Theory plays an important role in research and generally underpins the development of a theoretical or conceptual framework in a study. Novice researchers and students are often required to include some form of conceptual or theoretical model in scholarly work with little guidance about the direct, iterative development and implementation involved in the process (Ravitch & Riggan, 2017). Many dissertations are expected to include a section that uses theory to situate the study broadly (Marshall & Rossman, 2016) and grant funding review committees are increasingly expecting authors to outline a specific theoretical or conceptual model (Fetters, 2020). In mixed methods research, a theoretical model has been described as a methodological necessity (Evans et al., 2011). While there are textbooks and articles that have made important contributions in advancing researchers’ understanding of the use of theory in the development of conceptual and theoretical models (Fetters, 2020; Miles et al., 2020), there is still a dearth of guidance on how to do this especially in mixed methods research (MMR). Mixed methods research refers to an emergent methodology of research that advances the systematic integration, or “mixing” of quantitative and qualitative data within a single investigation or sustained program of inquiry (Wisdom & Creswell, 2013). As an emergent methodology, there is still a need for guidelines and illustrations of how to integrate theory in MMR. The omission of these guidelines from texts does not exclude researchers from the need to include a theoretical model in the study (Crawford, 2020). The purpose of this paper is to provide an illustration of how a theoretical model can be used in a mixed methods study to guide the initial conceptualization of the study, data collection, analysis and presentation through the iterative development and implementation of the theoretical model.
理论在研究中起着重要作用，通常支撑着研究中理论或概念框架的发展。新手研究人员和学生经常需要在学术工作中包含某种形式的概念或理论模型，而对于过程中涉及的直接、迭代开发和实施几乎没有指导（Ravitch & Riggan），2017）。预计许多论文将包括一个使用理论来广泛定位研究的部分（Marshall & Rossman，2016 年），并且资助审查委员会越来越期望作者概述特定的理论或概念模型（Fetters，2020 年）。在混合方法研究中，理论模型被描述为方法论的必要性（Evans et al.， 2011）。虽然有些教科书和文章在促进研究人员理解理论在概念和理论模型开发中的应用方面做出了重要贡献（Fetters，2020 年;Miles et al.， 2020），但仍然缺乏关于如何做到这一点的指导，尤其是在混合方法研究 （MMR） 中。混合方法研究是指一种新兴的研究方法，该方法推进了定量和定性数据的系统整合或“混合”，在一个单一的调查或持续的调查计划中（Wisdom & Creswell，2013）。作为一种新兴的方法，仍然需要如何将理论整合到 MMR 中的指南和插图。文本中省略这些指南并不排除研究人员需要在研究中包括理论模型（Crawford，2020 年）。 本文的目的是提供一个说明，说明如何在混合方法研究中使用理论模型，以通过理论模型的迭代开发和实施来指导研究的初始概念化、数据收集、分析和演示。

Literature Review  文献综述

The Role of Theory in Research
理论在研究中的作用

A theory can be defined as “…a set of interrelated concepts, definitions and propositions that explain or predict events or situations by specifying relationships among variables” (NIH Office of Behavioural and Social Science, 2018). Theory in research helps us to rationalize, explain or predict phenomena that occur in the world (Creswell, 2014b); to translate research into practice (Nilsen, 2015); to rationalize and frame data collection, analysis and presentation in a study (Fetters, 2020) and to explain how things work (Fetters, 2020; Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Nilsen, 2015).
理论可以定义为“......一组相互关联的概念、定义和命题，通过指定变量之间的关系来解释或预测事件或情况“（NIH 行为与社会科学办公室，2018 年）。研究中的理论帮助我们合理化、解释或预测世界上发生的现象（Creswell，2014b）;将研究转化为实践（Nilsen，2015 年）;在研究中合理化和构建数据收集、分析和呈现（Fetters，2020 年），并解释事物是如何运作的（Fetters，2020 年;Johnson & Christensen， 2017;Nilsen，2015 年）。

In quantitative research, theory often serves as the starting point outlining the study’s propositions and hypothesis to be tested; in a qualitative study it generally serves as interpretive lens; and it is used for framing the study (Creswell, 2014b, 2016). In a mixed methods study, theory can be used as the starting point, framing the research questions, purpose and other components and then be modified to serve as theoretical lens and then serve as the end point of the study (Creswell 2014a; Fetters, 2020). Through the use of theory as the starting and end point in a mixed methods study, the role of theory is extended beyond the commonly identified roles in quantitative and qualitative research to being used as a tool for integration through analytic reflection on the findings of the quantitative and qualitative data. The theory or theories used in a study are generally incorporated in a diagram labeled as a conceptual or theoretical framework.
在定量研究中，理论通常作为概述研究的命题和要检验的假设的起点;在定性研究中，它通常用作解释镜头;它用于构建研究框架（Creswell，2014b，2016）。 在混合方法研究中，理论可以作为起点，构建研究问题、目的和其他组成部分，然后进行修改以作为理论镜头，然后作为研究的终点（Creswell 2014a;Fetters，2020 年）。通过使用理论作为混合方法研究的起点和终点，理论的作用超越了定量和定性研究中通常确定的作用，通过对定量和定性数据结果的分析反思，将其用作整合工具。研究中使用的理论或理论通常包含在标记为概念或理论框架的图表中。

Although distinguishing characteristics of theoretical and conceptual frameworks exist, the conventions used for differentiation may vary depending on the field (Nilsen, 2015) thus creating a “blurry line” between the two terms (Fetters, 2020, p . 30). Rather than dedicating a significant portion of this paper to clarifying these two terms, for the remainder of this article I adopt the perspective of Fetters (2020) and use the term theoretical model in referring to the use of theory in the framework that guides the study.
尽管理论和概念框架存在不同的特征，但用于区分的约定可能因领域而异（Nilsen，2015 年），从而在这两个术语之间形成了一条“模糊的界限”（Fetters，2020 年，第 30 页）。在本文中，我没有用很大一部分来澄清这两个术语，而是在本文的其余部分采用了 Fetters （2020） 的观点，并使用理论模型一词来指代在指导研究的框架中使用理论。

Theoretical Models  理论模型

A theoretical model provides a simplification of a phenomenon or a specific aspect of a phenomenon (Nilsen, 2015) with a more descriptive context-based explanation. However, these models can overtime become more generally applied, “well-established” theory. Fetters (2020) explains that theoretical models may fall under broad frameworks—such as feminist theory and critical theory—or serve as middle range theories with more specific focus on a particular phenomenon—such as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (TPACK).
理论模型提供了现象或现象的特定方面的简化 （Nilsen， 2015），并提供了更具描述性的基于上下文的解释。然而，这些模型可以随着时间的推移成为更普遍应用的“成熟”理论。Fetters （2020） 解释说，理论模型可能属于广泛的框架——例如女权主义理论和批判理论——或者作为更具体地关注特定现象的中间理论——例如技术教育内容知识框架 （TPACK）。

The process of building a theoretical model involves critically assessing existing theories and empirical studies from the literature to choose the main concepts, factors and variables related to the study. The theoretical model constitutes the researcher’s first analytic display providing a visual representation of the main conceptual ideas and how they interact and interplay (Miles et al., 2020). Creswell et al. (2003) state that the theoretical model often informs the purpose and questions being asked. It also provides a rationale for the study (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). One of the key benefits of a theoretical model is that it “forces you to be selective—to decide which things are most important; which relationships are likely to be meaningful” (Miles et al., 2020, p. 15). In selecting the main variables and propositions for the theoretical model, a review of literature generally informs the development of the theoretical model (Onwuegbuzie & Frels, 2015).
构建理论模型的过程包括从文献中批判性地评估现有理论和实证研究，以选择与研究相关的主要概念、因素和变量。该理论模型构成了研究人员的第一个分析展示，提供了主要概念思想以及它们如何相互作用和相互作用的视觉表示（Miles et al.， 2020）。Creswell et al. （2003） 指出，理论模型通常为目的和提出的问题提供信息。它还为这项研究提供了基本原理（Marshall & Rossman， 2016）。理论模型的主要好处之一是它“迫使你有选择——决定哪些事情最重要;哪些关系可能有意义“（Miles 等人，2020 年，第 15 页）。在为理论模型选择主要变量和命题时，文献回顾通常会为理论模型的发展提供信息（Onwuegbuzie & Frels， 2015）。

