Quant QUAL QUAL and PCK and pedagogy
MM basics:
Justification for a Sequential Mixed Methods Design
The use of a sequential mixed methods design is justified in this study to comprehensively explore the integration of digital accessibility awareness within the school curriculum. This approach enables the systematic collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in distinct phases, each informing and enriching subsequent stages of the research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
Phase 1: Survey of Teacher Knowledge
The initial quantitative phase, involving a survey to assess teachers' knowledge and preparedness to teach digital accessibility, establishes a foundational understanding of current capabilities and gaps in professional awareness. Surveys are effective in generating generalisable data across a broad population and can reveal patterns or trends (Bryman, 2016). In this case, understanding teachers’ baseline knowledge is essential to contextualise the feasibility of curriculum integration and to identify potential training needs. This data provides an empirical basis for selecting informed participants and focus topics for the qualitative phase that follows.
Phase 2: Focus Group on Curriculum Integration
The second phase, a focus group with curriculum experts or practitioners, builds upon the survey findings to explore qualitatively where digital accessibility awareness could be situated within the existing national curriculum. Focus groups allow for the in-depth exploration of participants' views and facilitate interaction that can surface new ideas or concerns that may not emerge through individual interviews (Kitzinger, 1995). This phase allows stakeholders to discuss curricular constraints and opportunities, aligning expert opinion with the empirical insights gained from the survey. The sequential design ensures that the qualitative inquiry is rooted in and responsive to the quantitative findings, increasing its relevance and depth.
Phase 3: Pilot Study with Pupils
Finally, a pilot study involving the teaching of digital accessibility awareness to pupils at upper Key Stage 2 (ages 9–11) provides a practical test of curricular feasibility and pedagogical effectiveness. This phase serves as a form of design-based research, enabling iterative refinement of teaching methods based on pupil engagement and understanding (Barab & Squire, 2004). Qualitative feedback from pupils, combined with observational and possibly pre-/post-assessment data, offers insights into learner receptivity and conceptual grasp, thereby completing the loop from teacher readiness to curriculum design to learner response.
Rationale for the Sequential Order
The sequential order—quantitative → qualitative → intervention—is methodologically appropriate because each phase addresses a distinct but interrelated research objective, with earlier phases informing the development and design of later stages. This structure ensures that interventions are evidence-based and contextually grounded (Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006). Specifically, starting with a survey ensures a broad understanding of the current landscape, the focus group then delves into targeted curriculum design considerations, and the pilot study operationalises these insights in a classroom setting.
Alignment with Research Purpose
Given the exploratory nature of integrating a relatively novel topic—digital accessibility awareness—into an established curriculum, a mixed methods approach allows the research to remain flexible yet rigorous. It supports both breadth (through the survey) and depth (through the focus group and pilot study), which is vital in educational research addressing emerging digital literacies (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Furthermore, it aligns with the pragmatic paradigm, prioritising methodological pluralism to solve real-world educational problems (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).
References
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come.Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage Publications.
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the methodological approach taken to explore how digital accessibility awareness can be meaningfully integrated into the primary school curriculum. Given the complexity of teaching a relatively novel and multidisciplinary topic, a sequential mixed methods design was selected. This approach allows for the integration of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, supporting a comprehensive investigation of teacher knowledge, curriculum integration, and learner experience.
3.2 Research Design
A sequential mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) was employed, involving three distinct phases:
Quantitative Phase: A survey to assess teachers' knowledge and confidence in teaching digital accessibility.
Qualitative Phase: A focus group with educators and curriculum specialists to discuss where digital accessibility could be embedded within the current national curriculum.
Intervention Phase: A pilot study where pupils at Upper Key Stage 2 were taught a short module on digital accessibility awareness to gauge engagement and understanding.
Each phase informed the next, creating a cumulative, evidence-based exploration of the research problem.
3.3 Theoretical Frameworks
This research design is underpinned by two key theoretical frameworks:
3.3.1 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of Pedagogical Content Knowledge provides a lens for understanding the intersection of content mastery, pedagogical strategies, and knowledge of learners. The survey phase evaluates teachers’ PCK by assessing their understanding of digital accessibility and their ability to teach it effectively. The focus group explores curriculum knowledge and strategies for structuring content delivery, while the pilot study reveals how this knowledge is enacted in practice.
3.3.2 Pedagogy as Planned, Enacted, and Experienced
Nind, Curtin, and Hall’s (2016) framework frames pedagogy in three stages:
Planned: Seen in the curriculum design discussions during the focus group.
Enacted: Investigated through teacher implementation in the pilot study.
Experienced: Captured through pupil feedback and observed engagement during the pilot sessions.
This model allows the study to interrogate not only teacher intentions and practices but also learners’ responses to new pedagogical content.
