References
Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of mixed methods research, 4 (2), 103-126.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689809360805
Arastaman, G., Fidan, I. O., & Fidan, T. (2018). Validity and reliability in qualitative research: A theoretical analysis. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 15 (1), 37-75.http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2018.61
Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: a pedagogical framework for technology-ıntegrated social constructivism.Res Sci Educ , 47, 283–303.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research . New York: Free Press.
Biddle, C., & Schafft, K. A. (2015). Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work Pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9 (4), 320-334.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689814533157
Bietsa, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research . Pages 95–117 in A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, (eds). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1 (1), 8-22.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2345678906290531
Canipe, M. M., & Coronado Verdugo, J. Y. (2020). The influence of a science methods course on prospective elementary teachers’ visions of science teaching. Journal of Educational Research & Practice ,10(1), 299-316.https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2020.10.1.19
Cevizci, A. (1999). Felsefe sözlüğü (3. baskı). İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.
Christ, T. W. (2013). The worldview matrix as a strategy when designing mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7 (1), 110-118.https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.1.110
Coates, A. (2021). The prevalence of philosophical assumptions described in mixed methods research in education. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15 (2), 171-189.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689820958210
Crasnow, S. (2009). Feminist perspectives on science.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage
Creswell, J. W. (2003). A framework for design. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach . 9-11.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (Third Edition). California: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach . Sage publications.
Çevik, M. (2018). Investigating STEM semantics and perceptions of engineer candidates and pre-service teachers: A mixed-method study.International Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 1-18.
Demiral, Ü. (2018). Examination of critical thinking skills of preservice science teachers: a perspective of social constructivist theory. Journal of Education and Learning , 7 (4), 179-190.
Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs.Qualitative inquiry, 16 (6), 419-427.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077800410364608
DeWitt, J., & Archer, L. (2017). Participation in informal science learning experiences: the rich get richer? International Journal of Science Education , Part B, 7 (4), 356-373.https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1360531
Dinçer, S. (2018). Content analysis in scientific research: Meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, and descriptive content analysis.Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 7 (1), 176-190.https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.363159
Doğan, N. (2003). Pragmatizmin felsefi temelleri. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20 (1), 83-93.
Fàbregues, S., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2017). Addressing quality in mixed methods research: A review and recommendations for a future agenda. Quality & Quantity, 51 (6), 2847-2863.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0449-4
Fettahlıoğlu, P., & Kaleci, D. (2018). Online argumentation implementation in the development of critical thinking disposition.Journal of Education and Training Studies . 6 (3), 127-136.
Fredricks, J. A., Hofkens, T., Wang, M. T., Mortenson, E., & Scott, P. (2018). Supporting girls’ and boys’ engagement in maths and science learning: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55 (2), 271-298.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21419
Gårdebjer, S., Larsson, A., & Adawi, T. (2017). The babushka concept–an instructional sequence to enhance laboratory learning in science education. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 3 (2), 213-222.https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.326757
Ghiara, V. (2020). Disambiguating the role of paradigms in mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 14 (1), 11-25.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689818819928
Gholam, A. P. (2017). Visual Thinking Routines: A mixed-methods approach applied to student teachers at the American University in Dubai.Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education, 9 (1), 12-27. Retrieved fromhttps://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol9/iss1/2
Greene, J., & Hall, J. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism . Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, 119-167.
Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation: Uncovering subjugated knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6 (2), 137-146.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689812437184
Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of mixed methods research, 7 (4), 302-327.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689813479449
Ivankova, N. V., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Teaching mixed methods research: using a socio-ecological framework as a pedagogical approach for addressing the complexity of the field. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21 (4), 409-424.https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1427604
James, W. (2004). Pragmatism and four essays from The Meaning of Truth, Meridian Books.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26.https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X033007014
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1 (2), 112-133.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689806298224
Kavai, P., De Villiers, R., Fraser, W., Sommerville, J., & Strydom, N. (2015). Animal organ dissections in high schools: is there more than just cutting? African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19 (2), 143-155.https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC171553
Kim, S. Y., & Hamdan Alghamdi, A. K. (2019). Female secondary students’ and their teachers’ perceptions of science learning environments within the context of science education reform in Saudi Arabia.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17 (8), 1475-1496.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-09946-z
Korkmaz, H., Thomas, J. A., Tatar, N., & Altunay, S. (2017). Students’ out-of-school experiences, job priorities, and perceptions toward themselves as a scientist: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 9 (1), 63-80.
Lamar, M. F., Wilhelm, J. A., & Cole, M. (2018). A mixed-methods comparison of teachers’ lunar modeling lesson implementation and student learning outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 111 (1), 108-123.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1220356
Lane, S., Hoang, J. G., Leighton, J. P., & Rissanen, A. (2021). Engagement and satisfaction: Mixed-method analysis of blended learning in the sciences. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21 (1), 100-122.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00139-5
Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications.
Leckenby, D., & Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2007). Feminist approaches to mixed-methods research. Feminist research practice: A primer, 249-291.
Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies . In J. M. Morse (Ed.). Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. (p. 95-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, 1986 (30), 73-84.https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
Maxwell, J. A. (2016). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 10 (1), 12-27.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689815571132
Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.) içinde, Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., s. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2017). Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7 (2), 181-201.https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573
Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research: a guide to pattern and application . S. Turan (Translation Ed.). Nobel Publication Distribution.
Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative emancipatory perspective. A. Tashakkori ve C. Teddlie (Eds.) içinde, Handbook of mixed-method social & behavioral research (s. 135-164). Thousand Oaks,
Mertens, D. M., & Hesse‐Biber, S. (2013). Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 2013 (138), 5-13.https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20053
Mills, G. E. & Gay, L. R. (2016). Educational research: competencies for analysis and applications . (11. Baskı) USA: Pearson Education.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Physical Therapy, 89 (9), 873-880.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 48-76.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2345678906292462
Murphy, J. P. (1990). Pragmatism: From Peirce to Davidson . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Özbugutu, E. (2021). An Investigation into Anxiety about the Science Lesson through a Mixed Model. Journal of Education and Learning, 10 (1), 104-117.
Özkale, U., & Kanadli, S. (2021). An investigation of feedback strategies used by science teachers in the classroom setting: A mixed-methods research. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17 (1), 439-457.
Özkul, H., & Özden, M. (2020). Investigation of the effects of engineering-oriented STEM integration activities on scientific process skills and STEM career interests: A mixed-methods study. Education and Science, 45 (204), 41-63.https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8870
Palinkas, L. A., Aarons, G. A., Horwitz, S., Chamberlain, P., Hurlburt, M., & Landsverk, J. (2011). Mixed method designs in implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38 (1), 44-53.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0314-z
Pawson, R. (2013). The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto . Sage.
Phillips, D. C., Phillips, D. C. & Burbules, N. C. (2000).Postpositivism and educational research . Rowman & Littlefield.
Reilly, J. M., McGivney, E., Dede, C., & Grotzer, T. (2021). Assessing science identity exploration in immersive virtual environments: a mixed-methods approach. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89 (3), 468-489.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1712313
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9 (5), 627-643.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0193841X8500900505
Rüschenpöhler, L., & Markic, S. (2019). A mixed-methods approach to culture-sensitive academic self-concept research. Education Sciences, 9 (3), 240.https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030240
Scogin, S. C., Cavlazoglu, B., LeBlanc, J., & Stuessy, C. L. (2018). Inspiring science achievement: a mixed-methods examination of the practices and characteristics of successful science programs in diverse high schools. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13 (3), 649-670.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9796-7
Scott, P. J., & Briggs, J. S. (2009). A pragmatist argument for mixed methodology in medical informatics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3 (3), 223-241.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689809334209
Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 10 (4), 319-334.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689815575861
Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed-methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual review of sociology, 37 , 57-86.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102657
Solomon, E. D., Repice, M. D., Mutambuki, J. M., Leonard, D. A., Cohen, C. A., Luo, J., & Frey, R. F. (2018). A mixed-methods investigation of clicker implementation styles in STEM. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17 (2), ar30.https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0180
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1989). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research . Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioral sciences: US perspective. International journal of social research methodology, 6 (1), 61-77.https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570305055
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2009). Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods, 2 , 283-317.https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348858.n9
Taşçıoğlu, R., Gürsoy, İ. N., Kaçar, E., Erbaş, E., ve Fırat, M. (2022). Methodological trends of 500 most-cited educational research articles in the last decade. Journal of Mixed Methods Studies , 5, 1-16.https://doi.org/10.14689/jomes.2022.5.1
Thiry, H., Archie, T., Arreola-Pena, M., & Laursen, S. (2017). Linkages between youth diversity and organizational and program characteristics of out-of-school-time science programs: a mixed-methods study.International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7 (2), 121-145.https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1105397
Türer, C., & Aydın, M. (2019). Utilitarianism and Pragmatism: Differences, similarities. Journal of Philosophy and Social Sciences , (28), 121-149.
Ugras, M., & Asiltürk, E. (2018). Perceptions of science teachers on the implementation of seven principles for good practice in education by Chickering and Gamson in courses. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6 (3), 170-183.
Ültay, E., & Alev, N. (2017). Investigating the effect of the activities based on explanation assisted REACT strategy on learning ımpulse, momentum, and collisions topics. Journal of Education and Practice, 8 (7), 174-186.
Webb-Williams, J. (2018). Science self-efficacy in the primary classroom: Using mixed methods to investigate sources of self-efficacy.Research in Science Education, 48 (5), 939-961.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9592-0
Wilson, L., Ho, S., & Brookes, R. H. (2018). Student perceptions of teamwork within assessment tasks in undergraduate science degrees.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43 (5), 786-799.https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1409334
Yvonne Feilzer, M. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of mixed methods research, 4 (1), 6-16.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689809349691
Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., & Barrett, M. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly , 855-879.https://www.jstor.org/stable/43826004