Using Theoretical Models in Mixed Methods Studies
在混合方法研究中使用理论模型

According to Gates (2008) “a mixed method approach offers a way to develop and enhance theory” owing to “the iterative nature of theorizing, evaluation, and theory refinement, entailing both deductive and inductive procedure” (p. 2). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2012) posit that in MMR some researchers start from theories or abstract generalizations, whereas others start from data points, but regardless of the starting point, the cycle may be seen as moving from being grounded in data or results through inductive logic to general inferences (theory or abstract generalizations). It may also then move from those general inferences (or theory) through deductive logic to tentative predictions or hypotheses related to outcomes or results (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2012). This suggests that a researcher may start from testing predictions, theories, and hypothesis, and then move to a process of gaining a more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon then to generating theory.
根据 Gates （2008） 的说法，“混合方法提供了一种发展和增强理论的方法”，因为“理论化、评估和理论改进的迭代性质，需要演绎和归纳程序”（第 2 页）。Teddlie 和 Tashakkori （2012） 假设在 MMR 中，一些研究人员从理论或抽象概括开始，而另一些研究人员则从数据点开始，但无论起点如何，循环都可以被视为从通过归纳逻辑以数据或结果为基础转变为一般推理（理论或抽象概括）。然后，它也可能从那些通过演绎逻辑的一般推断（或理论）转变为与结果或结果相关的暂定预测或假设（Teddlie & Tashakkori，2012）。这表明研究人员可能从测试预测、理论和假设开始，然后转向对现象有更深入的理解，然后产生理论。

Several mixed methods studies have sought to develop a theoretical model from a social science perspective by drawing from the diverse theories found in the social sciences in whole or in part as a guide for the study (Creswell, 2014a). The model is often placed at the beginning of the study as an a priori theoretical model guiding the questions/hypothesis, followed by a description of how it informs the quantitative and qualitative components—the major relationships and application of the theory in previous studies (Creswell, 2014a). A diagram illustrating the direction of the proposed relationships among variables and concepts is usually presented and this theory is then used as a guide for both the quantitative and qualitative components; then finally, the framework is revisited at the end of the study comparing the findings to the use of the theory in previous studies (Creswell, 2014a).
一些混合方法研究试图通过全部或部分借鉴社会科学中的各种理论作为研究指南，从社会科学的角度发展理论模型（Creswell，2014a）。该模型通常放在研究的开头，作为指导问题/假设的先验理论模型，然后描述它如何为定量和定性组成部分提供信息——该理论在以前研究中的主要关系和应用（Creswell，2014a）。通常会提供一张图表来说明变量和概念之间拟议关系的方向，然后将该理论用作定量和定性成分的指南;最后，在研究结束时重新审视该框架，将研究结果与以前研究中该理论的使用进行比较（Creswell，2014a）。

The approach to using a theoretical model to guide MMR is evolving to include a more interactive approach. Fetters (2020) explains that in a mixed methods study involving a sequential design, theoretical models can be developed by engaging in a process of developing an initial model, testing it, then modifying the model based on the findings, broadening the lens in framing the next component of the study and then integrating the findings at the end to present a more comprehensive emergent model explaining how and why a phenomenon operates as it does within the local context (Fetters, 2020; Hanson et al., 2005). The illustration provided in this paper aligns with the explanation provided by Fetters (2020) evolving throughout the study to provide an optimal representation and explanation derived from the overall interpretation of the integrated results.
使用理论模型指导 MMR 的方法正在不断发展，以包括一种更具交互性的方法。Fetters （2020） 解释说，在涉及顺序设计的混合方法研究中，可以通过参与开发初始模型、对其进行测试，然后根据研究结果修改模型、拓宽框架来构建研究的下一个组成部分，然后在最后整合研究结果以提出一个更全面的涌现模型，解释现象如何以及为什么在内部运作当地环境（Fetters，2020 年;Hanson et al.， 2005）。本文中提供的插图与 Fetters （2020） 提供的解释一致，在整个研究中不断发展，以提供从综合结果的整体解释中得出的最佳表示和解释。

Study Illustration: Using the Theoretical Model to Guide Data Collection, Analysis, and Integration in an Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Study
研究插图：使用理论模型指导解释性顺序混合方法研究中的数据收集、分析和整合

The study conducted received ethical approval from my university’s ethical review board. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell, 2014b) was employed in conducting a study with 248 teachers in secondary schools in Jamaica. The study sought to explore teachers’ decisions and actions as they used technology in their classrooms. Figure 1 outlines the procedural steps that I engaged in to develop, modify, and use the theoretical model in the three phases of my study.
所进行的研究得到了我所在大学伦理审查委员会的伦理批准。在对牙买加 248 名中学教师进行的研究中，采用了解释性顺序混合方法设计 （Creswell， 2014b）。该研究旨在探索教师在课堂上使用技术时的决定和行动。图 1 概述了我在研究的三个阶段中为开发、修改和使用理论模型而参与的程序步骤。

Phase I: Quantitative  第一阶段：定量

At the start of the quantitative phase, developing the theoretical model was an important step. The theoretical model was formulated based on extant literature and indicated the existing relationship among its concepts, dimensions, constructs, and variables.
在定量阶段开始时，开发理论模型是重要的一步。该理论模型是根据现有文献制定的，并表明了其概念、维度、结构和变量之间的现有关系。

To develop the theoretical model, I had to decide on the main variables that underpinned teachers’ decisions to use technology and identify possible control variables. I conducted a search of the literature to identify the main variables and theories that had been identified as explaining the drivers of human decisions and actions. The variable belief was selected owing to its central focus in the body of literature across both the psychological and educational fields (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Pajares, 1992; Ravitz et al., 2000). “Reliance on belief in understanding and predicting behavior is widespread” (Porot & Mandelbaum, 2019, p. 1).
为了开发理论模型，我必须确定支撑教师决定使用技术的主要变量并确定可能的控制变量。我对文献进行了搜索，以确定已被确定为解释人类决策和行动驱动因素的主要变量和理论。之所以选择可变信念，是因为它在心理学和教育领域的文学主体中都处于中心焦点（Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich，2010;Pajares， 1992;Ravitz et al.， 2000）。“对理解和预测行为的信念的依赖是普遍的”（Porot & Mandelbaum，2019 年，第 1 页）。

Once the main variable was identified, I then narrowed my focus to examine the role of beliefs in shaping use of technology in the classroom. Several studies were identified that supported belief as central in shaping use of technology (Admiraal et al., 2017; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). These studies also proposed the existence of different types of beliefs—subsets of beliefs that may encompass both teacher-centered and learner-centered beliefs. This resulted in the proposition of two sets of beliefs that are central to teachers’ decisions and use of technology: (i) pedagogic beliefs (i.e., beliefs about how students learn best) and (ii) technology beliefs (i.e., beliefs about how technology should be used in the teaching and learning process). The literature also suggested that differences in teachers’ use of technology are related to the extent that there is alignment among the technology beliefs, pedagogic beliefs, and use of technology (Angers & Machtmes, 2005; Becker & Riel, 2000; Ertmer et al., 2012). This resulted in a decision to propose alignment hypotheses as part of the theoretical model. Additionally, the results of previous studies had found that factors such as gender, age, teaching experience, subject taught, school type, contextual inhibitors, and involvement in professional development may impact on the use of technology and beliefs (Ahmed, 2013; Jamalzadeh & Shahsavar, 2015; Roberts et al., 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2012). These were identified as extraneous or control variables (Creswell, 2014a) that were also included in the theoretical model.
一旦确定了主要变量，我就缩小了我的关注范围，以研究信念在塑造课堂技术使用中的作用。确定了几项研究支持信念是塑造技术使用的核心（Admiraal 等人，2017 年;Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich， 2010;Windschitl & Sahl，2002 年）。这些研究还提出了不同类型的信念的存在——信念的子集可能包括以教师为中心和以学习者为中心的信念。这导致了两组信念的命题，这些信念对教师的决策和技术使用至关重要：（i） 教学信念（即关于学生如何最好地学习的信念）和 （ii） 技术信念（即关于在教学过程中应如何使用技术的信念）。文献还表明，教师使用技术的差异与技术信念、教学信念和技术使用之间的一致性程度有关（Angers & Machtmes， 2005;Becker & Riel， 2000;Ertmer et al.， 2012）。这导致决定提出对齐假设作为理论模型的一部分。此外，先前的研究结果发现，性别、年龄、教学经验、教授的科目、学校类型、情境抑制因素和参与专业发展等因素可能会影响技术和信仰的使用（Ahmed，2013 年;Jamalzadeh & Shahsavar， 2015;Roberts et al.， 2011;Venkatesh et al.， 2012）。这些被确定为无关变量或控制变量 （Creswell， 2014a），它们也包含在理论模型中。