3.4 Phase 1: Teacher Survey
A structured online survey was distributed to primary school teachers. It included both closed and open-ended questions, designed to assess:
Awareness of digital accessibility issues;
Confidence in teaching the subject;
Familiarity with relevant technologies and inclusive pedagogies.
The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic coding of open responses.
3.5 Phase 2: Focus Group
A purposively sampled focus group of educators and curriculum advisors was conducted to:
Identify appropriate curriculum entry points;
Discuss pedagogical strategies for digital accessibility;
Understand systemic and policy-level constraints.
A semi-structured protocol facilitated open dialogue. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed thematically.
3.6 Phase 3: Pilot Teaching Study
A short teaching intervention on digital accessibility was delivered to a Year 6 class. Data collection methods included:
Observation notes on pupil engagement and interaction;
Pupil responses to a reflective activity;
Informal feedback from the classroom teacher.
This phase provided insight into how digital accessibility can be taught effectively and how pupils perceive its relevance.
3.7 Ethical Considerations
The study adhered to institutional ethical guidelines. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, including parental consent for pupil involvement in the pilot. Data were anonymised, and participants had the right to withdraw at any stage.
3.8 Summary
The sequential mixed methods design allows for a multi-layered exploration of the pedagogical and curricular dimensions of teaching digital accessibility. It operationalises Shulman’s and Nind et al.'s theories by mapping teacher knowledge, curriculum planning, instructional practice, and learner experience in a coherent and structured manner.
Using a mixed methods QUAN → QUAL → QUAL (quantitative followed by two qualitative phases) research design offers a strategically layered approach to inquiry, where initial numeric data provides broad insights, and successive qualitative phases allow for deeper exploration, contextualisation, and theory-building. This design is especially useful in educational and social science research, where understanding both patterns and meanings is essential.
Here are the key benefits of using a QUAN → QUAL → QUAL design:
1. Breadth First, Then Depth
Quantitative data (QUAN) offers a broad overview of trends, prevalence, or gaps across a population.
This is followed by first-level qualitative inquiry, which (explores the ‘how’) explains the "why" and "how" behind the numerical patterns.
A second qualitative phase (e.g., a case study or intervention) then explores the findings in real-world or applied contexts.
✅ Benefit: Enables generalisation first, then rich interpretation and application. For example, if a survey finds that teachers lack confidence in teaching digital accessibility, the qualitative phases can explore the causes (e.g. lack of training, perceived difficulty) and test ways of addressing the issue.
2. Progressive Elaboration of Research Questions
Each phase refines or reorients the next:
Survey results help identify key knowledge gaps or participant segments.
The first qualitative phase (e.g. focus group) then explores stakeholder perceptions, helping to co-construct or refine curriculum ideas or policies.
The second qualitative phase (e.g. classroom implementation or case study) allows the researcher to test or enact these ideas, capturing participant experience and uncovering unexpected variables.
✅ Benefit: Promotes an iterative, responsive inquiry process where each phase builds logically and meaningfully on the last (Ivankova et al., 2006).
3. Triangulation and Complementarity
Triangulation: Using multiple methods increases the validity of findings by corroborating evidence across sources and approaches.
Complementarity: Each method adds something unique—quantitative methods provide scope, while qualitative methods provide depth and context (Greene et al., 1989).
✅ Benefit: This enhances the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings by showing consistency or explaining divergences across data types.
4. Engagement with Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives
QUAN surveys can gather views from a large sample (e.g. teachers, school leaders).
The first QUAL phase (e.g. a focus group) allows for collaborative dialogue with a targeted group (e.g. curriculum developers).
The second QUAL phase (e.g. a classroom pilot) captures learner or practitioner experience of an intervention or practice.
✅ Benefit: Ensures the research captures the perspectives of both macro-level stakeholders (policy, curriculum) and micro-level actors (teachers, pupils), offering a more complete picture.
5. Supports Theory Development and Practice Integration
QUAN data may support existing theories (e.g. lack of PCK in new domains).
The first QUAL phase can explore these theories contextually.
The final QUAL phase allows for "grounded theorising" or theory refinement based on authentic pedagogical experience.
✅ Benefit: Enables researchers to move from diagnosis (QUAN) to explanation (QUAL) to application or theorisation (QUAL)—creating actionable and research-informed practices.
6. Alignment with Educational Research Values
Educational research increasingly values co-construction of knowledge, contextual sensitivity, and impact on practice(Nind & Lewthwaite, 2018). The QUAN → QUAL → QUAL structure aligns well with these priorities.
✅ Benefit: It reflects a pragmatic paradigm that values multiple forms of knowledge, stakeholder engagement, and real-world impact.
