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