Based on this review of the literature, I proposed four main hypotheses guiding the theoretical model:
基于对文献的回顾，我提出了指导理论模型的四个主要假设：

1. Teachers’ pedagogic beliefs (beliefs about teaching) are related to teachers’ technology beliefs (beliefs about how to use technology in teaching and learning).
   教师的教学信念（关于教学的信念）与教师的技术信念（关于如何在教学中使用技术的信念）有关。
2. Teachers’ pedagogic beliefs and technology beliefs predict variance in teachers’ use of technology.
   教师的教学信念和技术信念预测了教师使用技术的差异。
3. Teachers’ pedagogic beliefs, technology beliefs and use of technology are generally aligned in teacher-centered or learner-centered ways.
   教师的教学信念、技术信念和对技术的使用通常以教师为中心或以学习者为中心。
4. The extent that teachers’ pedagogic beliefs and technology beliefs predict. variability in use of technology may be influenced either negatively or positively by age, gender, years of teaching experience, subject taught, school type, involvement in professional development, and inhibitors (both internal and external);
   教师的教学信念和技术信念的预测程度。年龄、性别、教学经验年限、教授的科目、学校类型、专业发展的参与以及抑制因素（内部和外部）可能会对技术使用的可变性产生消极或积极的影响;

Once the hypotheses were stated, I then proceeded to construct the diagram of the theoretical model. The diagram was accompanied by a discussion of the variables that were selected for inclusion and connections being proposed between the variables with reference to the literature. Figure 2 provides a visual representation of the theoretical model developed.
一旦假设被陈述出来，我就开始构建理论模型的图表。该图表附有对选择纳入的变量的讨论，以及参考文献提出的变量之间的联系。图 2 提供了所开发理论模型的可视化表示。

As Figure 2 shows, hypotheses one and two underpinned the concepts and relationships presented in the green rectangle labeled “Teachers’ Beliefs and Use of Technology”, the third hypothesis was presented in the purple rectangle labeled “Continuum of Pedagogic Alignment”. And the fourth hypothesis was represented in the blue rectangle labeled “Control Variables”. The diagram was accompanied by an explanation of the relationships being proposed among these variables substantiated by existing literature.
如图 2 所示，假设一和假设二支撑了标有 “教师的信念和技术使用” 的绿色矩形中呈现的概念和关系，第三个假设在标有 “Continuum of Pedagogic Alignment” 的紫色矩形中呈现。第四个假设在标有“Control Variables”的蓝色矩形中表示。该图表附有对现有文献证实的这些变量之间所提出的关系的解释。

Figure 3 presents excerpts from that section to illustrate how the discussion was formulated and presented. Each excerpt from the paragraphs supported the graphic presented and explained the variables under investigation and justifies how the relationships proposed were informed by existing theories and empirical studies. Note however that in the actual study the paragraphs contained a more detailed discussion supported by the literature.
图 3 显示了该部分的摘录，以说明讨论是如何制定和呈现的。段落中的每段摘录都支持图表、呈现和解释正在调查的变量，并证明所提出的关系如何由现有理论和实证研究提供信息。但请注意，在实际研究中，这些段落包含了由文献支持的更详细的讨论。

Having developed the theoretical model, the next step involved operationalizing the main variables to test the model using multiple items on a questionnaire. The three main variables—pedagogic beliefs, technology beliefs, and use of technology- were specified by developing items that reflected theories, models, and research from the extant literature. As stated by Onwuegbuzie and Frels (2015), a series of literature reviews, as needed, are generally conducted throughout the primary research process. The items that were specified for measuring use of technology consisted of items capturing teaching tasks outlined on the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Information and Communication Technology [ICT] Competency Framework for Teachers (UNESCO and Microsoft, 2011). The variable pedagogic belief was operationalized using items that captured different domains of teachers’ beliefs such as their beliefs about the balance of power in the learning process, the role of students in assessment, and the role of the teacher and the learner in content coverage (Becker & Riel, 2000). The variable technology belief was operationalized using vignettes presented as teaching situational pairs. The vignettes that were developed were based on examples provided in the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers as representing different uses of technology aligned to different teaching philosophies. The control variables were included on the questionnaire in section one that captured demographic and background data.
开发理论模型后，下一步涉及操作主要变量，以使用问卷中的多个项目来测试模型。三个主要变量——教育信念、技术信念和技术使用——是通过开发反映现有文献中的理论、模型和研究的项目来指定的。正如 Onwuegbuzie 和 Frels （2015） 所说，根据需要，通常会在整个初步研究过程中进行一系列文献综述。指定用于衡量技术使用情况的项目包括联合国教育、科学及文化组织 （UNESCO） 信息和通信技术 [ICT] 教师能力框架（UNESCO 和 Microsoft，2011 年）中概述的教学任务的项目。可变的教学信念是通过捕捉教师不同领域的信念的项目来操作的，例如他们对学习过程中权力平衡的信念，学生在评估中的作用，以及教师和学习者在内容覆盖中的作用（Becker & Riel，2000）。可变技术信念使用作为教学情境对呈现的小插曲进行操作。开发的小插图基于联合国教科文组织教师信息通信技术能力框架中提供的示例，这些示例代表了与不同教学理念相一致的技术的不同用途。控制变量包含在第一部分的问卷中，该部分捕获了人口统计和背景数据。

Having developed the instrument in tandem with existing theories and research, I ensured that content validity, content specification, convergent validity, multicollinearity and significance and relevance of the indictors in contributing to their intended construct were established by adhering to the guidelines for determining these as outlined by Hair et al. 2014.
在与现有理论和研究相结合开发该工具后，我通过遵守 Hair 等人 2014 年概述的确定这些的指南，确保指标在促进其预期结构方面的内容效度、内容规范、收敛效度、多重共线性以及重要性和相关性是建立的。

To assess the significance of the relationships among the variables in accounting for variance in the use of technology as was being proposed in the model, partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) technique using the software Smart PLS was used. A formative measurement model was used in estimating the paths for analysis. This decision to use a formative measurement model was also based on previous studies and guidelines from the literature (Jarvis et al., 2003). To assess the significance of the relationship among teachers’ pedagogic beliefs and technology beliefs in accounting for variance in their use of technology, the path diagram was constructed similarly to how they were represented in the diagram of the theoretical model. Figure 4 provides the diagram of the main paths estimated in the model and the results.
为了评估变量之间关系在解释模型中提出的技术使用方差的显着性，使用了使用软件 Smart PLS 的偏最小二乘法 （PLS） 结构方程建模 （SEM） 技术。形成性测量模型用于估计分析路径。使用形成性测量模型的决定也是基于以前的研究和文献指南（Jarvis et al.， 2003）。为了评估教师的教学信念和技术信念之间的关系在解释他们使用技术的差异方面的意义，路径图的构建方式与它们在理论模型图中的表示方式类似。图 4 提供了模型中估计的主要路径图和结果。

The assessment of the structural paths in the model revealed that the path pedagogic beliefs to technology beliefs was significant with a path coefficient higher than 0.193 (β = 0.331) and a t-value greater than 1.96 (t = 4.93). This result confirmed hypothesis one, indicating that pedagogic beliefs are related to technology beliefs (labeled as ICT beliefs in the diagram). For the second hypothesis, the path technology beliefs to use of technology (labeled as Use of ICT in the diagram) was substantial and significant with a coefficient value of 0.718 and t-value of 15.797, however the path pedagogic belief to use of technology was not significant (β = −0.044). This meant that technology beliefs were of greater significance than pedagogic beliefs in accounting for variance in teachers’ use of technology.
对模型中结构路径的评估表明，路径教学信念与技术信念是显著的，路径系数高于 0.193 （β = 0.331） 和 t 值大于 1.96 （t = 4.93）。这一结果证实了假设一，表明教育信念与技术信念相关（在图中标记为 ICT 信念）。对于第二个假设，使用技术的路径技术信念（在图中标记为 Use of ICT）是实质性和显着的，系数值为 0.718，t 值为 15.797，但是使用技术的路径教学信念并不显着 （β = -0.044）。这意味着在解释教师使用技术的差异方面，技术信念比教育信念更重要。

