2004) Algorithm Visualization. In Fincher, S, and Petre, M. (Eds), pp. 199--228.

CITED BY 2

	Hilary J. Holz , Anne Applin , Bruria Haberman , Donald Joyce , Helen Purchase , Catherine Reed, Research methods in computing: what are they, and how should we teach them?, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.38 n.4, December 2006
	Carsten Schulte , Jens Bennedsen, What do teachers teach in introductory programming?, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Computing education research, September 09-10, 2006, Canterbury, United Kingdom