INTEGRATING QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE, AND MIXED METHODS APPROACHES INTO AN INQUIRY COURSE SEQUENCE JOHN L. HOFFMAN, CLAIRE CAVALLARO, & EUGENE FUJIMOTO

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON

OVERVIEW

CAL STATE FULLERTON CONTEXT

3-year cohort-based Ed.D. with specializations in P-12 and Community College Leadership

6 Terms of Coursework (Years 1-2), each consisting of two core courses plus a small group Research Support Seminar

Students complete dissertations in Year 3

If Year 4 is needed, students return to the classroom to complete their dissertations under the guidance of a faculty instructor (students retain their original dissertation committee)

ASSUMPTIONS

Our graduates will face new and increased demands to lead inquiry and evaluation efforts in order to meet increased expectations for data-informed decision-making and educational accountability

We value authentic assessment and we also believe that academic exercises should be evaluated in light of students’ development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that can be applied to practice as well as by products that have direct application to practice

ASSUMPTIONS

Educational inquiry and the social and moral consequences that

derive from its interpretation and application are too important to

be left in the hands of experts, and too significant to be ignored

and trivialized by the uninformed and indifferent.*

*Language adapted from Peter Gomes (1996)

CENTRAL PROBLEM

CSUF employs a “traditional” five-chapter dissertation, but with emphasis on educational leadership outcomes

The traditional research sequence did not serve well dissertations driven by problems of practice

Many students’ research questions—as well as the pragmatic realities of their studies—pointed to mixed methods designs

In response, we piloted a three course “inquiry sequence” within the community college specialization beginning in Spring, 2009

INQUIRY I (SPRING – 16 WEEKS)

Preceded by EDD 627: Epistemology

EDD 611: Inquiry I 10 weeks quantitative (QUAN) (philosophical foundation, research designs,

bivariate statistics)

3 weeks qualitative (QUAL) (philosophical foundation)

3 weeks mixed methods (MM) (philosophical foundation, exemplar studies)

INQUIRY II (SUMMER – 8 WEEKS)

EDD 612: Inquiry II 5 weeks (10 sessions) QUAL (research designs, data collection, coding and

analysis, reporting)

2 weeks (4 sessions) QUAN (multivariate statistics)

1 week (2 sessions) MM (mixed methods designs and analysis)

INQUIRY III (FALL – 16 WEEKS)

EDD 613: Inquiry III 3 weeks QUAN, QUAL, and MM wrap-up

2 weeks addressing validity and trustworthiness, connected back to philosophical foundations

10 weeks on project/contract-based on the elements of Chapter 3

1 week connecting forward to the dissertation proposal

Followed by EDD 626B: Integrative Seminar (Proposal Support)

THE RESEARCH SUPPORT SEMINAR

TERM RESEARCH SUPPORT SEMINAR INQUIRY SEQUENCE

1ST Fall 670a: Literature Analysis; Topic Problem (627: Epistemology) 1st Spring 670b: Research Questions; Practice Chapter1 611: Inquiry I 1st Summer 670c: Qual. Exam Prep; Literature Development 612: Inquiry II 2nd Fall 670d: Practice Chapter 2 613: Inquiry III 2nd Spring 670e: Proposal Development (626b: Integrative Sem.) 2nd Summer 670f: Proposal and IRB (604: Forecasting)

(630: Leadership)

LESSONS LEARNED & CHALLENGES

We now ask students using QUAN-only or QUAL-only approaches to justify why they are not using MM.

Some faculty do not have the methodological breadth necessary to teach these classes. Others have strong commitments to teaching QUAN-only or QUAL-only courses.

We lose some QUAN/QUAL depth to add MM—but not much.

Some MM designs can be a barrier to 3-year completion goals—and the same is true for some QUAN and QUAL designs.

GROUP WORK

PROCESS OVERVIEW

Table Hosts

Three Discussions Methodology Courses for Educational Leadership

The Inquiry Sequence Model

Approaches to the Research Support Seminar

Table Host Reports

Concluding Comments

DISCUSSION #1: METHODOLOGY COURSES FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Prompts:

What methodology-related outcomes must Ed.D. students master in order to be effective leaders in the field?

What are the strengths and/or limitations of “traditional” methodology sequences?

When, where, and how should we teach mixed methods?

DISCUSSION #2: THE INQUIRY SEQUENCE MODEL

Review: Inquiry I: Phil. Foundations;

10 weeks QUAN; 3 weeks QUAL; 3 weeks MM

Inquiry II: 10 weeks QUAL; 4 weeks QUAN; 2 weeks MM

Inquiry III: 3 weeks QUAN, QUAL, and MM; 2 weeks validity; 10 weeks Chap. 3

Prompts: Compare and contrast your

research methodology approach. What do you like? What could be improved upon?

Discuss the role of mixed methods within the sequence.

DISCUSSION #3: RESEARCH SUPPORT SEMINARS

Review:

670a: Topics Problems; Lit.

670b: RQs; Practice Chap. 1

670c: Exam Prep; Lit. Dev.

670d: Practice Chap. 2

670e: Proposal Development

670f: Proposal & IRB

Prompts:

Compare and contrast your research support approach. What do you like? What could be improved upon?

In what ways does this sequence/your sequence achieve educational leadership outcomes?

TABLE HOST REPORTS AND CONCLUSION

CONTACT INFORMATION

CSUF Ed.D.: edd@fullerton.exchange.edu; ed.fullerton.edu/edd; @CSUFEDD; 657.278.4023

John L. Hoffman: jhoffman@fullerton.edu

Claire Cavallaro: ccavallaro@fullerton.edu

Eugene Fujimoto: efujimoto@fullerton.edu