The direct effect of the extraneous variables on beliefs and use of technology were also assessed using path analysis. The results revealed that of the eight variables (age, gender, years of teaching experience, subject taught, school type, level of involvement in professional development activities, and inhibitors) only the variable involvement in professional development was significant. The results revealed that level of involvement in professional development had a significant relationship to pedagogic beliefs with a path coefficient higher than 0.193 (β = 0.239), a t value greater than 1.96 (t = 2.021) and a p value less than 0.05 (p = 0.04). The overall assessment of the model based on the R² value revealed a moderate effect with the explanatory power of constructs pedagogic beliefs and technology beliefs accounting for 50% of the variance in teachers’ use of technology. In other words, beliefs are significant in accounting for 50% of the variance in teachers’ use of technology. The results meant that to an extent the propositions of the theoretical model were confirmed. It also indicated that there were other factors not included in the model that accounted for the remaining 50% of the variance in teachers’ use of technology.
还使用路径分析评估了外来变量对信念和技术使用的直接影响。结果显示，在 8 个变量 （年龄、性别、教学经验年限、教授的科目、学校类型、专业发展活动的参与程度和抑制因素） 中，只有对专业发展的变量参与是显著的。结果显示，路径系数高于 0.193 （β = 0.239）、t 值大于 1.96 （t = 2.021） 和 p 值小于 0.05 （p = 0.04） 的教育信念与教学信念有显着关系。基于 R² 值的模型总体评估显示，结构、教学信念和技术信念的解释力占教师使用技术方差的 50%，效果适中。换句话说，信念在教师使用技术差异中占 50% 是重要的。结果意味着理论模型的命题在一定程度上得到了证实。它还表明，还有其他因素未包含在模型中，这些因素占教师使用技术差异的剩余 50%。

Having established the explanatory power of the model, I then proceeded to explore hypothesis three that proposed that teachers’ pedagogic beliefs, technology beliefs and use of technology were aligned in highly teacher-centered or learner-centered ways. This was explored using the software SPSS. The instrument was designed to allow for coding of responses to differentiate learner-centered and teacher-centered orientation from the responses. For example, strong agreement with a learner-centered statement was coded five and strong disagreement with the same statement was coded one. The higher scores were associated with learner-centered orientation while lower scores were associated with teacher-centered orientation. This allowed me to compute total scores for the subscales Pedagogic Beliefs, Technology Belief and Use of Technology. Then, cut off points—high, middle, and low—were computed and these ranges were used to recode the data into different variables to describe teachers’ philosophical orientation. Using the GROUPS Subcommand (MULT Response Command) in SPSS, the following grouping criteria were used:
在确定了模型的解释力之后，我继续探索假设 3，该假设提出教师的教学信念、技术信念和技术使用以高度以教师为中心或以学习者为中心的方式保持一致。这是使用 SPSS 软件探索的。该工具旨在允许对回答进行编码，以区分以学习者为中心和以教师为中心的取向与回答。例如，对以学习者为中心的陈述的强烈同意被编码为 5，对同一陈述的强烈不同意被编码为 1。较高的分数与以学习者为中心的取向相关，而较低的分数与以教师为中心的取向相关。这使我能够计算出 Pedagogic Beliefs、Technology Belief 和 Use of Technology 分量表的总分。然后，计算出临界点——高、中、低——并使用这些范围将数据重新编码为不同的变量，以描述教师的哲学取向。使用 SPSS 中的 GROUPS 子命令（MULT 响应命令），使用了以下分组标准：

1. If (pedagogic beliefs, technology beliefs and use of technology = teacher-centered orientation). Group = one
   如果 （教学信念、技术信念和技术使用 = 以教师为中心的取向）。组 = 1
2. If (pedagogic beliefs, technology beliefs, AND use of technology = moderately learner- and teacher-centered orientation). Group = Two
   如果 （教学信念、技术信念和技术使用 = 适度以学习者和教师为中心的取向）。组 = 两个
3. If (pedagogic beliefs, technology beliefs, AND use of technology = learner-centered orientation). Group) = Three.
   如果 （教学信念、技术信念和技术使用 = 以学习者为中心的取向）。组） = 三。

The results indicated that of the 248 teachers, just a little more than half (n=140, 57%) of the teachers met the criteria for classification into one of the three alignment groupings proposed in the theoretical model. With so many teachers not fitting the alignment criteria, I decided to propose two non-aligned grouping criteria. These criteria reflected learner-centered beliefs with teacher-centered use of technology, and teacher-centered beliefs and learner-centered use of technology. The analysis revealed that 32% of the teachers fit into one of the two non-alignment groupings proposed indicating that not all teachers use technology in ways aligned with their beliefs.
结果表明，在 248 名教师中，只有略多于一半的教师 （n=140， 57%） 符合分类标准，可以归入理论模型中提出的三个对齐分组之一。由于有这么多教师不符合对齐标准，我决定提出两个非对齐的分组标准。这些标准反映了以学习者为中心的信念与以教师为中心的技术使用，以及以教师为中心的信念和以学习者为中心的技术使用。分析显示，32% 的教师属于提出的两个不结盟组之一，这表明并非所有教师都以符合他们信念的方式使用技术。

Phase Two: Mixed Methods Case Study
第二阶段：混合方法案例研究

Based on the results indicating that there were teachers whose beliefs and use of technology were not aligned and that the path analysis only accounted for 50% of the variance in teachers’ use of technology, it was clear that there were other factors not included in the theoretical model proposed in the quantitative phase that would potentially accommodate a broader understanding of how beliefs shape actions. It was not entirely surprising that the model did not account for all the variance, and that some variables were not significant. Developing a model quantitatively favors parsimony and the problem of selection sometimes results in a focus on identifying the best predictors of the outcome which is likely to result in limitations on the theoretical argument proposed (Ragin, 2004). However, I anticipated that the teachers’ reported beliefs and use of technology would reveal greater alignment. Therefore, I needed to follow-up on this unexpected finding revealing non-alignment among beliefs and use of technology for 42% of the teachers.
结果表明，有些教师的信念和技术使用不一致，路径分析仅占教师使用技术方差的 50%，很明显，在定量阶段提出的理论模型中未包含其他因素，这些因素可能会容纳对信念如何塑造行动的更广泛理解。该模型没有考虑所有方差，并且一些变量并不显著，这并不完全令人惊讶。开发一个定量模型有利于吝啬，而选择问题有时会导致专注于确定结果的最佳预测因子，这可能会导致对所提出的理论论点的限制（Ragin，2004）。然而，我预计教师报告的信念和对技术的使用会显示出更大的一致性。因此，我需要跟进这个意想不到的发现，揭示 42% 的教师的信仰和技术使用不一致。

With the explanatory sequential mixed methods design, the qualitative component that follows the quantitative phase generally affords the researcher the opportunity to follow up on significant findings from the quantitative phase as well as to seek explanation for disconfirming results (Creswell, 2014a). The rationale for taking this approach in designing the explanatory design is that the quantitative data serve as a general understanding of the research problem while the collection and analysis of the qualitative data refine and explain those statistical results by exploring participants’ views in more depth (Ivankova et al., 2006). This was a consideration at the design phase in my initial conceptualizing of the role that the qualitative data would play in the study.
通过解释性顺序混合方法设计，定量阶段之后的定性部分通常为研究人员提供了跟进定量阶段的重要发现以及为否定结果寻求解释的机会（Creswell，2014a）。在设计解释性设计时采用这种方法的基本原理是，定量数据作为对研究问题的一般理解，而定性数据的收集和分析通过更深入地探索参与者的观点来提炼和解释这些统计结果（Ivankova et al.， 2006）。这是我在设计阶段对定性数据在研究中的作用进行初步概念化时的一个考虑因素。