Summary Table
| Phase | Method | Purpose | Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | QUAN (e.g. survey) | Identify patterns, gaps, general trends | Breadth and generalisability |
| 2 | QUAL (e.g. focus group) | Explore meanings, perceptions, and solutions | Depth and contextual understanding |
| 3 | QUAL (e.g. pilot study) | Test intervention or theory in practice | Application and insight into lived experience |
Key References
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
Nind, M., & Lewthwaite, S. (2018). Methods that teach: Developing pedagogic research methods, connecting teaching and research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(4), 398–410
PCK AND PEDAGOGY
Expanded Justification: Mixed Methods Design, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, and Pedagogy as Planned, Enacted and Experienced
The sequential mixed methods design outlined—beginning with a survey of teacher knowledge, followed by a focus group on curriculum integration, and culminating in a pilot teaching intervention with pupils—is not only methodologically appropriate, but also epistemologically aligned with two important educational frameworks: Shulman’s (1986; 1987) theory of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Nind, Curtin, and Hall’s (2016) model of pedagogy as planned, enacted and experienced.
Engagement with Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
Shulman’s seminal framework of Pedagogical Content Knowledge posits that effective teaching requires more than content knowledge or general pedagogical skills alone. Instead, it necessitates a blending of subject matter expertise with pedagogical strategies suited to conveying that content in ways that are accessible and meaningful to learners (Shulman, 1986). This research design engages directly with this concept in several phases:
The teacher survey phase evaluates teachers’ existing subject matter knowledge and their confidence or preparedness to translate this into pedagogically sound lessons. Digital accessibility is a specialized domain that intersects technology, ethics, and inclusion. Assessing PCK in this area reveals not just whether teachers know whatdigital accessibility is, but also whether they know how to teach it in developmentally appropriate and engaging ways to young learners.
The focus group addresses a crucial component of PCK: understanding how a new or complex topic like digital accessibility can be structured for teaching and integrated into existing curricular areas. Shulman (1987) emphasised that curricular knowledge and the understanding of instructional strategies are both essential components of PCK. The curriculum-focused discussion in the second phase helps identify conceptual entry points and pedagogical strategies, fulfilling this principle.
The pilot teaching intervention allows for the real-world enactment of PCK. It examines whether teachers can select appropriate representations, analogies, examples, and technologies that make the abstract principles of digital accessibility understandable to pupils at upper Key Stage 2.
By exploring the **full range of PCK—knowledge of learners, content, pedagogy, and curriculum—**this study will offer practical insights into how digital accessibility can be embedded meaningfully in teaching practice.
Alignment with Pedagogy as Planned, Enacted, and Experienced
The model of pedagogy as planned, enacted and experienced (Nind, Curtin & Hall, 2016) provides a valuable analytical lens for understanding how pedagogy operates at different stages of the educational process. This model emphasises that pedagogy is not just a static act of delivering content but a dynamic interaction between intentions, practice, and learner perceptions. The sequential research design maps clearly onto this model:
Pedagogy as Planned: The focus group phase involves curriculum experts or practitioners exploring how digital accessibility awareness can be intentionally designed into the curriculum. This reflects "planned" pedagogy—where learning objectives, sequence, and context are strategically aligned. The inclusion of stakeholders in this phase ensures that planning is both theoretically informed and practically feasible.
Pedagogy as Enacted: The pilot teaching phase explores how teaching plans are implemented in practice. This aligns with the "enacted" dimension of pedagogy, which highlights how teachers adapt, interpret, or negotiate curriculum goals within the classroom context (Nind et al., 2016). Observations and qualitative data from this phase will illuminate how pedagogical intentions are realized—or reshaped—during interaction with students.
Pedagogy as Experienced: Finally, the pupil response component in the pilot study captures the "experienced" dimension of pedagogy—the perspectives, interpretations, and meanings constructed by learners. Nind et al. (2016) stress that learners' experiences are central to understanding the effectiveness and inclusivity of pedagogy. Here, children's engagement, understanding, and reflections on learning digital accessibility provide direct insight into the learner experience.
By explicitly attending to all three layers of pedagogy—planned, enacted, and experienced—the research not only analyses the practicalities of teaching digital accessibility but also investigates its pedagogical coherence and inclusivity from multiple perspectives.
Summary and Synthesis
In sum, the sequential mixed methods design is not only appropriate for addressing complex educational research questions across stages of knowledge gathering, curriculum development, and classroom experimentation; it also offers a conceptually robust framework for addressing theoretical models of teacher knowledge (Shulman) and pedagogical practice (Nind et al.). The survey, focus group, and pilot study form an interdependent sequence that collectively illuminates how teachers understand, plan for, implement, and reflect on teaching digital accessibility—a topic of growing importance in equitable digital education.
References
Nind, M., Curtin, A., & Hall, K. (2016). Researching pedagogy: Methodological issues and innovations. British Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 399–416.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage Publications.
Comments
Post a Comment