The Role of the Qualitative Component in the Study : Typically, in the sequential explanatory design priority is given to the quantitative strand which comes first followed by a smaller qualitative strand in the second phase (Creswell et al., 2003; Ivankova et al., 2006). However, priority can be given to the qualitative data collection and analysis or both, and such decisions could be made either at the design stage before the data collection begins or later during the data collection and analysis process (Creswell et al., 2003; Ivankova et al., 2006). At the design phase I decided that the qualitative strand would be given priority since the aim of the study was to explain how and why teachers used technology in different ways. I anticipated that the interviews would provide more in-depth explanations of the beliefs and actions of the teachers. I had also considered that data collection in the quantitative phase involved a single instrument which posed a limitation. These considerations underpinned my decision to give priority to the qualitative data. A similar rationale was also proffered by Ivankova et al. (2006) in their explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Given the important role of the qualitative data, I needed to broaden the lens framing this follow up phase of the study by conducting additional review of the literature.
定性成分在研究中的作用：通常，在顺序解释性设计中，首先是定量链，其次是第二阶段较小的定性链（Creswell 等人，2003 年;Ivankova et al.， 2006）。然而，可以优先考虑定性数据收集和分析，或两者兼而有之，并且此类决策可以在数据收集开始之前的设计阶段或数据收集和分析过程的后期做出（Creswell 等人，2003 年;Ivankova et al.， 2006）。在设计阶段，我决定优先考虑定性链，因为研究的目的是解释教师如何以及为什么以不同的方式使用技术。我预计访谈将对教师的信仰和行为提供更深入的解释。我还认为定量阶段的数据收集涉及单一仪器，这构成了局限性。这些考虑支持了我优先考虑定性数据的决定。Ivankova 等人 （2006） 在他们的解释性顺序混合方法研究中也提出了类似的原理。鉴于定性数据的重要作用，我需要通过对文献进行额外的回顾来拓宽研究后续阶段的框架。

It was not ideal to conduct an additional review of the literature at this stage of the study since a systematic review of the literature prior to constructing the theoretical model should have allowed me to identify these other factors and theories. Onwuegbuzie and Frels (2015) note that conducting the literature review is the most difficult process in the research and many researchers oscillate between the primary research study and the extant literature. Maxwell (2005) also contends that the components of a model are interactive rather than linear and the design of a study “should be able to change in interaction with the situation in which the study is conducted, rather than simply being a fixed determinant of research practice” (p. 8). Evans et al. (2011) also posit that the theoretical model should not be viewed as limiting the study and precluding discovery. Without further analysis of the extant literature, I would not have adequate theoretical foundation to explore the unaccounted variance and explain the disconfirming results. This review revealed theories and explanations suggesting that socio-cultural and technological factors can influence teachers’ use of technology. These factors were incorporated in the theoretical model as other factors that could provide a possible explanation of the remaining variance in use of technology. The sociological and technological factors included leadership conditions at the school, the demands for curriculum completion (Bate, 2010) and characteristics of technology (Davis, 1989; Rogers, 2003). These factors were explored in the semi-structured interviews conducted.
在研究的这个阶段对文献进行额外的回顾并不理想，因为在构建理论模型之前对文献进行系统回顾应该可以让我确定这些其他因素和理论。Onwuegbuzie 和 Frels （2015） 指出，进行文献综述是研究中最困难的过程，许多研究人员在主要研究和现有文献之间摇摆不定。Maxwell （2005） 还认为，模型的组成部分是交互式的，而不是线性的，研究的设计“应该能够随着研究进行的情况而变化，而不仅仅是成为研究实践的固定决定因素”（第 8 页）。Evans 等人（2011 年）还认为，不应将理论模型视为限制研究和排除发现。如果不对现存文献进行进一步分析，我将没有足够的理论基础来探索未解释的方差并解释令人不安的结果。本综述揭示了表明社会文化和技术因素会影响教师对技术的使用的理论和解释。这些因素作为其他因素被纳入理论模型，这些因素可以为技术使用中的剩余差异提供可能的解释。社会学和技术因素包括学校的领导条件、课程完成的要求（Bate，2010 年）和技术特征（Davis，1989 年;Rogers，2003 年）。在进行的半结构化访谈中探讨了这些因素。

Having added these factors, I also needed to address those aspects of the results revealing disconfirmation of some aspects of theoretical model. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2008) suggest that researchers may seek explanations of disconfirming results from existing theory. I adhered to this suggestion and consulted the extant literature to find a theoretical explanation of why teachers’ reported beliefs and use of technology in some cases may not necessarily align. This was considered important to ensure that the theoretical model that would now serve as the lens guiding the case study phase, incorporated an examination of both the confirming and disconfirming results grounded in a theoretical explanation.
在添加了这些因素之后，我还需要解决结果中揭示对理论模型某些方面的否定的那些方面。Tashakkori 和 Teddlie （2008） 建议研究人员可以寻求对现有理论结果的否定解释。我坚持这个建议，并查阅了现有的文献，以找到一个理论解释，解释为什么在某些情况下教师报告的信念和对技术的使用可能不一定一致。这被认为很重要，以确保现在作为指导案例研究阶段的透镜的理论模型包含基于理论解释的确认和否定结果的检查。

Through my engagement in additional review of the literature, Theory-in-use proposed by Argyris and Schon (1974) provided a possible explanation for the disconfirming results that emerged from the initial testing of the theoretical model. This theory was adapted for use in the field of education by Osterman and Kottkamp (1993) and had been used in several studies as the basis for understanding inconsistencies between teacher beliefs and actions (Eraut, 2000; Kerr, 2009; Savaya & Gardner, 2012; Stewart, 2015). Osterman and Kottkamp (1993) posit that teachers are sometimes unaware of the beliefs that actually drive their actions because these beliefs are deeply ingrained. Teachers may espouse learner-centered beliefs that they are exposed to through professional development, yet their classroom practice reveal highly teacher-centered practices. Consequently, Osterman and Kottkamp (1993) contend that to identify the beliefs that actually guide teachers’ actions, behavior must be observed, and habitual patterns identified. This meant that multiple classroom observations would be important to the data collection in the case study phase to identify patterns of behaviors.
通过我对文献的额外回顾，Argyris 和 Schon （1974） 提出的 Theory-in-use 为理论模型初始测试中出现的否定结果提供了一个可能的解释。该理论被 Osterman 和 Kottkamp （1993） 改编用于教育领域，并已在多项研究中用作理解教师信念和行为之间不一致的基础（Eraut，2000 年;Kerr， 2009;Savaya & Gardner， 2012;Stewart，2015 年）。Osterman 和 Kottkamp （1993） 假设教师有时没有意识到真正驱动他们行动的信念，因为这些信念根深蒂固。教师可能拥护他们通过专业发展接触到的以学习者为中心的信念，但他们的课堂实践揭示了高度以教师为中心的实践。因此，Osterman 和 Kottkamp （1993） 认为，要确定实际指导教师行为的信念，必须观察行为并确定习惯模式。这意味着多次课堂观察对于案例研究阶段的数据收集以确定行为模式非常重要。

Step Six: Modifying the Theoretical Model Based on the Quantitative Results
第 6 步：根据定量结果修改理论模型

For the follow up case study phase I had to modify the diagram of the theoretical model and the propositions underpinning the model to reflect a broadened understanding of how beliefs could potentially shape actions. As I modified the theoretical model, I was guided by the results from the analysis conducted in the quantitative phase. I removed those control variables that were not significant, and I added the non-alignment groups to the theoretical model based on the disconfirming results emerging from the analysis for alignment among beliefs and use of technology. Figure 5 presents the modified theoretical model.
在后续案例研究阶段，我必须修改理论模型的图表和支撑模型的命题，以反映对信念如何潜在地塑造行动的广泛理解。当我修改理论模型时，我以定量阶段进行的分析结果为指导。我删除了那些不显著的控制变量，并根据信念一致性和技术使用分析得出的否定结果，将非对齐组添加到理论模型中。图 5 显示了修改后的理论模型。

As figure 5 shows, the modified theoretical model was based on the following revised assumptions:
如图 5 所示，修改后的理论模型基于以下修订后的假设：

1. Pedagogic beliefs are related and significant to teachers’ technology beliefs.
   教学信念与教师的技术信念相关且重要。
2. Technology beliefs and pedagogic beliefs relate to teachers’ use of technology, but technology beliefs have greater significance in accounting for variance in use of technology.
   技术信念和教学信念与教师对技术的使用有关，但技术信念在解释技术使用的差异方面具有更大的意义。
3. Teachers’ level of involvement in professional development is related and significant to teachers’ pedagogic beliefs.
   教师对专业发展的参与程度与教师的教学信念相关且重要。
4. teachers’ pedagogic and technology beliefs are not always aligned with how technology is used.
   教师的教学和技术信念并不总是与技术的使用方式一致。
5. Teachers possess two types of beliefs: those that are reported in conversations, etc. (espoused theory) and those that are evident in actions (theory-in-use).
   教师拥有两种类型的信念：一种是在对话等中报告的信念（拥护的理论），另一种是在行动中显而易见的信念（理论使用中）。
6. Observations of teachers’ classroom practices may reveal the dominance of teachers’ ingrained beliefs (theory-in-use).
   对教师课堂实践的观察可能会揭示教师根深蒂固的信念（理论使用）的主导地位。
7. Socio-cultural factors within the contexts and teachers’ perceptions of the attributes of the technology resources in use may influence how technology is used in practice.
   环境中的社会文化因素和教师对所用技术资源属性的看法可能会影响技术在实践中的使用方式。

Clarifying the propositions guiding the modified theoretical model was an important step in the case study design process that was used in the follow up phase. Yin (2014) explains that articulating theory about what is being studied and what is to be learned helps to operationalize the case and to make it more explicit; and, by doing this, the quality relating to validity and reliability are maximized. The benefit is a stronger design and a heightened ability to interpret the data (Yin, 2014). This modified theoretical model allowed me to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the cases in explaining how teachers’ beliefs shaped their decisions and actions as they used technology.
澄清指导修改后的理论模型的命题是后续阶段使用的案例研究设计过程中的重要一步。Yin （2014） 解释说，阐明关于正在研究的内容和要学习的理论有助于将案例操作化并使其更加明确;并且，通过这样做，与有效性和可靠性相关的质量得到了最大化。这样做的好处是设计更强大，解释数据的能力更强（Yin，2014）。这个修改后的理论模型使我能够更全面地理解这些案例，以解释教师在使用技术时如何塑造他们的决定和行动。

The modified theoretical model guided several decisions taken in designing and conducting the case study phase of the study. It was used to guide the development of the research questions, designing the cases, sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques.
修改后的理论模型指导了在设计和执行研究的案例研究阶段做出的几个决策。它用于指导研究问题的开发、案例设计、抽样、数据收集和分析技术。

Framing the Research Questions: In framing the research questions that guided the case study phase, the modified theoretical model played a central role. For example, based on the result indicating that teachers’ involvement in professional development influenced their pedagogic beliefs, one of the research questions formulated asked: How do teachers’ involvement in professional development activities shape their espoused pedagogic beliefs and technology beliefs? Another research question sought to explore: How consistent are teachers observed use of technology with their espoused beliefs? This question was based on theory-in-use that was incorporated into the framework to understand inconsistencies in the alignment between beliefs and use of technology.
构建研究问题：在构建指导案例研究阶段的研究问题时，修改后的理论模型起着核心作用。例如，根据结果表明教师参与专业发展影响了他们的教学信念，制定的研究问题之一提出了：教师参与专业发展活动如何塑造他们所信奉的教学信念和技术信念？另一个试图探讨的研究问题是：观察到教师使用技术与他们所信奉的信念的一致性如何？这个问题基于被纳入框架的 theory-in-use，以理解信念和技术使用之间一致性的不一致。

Designing the Case Studies: Two of the cases selected for follow up were based on the findings confirming the propositions tested in theoretical model indicating that teachers’ beliefs and use of technology were aligned. The third case sought to examine findings that did not fit the propositions revealing that there were teachers whose beliefs and use of technology were not aligned. Selecting both confirming and disconfirming cases allowed me to increase confidence in the analytic conclusions drawn (Miles et al., 2020). The cases were bounded by the fit between beliefs and use of technology—highly learner-centered alignment, highly teacher-centered alignment, and non-alignment. Without a deeper understanding of the disconfirming results prior to the case study phase, the design of the cases would potentially not be as strong.
设计案例研究：选择进行随访的两个案例是基于确认理论模型中检验的命题的研究结果，这些命题表明教师的信念和对技术的使用是一致的。第三个案例试图检查不符合命题的调查结果，这些命题揭示了有些教师的信仰和技术使用不一致。选择确认和否定案例让我增加了对得出的分析结论的信心（Miles et al.， 2020）。这些案例受信念和技术使用之间的契合度的约束——高度以学习者为中心的对齐、高度以教师为中心的对齐和非对齐。如果在案例研究阶段之前不对否定结果有更深入的了解，案例的设计可能不会那么强大。

Sampling: The teachers were selected from the alignment groupings generated from the results of the quantitative phase. Three teachers whose beliefs and use of technology aligned in highly teacher-centered ways, three teachers whose beliefs and use of technology aligned in highly learner-centered ways and three teachers whose beliefs and use of technology were not aligned were selected. These teachers worked in three different school contexts—one school with adequate access to technology resources, one with moderate access, and the third had limited access to technology. Figure 6 presents a summary of the cases and sites included.
抽样：教师是从定量阶段结果生成的对齐分组中选择的。选择了 3 名教师的信念和对技术的使用高度一致，3 名教师的信念和技术使用以高度以学习者为中心的方式一致，以及 3 名信念和技术使用不一致的教师。这些教师在三种不同的学校环境中工作——一所学校拥有足够的技术资源，一所学校拥有适度的访问，而第三所学校获得技术的机会有限。图 6 显示了所包含的病例和地点的摘要。

Data Collection for the Cases: Data collection procedures for the case study phase included semi-structured interviews, real-time observations, descriptive field notes, video recordings of teaching, a quantitative observation checklist and video-elicitation interviews with eight teachers. While the initial plan for data collection in the case study phase included lesson observations with each teacher, the modified theoretical model resulted in a decision to ensure that each teacher was observed teaching with technology multiple times in the school year. This was done in an effort to identify patterns in the teachers’ behaviors that would provide an indication of their dominant teaching styles. The dominance of a particular teaching style based on the modified theoretical model is an indication of ingrained beliefs that guide actions. Each lesson observation was video recorded, and qualitative observation field notes were taken during these lesson observations. The Focus on Integrated Technology: Classroom Observation Measurement (FIT:COM) quantitative observation checklist developed by Judson (2006) was used to assess the videos. The instrument was used to determine the extent that the classroom practices in using technology observed over the series of lessons reflected established guidelines for teacher-centered or learner-centered pedagogy.
案例数据收集：案例研究阶段的数据收集程序包括半结构化访谈、实时观察、描述性实地笔记、教学录像、定量观察清单和对八名教师的视频诱导访谈。虽然案例研究阶段的数据收集初始计划包括对每位教师的课堂观察，但修改后的理论模型导致决定确保每位教师在学年中多次被观察使用技术进行教学。这样做是为了识别教师行为中的模式，这些模式将表明他们的主要教学风格。基于修改后的理论模型的特定教学风格的主导地位表明指导行动的根深蒂固的信念。每个课程观察都被录像，并在这些课程观察期间进行定性观察现场笔记。Judson （2006） 开发的 Focus on Integrated Technology： Classroom Observation Measurement （FIT：COM） 定量观察检查表用于评估视频。该工具用于确定在一系列课程中观察到的课堂使用技术的实践在多大程度上反映了以教师为中心或以学习者为中心的教学法的既定指导方针。

Another decision in the design of data collection that was guided by the broadened theoretical model was the use of video-elicitation interviews. Theory-in-use that was incorporated in the theoretical model to explain the disconfirming results is premised on the understanding that teachers are often unaware that their beliefs and actions do not align owing to the ingrained nature of the beliefs that drive actions. As a consequence, the video recordings of the lessons were shared with the teachers at least 1 week prior to the video-elicitation interviews and the teachers were asked to watch the videos and make note of sections, times, and specific behaviors in the videos that they felt reflected their beliefs and effective use of technology in preparation for the video-elicitation interview (Haynes-Brown & Shannon-Baker, 2021). Through the video-elicitation interviews the teachers were provided with an opportunity to consciously reflect and explain their interpretations of how their beliefs informed their classroom practices (Haynes-Brown & Shannon-Baker, 2021). Without the additional search of the literature to broaden the theoretical model as I sought to understand the disconfirming results, it is possible that the observation data would not have played such a prominent role in the data collection in the follow up case study phase.
数据收集设计中另一个由拓宽的理论模型指导的决定是使用视频引出访谈。被纳入理论模型以解释否定结果的理论使用前提是，教师通常没有意识到，由于驱动行动的信念的根深蒂固的性质，教师往往没有意识到他们的信念和行动并不一致。因此，在视频诱导访谈前至少一周与教师分享了课程的视频记录，并要求教师观看视频并记下他们认为反映了他们的信念和有效使用技术的部分中的特定行为，以准备视频诱导访谈（Haynes-Brown & Shannon-Baker， 通过视频诱导访谈，教师们有机会有意识地反思和解释他们对自己的信仰如何影响课堂实践的解释（Haynes-Brown & Shannon-Baker，2021）。如果我试图理解否定的结果，如果没有额外搜索文献来扩大理论模型，观察数据可能不会在后续案例研究阶段的数据收集中发挥如此突出的作用。

Data Analysis: The coding process was managed using QDA miner software and joint display analysis was used to integrate the quantitative and qualitative observation data for each teacher within and across cases (Haynes-Brown & Fetters, 2021). The data collected were analyzed by case. Having selected teachers who worked in three different school contexts, I was able to explore whether patterns emerging from the analysis of teachers’ beliefs and use of technology within the cases would hold across different contexts. Yin (2014) and Miles et al. (2020) suggest that this enhances rigor in the analysis. According to Miles et al. (2020), selecting samples that illustrate the concept at different instances, moments, places, and people can increase confidence in the emerging theory. In this way, the teachers were the cases. By integrating the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data in the case studies and focusing on the patterns emerging from the analysis of the main constructs within the cases across differing contexts, a more comprehensive understanding of the cases was constructed. Additionally, I explored the teachers’ beliefs and use of technology both quantitatively and qualitatively. Similarity in the constructs that were used to gather data both qualitatively and quantitatively helped to ensure that the data collected could be linked in a visual such as a joint display (Fetters, 2020).
数据分析：使用QDA miner软件管理编码过程，并使用联合显示分析来整合每个教师在案例内和案例之间的定量和定性观察数据（Haynes-Brown & Fetters，2021）。对收集的数据进行逐案分析。在选择了在三种不同学校环境中工作的教师后，我能够探索从对教师信念和案例中技术使用的分析中出现的模式是否适用于不同的环境。Yin （2014） 和 Miles et al. （2020） 认为这增强了分析的严谨性。根据 Miles 等人（2020 年）的说法，选择在不同实例、时刻、地点和人中说明概念的样本可以增加对新兴理论的信心。这样，老师就是案例。通过在案例研究中整合定性和定量数据的收集，并关注在不同背景下对案例中主要结构的分析中出现的模式，构建了对案例的更全面理解。此外，我还从定量和定性的角度探讨了教师的信念和对技术的使用。用于定性和定量收集数据的结构的相似性有助于确保收集的数据可以在联合显示等视觉对象中链接（Fetters，2020 年）。

Phase Three: Drawing Meta-Inferences
第三阶段：绘制元推理

The third phase involved building the overall study interpretations through integration of the findings of both data bases. The study represented an intra-method analysis as the quantitative and qualitative findings within the case studies were first integrated to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the cases and then the findings across the two phases were integrated to produce the overall study interpretations based on both data sets (Fetters, 2020). Figure 7 presents the theoretical model based on the findings of this study.
第三阶段涉及通过整合两个数据库的结果来构建整体研究解释。该研究代表了方法内分析，因为首先整合了案例研究中的定量和定性结果，以获得对案例的更全面理解，然后将两个阶段的结果整合在一起，以产生基于两个数据集的整体研究解释（Fetters，2020）。图 7 显示了基于本研究结果的理论模型。

In developing the final theoretical model as the end point of the study to present the integrated results from the quantitative and case study phases, I selected the main quantitative results and overarching qualitative themes. The main themes from the qualitative data were integrated into the ovals and rectangles to provide more detailed explanation of the quantitative results. The scores based on the main quantitative results were also included in the diagram. Based on this diagram that integrated the overarching results from both phases, a discussion of the integrated findings was presented. This discussion provided an explanation of the theoretical model that presented a summary of the study findings. The discussion also focused on the overarching mixed methods question which sought to ascertain how the qualitative findings explained the quantitative results. Figure 8 presents excerpts of the sections and steps used in integrating the results from both phases.
在开发最终理论模型作为研究的终点以呈现定量和案例研究阶段的综合结果时，我选择了主要的定量结果和总体定性主题。定性数据的主要主题被整合到椭圆形和矩形中，以提供对定量结果的更详细解释。基于主要定量结果的分数也包含在图表中。基于这张整合了两个阶段总体结果的图表，对综合结果进行了讨论。该讨论提供了对理论模型的解释，该模型提供了研究结果的摘要。讨论还集中在总体混合方法问题上，该问题旨在确定定性结果如何解释定量结果。图 8 显示了用于集成两个阶段结果的部分和步骤的摘录。

Researcher’s Stance  研究员的立场

I align my perspective of developing and implementing the theoretical model in this study with a postpositivist stance. In this study, empirical testing of the theoretical model in the design of the quantitative phase aligned with the postpositivist stance. Post-positivism is often associated with quantitative approaches owing to its claims that knowledge is based on cause and effect thinking, narrow selection of variables, empirical observation and measurement, and theory verification (Creswell, 2014b; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Additionally, the postpositivist perspective guided the decisions taken to modify the theoretical model that would be used to guide the follow-up case study phase. It was accepted in this study that in keeping with the postpositivist stance, the theoretical model only represented a partial explanation of the phenomenon and hence can be falsified as one can never know if the theory holds in every observable instance (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Post-positivism also acknowledges the increased use of qualitative methods as a means of collecting more situational information (Maxwell, 2005) and “soliciting emic viewpoints to assist in determining the meaning and purposes that people ascribe to their actions” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 110). This was also evident in the data collection techniques embedded in the theoretical model that utilized observations of teachers in their natural setting and video-elicitation interviews that allowed participants to rationalize their actions. Post-positivism also emphasizes the fit between the findings and pre-existing knowledge (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This was also considered relevant to the theoretical model development in my study as I searched for existing theories to explain the disconfirming results and variance not accounted for by the model.
我将我开发和实施本研究中理论模型的观点与后实证主义立场保持一致。在这项研究中，定量阶段设计中理论模型的实证检验与后实证主义立场一致。后实证主义通常与定量方法联系在一起，因为它声称知识基于因果思维、狭隘的变量选择、实证观察和测量以及理论验证（Creswell，2014b;Creswell & Plano Clark， 2018）。此外，后实证主义观点指导了修改理论模型的决策，该模型将用于指导后续案例研究阶段。这项研究认为，为了与后实证主义的立场保持一致，理论模型只代表了对现象的部分解释，因此可以被证伪，因为人们永远无法知道该理论是否在每个可观察到的实例中都成立（Guba & Lincoln， 1994）。后实证主义也承认越来越多地使用定性方法作为收集更多情境信息的手段（Maxwell， 2005）和“征求流行观点以帮助确定人们赋予他们行为的意义和目的”（Guba & Lincoln， 1994， p. 110）。这在理论模型中嵌入的数据收集技术中也很明显，该技术利用了教师在自然环境中的观察和视频诱导访谈，使参与者能够合理化他们的行为。后实证主义也强调发现与预先存在的知识之间的契合度（Guba & Lincoln，1994）。 这也被认为与我研究中的理论模型开发有关，因为我搜索了现有的理论来解释模型未解释的否定结果和方差。

Discussion  讨论

Explanatory sequential mixed methods studies generally benefit from the use of the qualitative results to expand or explain the quantitative results (Creswell, 2014a). This was illustrated in this study where the themes derived from the qualitative data provided more details in understanding the themes and concepts evident in the beliefs of the teachers in this study. However, for this to be possible at the end stage of the study I had to incorporate interview questions in the design phase of the study that match the quantitative constructs. It is important therefore that researchers use the integration strategy of matching, that is, using quantitative items about constructs that will be elicited using qualitative methods (Fetters, 2020).
解释性顺序混合方法研究通常受益于使用定性结果来扩展或解释定量结果（Creswell，2014a）。这在这项研究中得到了说明，其中从定性数据得出的主题为理解本研究中教师信仰中明显的主题和概念提供了更多细节。然而，为了在研究的最后阶段做到这一点，我必须在研究的设计阶段纳入与定量结构相匹配的访谈问题。因此，研究人员使用匹配的整合策略非常重要，即使用有关将使用定性方法引发的结构的定量项目（Fetters，2020 年）。

Mixed methods researchers often face the challenge of dealing with disconfirming results. However, it is not unusual in MMR to find that integrating the findings may yield discrepancies (Kidder & Fine, 1987 as cited in Greene et al., 1989, p . 256). Several steps have been posited for dealing with these discrepancies in the extant literature that I have applied and wrote about in another publication (Haynes-Brown & Fetters (2021). An emerging consensus on these discrepancies in terms of their contribution to a study is that they should not be viewed as an inconvenience rather, mixed methods researchers should consider how integrating them into the findings may invoke fresh perspectives and new, more illuminating explanations. As I learned in conducting this mixed methods study, both the confirming and disconfirming results may reveal different aspects of the same phenomenon, thereby providing a more comprehensive explanation. Employing a mixed method approach in building this theoretical model provided a way to develop and enhance my initial model owing to “the iterative nature of theorizing, evaluation, and theory refinement, entailing both deductive and inductive procedures” (Gates, 2008, p . 2).
混合方法研究人员经常面临处理不一致结果的挑战。然而，在MMR中发现整合这些发现可能会产生差异并不罕见（Kidder & Fine，1987年，如Greene等人引用，1989年，第256 页）。我已经提出了几个步骤来处理我在另一篇出版物（Haynes-Brown & Fetters （2021））中应用和撰写的现有文献中的这些差异。就它们对研究的贡献而言，关于这些差异的一个新兴共识是，它们不应被视为一种不便，相反，混合方法研究人员应考虑如何将它们整合到研究结果中可能会引发新的视角和新的、更具启发性的解释。正如我在进行这项混合方法研究时所学到的那样，确认和否定结果都可能揭示同一现象的不同方面，从而提供更全面的解释。在构建这个理论模型时采用混合方法提供了一种开发和增强我的初始模型的方法，因为“理论化、评估和理论改进的迭代性质，需要演绎和归纳程序”（盖茨，2008 年，第 2 页）。

Additionally, using the modified theoretical model to guide decisions for the subsequent follow up phase is paramount in enhancing rigor in explanatory sequential mixed methods studies. In this study, by incorporating specific features from the design phase in selecting the teachers for the cases with differences in the alignment among beliefs and use of technology across different contexts, I was able to identify patterns in the data that transcended contexts. Further, the decision to use video-elicitation interviews allowed me to explore in greater depth the extent that teachers were aware of the beliefs that guide their actions and their interpretations of their actions. Incorporating the disconfirming results is not complete without some explanation of those results. This was inherent in the design of the study since one of the objectives of the explanatory sequential mixed methods design is to use the qualitative findings to explain the quantitative results. It is important to think carefully about the results to be followed up on in the qualitative phase in the design. Had I not reflected carefully on all the results from the quantitative phase and selected the disconfirming results as well, it is possible that the model would not present this more comprehensive representation of how beliefs shaped use of technology.
此外，使用修改后的理论模型来指导后续随访阶段的决策对于提高解释性顺序混合方法研究的严谨性至关重要。在这项研究中，通过结合设计阶段的具体特征来为不同背景下信念一致性和技术使用存在差异的案例选择教师，我能够识别数据中超越情境的模式。此外，使用视频诱导访谈的决定使我能够更深入地探索教师对指导他们行为的信念和他们对行为的解释的了解程度。如果不对这些结果进行一些解释，那么纳入否定结果是不完整的。这是研究设计中固有的，因为解释性顺序混合方法设计的目标之一是使用定性结果来解释定量结果。仔细考虑在设计的定性阶段要跟进的结果很重要。如果我没有仔细反思定量阶段的所有结果，并选择了不肯定的结果，那么该模型可能无法更全面地呈现信念如何影响技术使用。

Contributions to Mixed Methods Research
对混合方法研究的贡献

This study makes a valuable contribution to mixed methods research. It expands previous work on using theoretical models in mixed methods research to include illustrations of how to incorporate theoretical models in various aspects of a mixed methods study from the design to data analysis and integration phases. While other researchers have made reference to the use of theoretical models in mixed methods research in general terms (Creswell, 2014a; Fetters, 2020), this article provides a detailed discussion of how a theoretical model was used to inform the types of research questions, participant selection, design of different phases of a mixed methods study, and how to present the overarching study interpretations in the final theoretical model. This article also provides insights into how to incorporate disconfirming results into the overall interpretation of the study findings and some potential challenges that researchers may face in developing and implementing a theoretical model in an explanatory sequential study and how these can be addressed.
本研究为混合方法研究做出了宝贵贡献。它扩展了以前在混合方法研究中使用理论模型的工作，包括如何将理论模型纳入混合方法研究的各个方面（从设计到数据分析和集成阶段）的插图。虽然其他研究人员一般性地提到了在混合方法研究中使用理论模型（Creswell，2014a;Fetters，2020 年），本文详细讨论了如何使用理论模型来告知研究问题的类型、参与者的选择、混合方法研究不同阶段的设计，以及如何在最终理论模型中呈现总体研究解释。本文还提供了有关如何将否定结果纳入研究结果的整体解释的见解，以及研究人员在解释性顺序研究中开发和实施理论模型时可能面临的一些潜在挑战，以及如何解决这些挑战。

Methodological Limitations
方法学局限性

The procedural steps presented in this paper may not be applicable to other mixed methods designs that are not quantitative to qualitative in sequence. However, other mixed methods researchers may benefit at a conceptual level from understanding how the decisions taken in developing and implementing the theoretical model can guide the design of a mixed methods study. The unaccounted variance and disconfirming results that propelled me to conduct an additional review of the literature is another limitation that affected the process employed in the application of the theoretical model. While modification of the theoretical model is recommended in the literature (Fetters, 2020), a need to revisit the literature in search of other factors is not ideal. The systematic review of the literature should allow for a somewhat comprehensive theoretical model from the initial conceptualizing of the theoretical model. I would advise other mixed methods researchers to consider a systematic review of the literature of the utmost importance prior to constructing and testing the initial theoretical model. This will potentially reduce the variance that is not accounted for by the model that is tested quantitatively. The explanations and justifications though presented in some details in this paper were abridged versions and excerpts from the larger study. Therefore, other researchers especially those completing their dissertations should incorporate more detailed explanations of the variables and justifications of the relationships with additional citations to strengthen their theoretical discussions.
本文中介绍的程序步骤可能不适用于其他非定量到定性顺序的混合方法设计。然而，其他混合方法研究人员可能会在概念层面上受益于理解在开发和实施理论模型时做出的决策如何指导混合方法研究的设计。促使我对文献进行额外回顾的未解释的方差和不一致的结果是影响理论模型应用过程的另一个限制。虽然文献建议修改理论模型（Fetters，2020 年），但需要重新审视文献以寻找其他因素并不理想。对文献的系统回顾应该允许从理论模型的初始概念化中获得一个比较全面的理论模型。我建议其他混合方法研究人员在构建和测试初始理论模型之前考虑对最重要的文献进行系统回顾。这可能会减少定量测试的模型未考虑的方差。尽管本文中提供了一些细节的解释和理由，但这些解释和理由是更大规模研究的删节版本和摘录。因此，其他研究人员，尤其是那些完成论文的研究人员，应该结合对变量和关系理由的更详细解释，并提供额外的引用，以加强他们的理论讨论。

Conclusions  结论

The development and use of a theoretical model in a sequential mixed methods design is interactive rather than linear and can reshape the design of a study. In the present mixed methods study, the process I engaged in subsequent to examining the initial findings illustrated that developing a comprehensive theoretical model that adequately frames the data collection and analysis in a sequentially designed mixed methods study is not a one-shot event. It may require reshaping the initial theoretical model based on the findings emerging from the first phase prior to the start of the follow-up phase to ensure that the model being used as the lens guiding the follow-up phase provides a comprehensive understanding. The discrepancies and unexplained variance subsequent to the results of testing the theoretical model quantitatively invoked deeper reflection and further review of the literature which yielded a broadened explanation of how beliefs shape actions. While this was not ideal, it was beneficial in enhancing the study interpretations. The approach I used to develop and modify the theoretical model is not new to sequential mixed methods designs; however, this paper illustrates the dynamic process involved.
在顺序混合方法设计中开发和使用理论模型是交互式的，而不是线性的，并且可以重塑研究的设计。在目前的混合方法研究中，我在检查初步结果之后参与的过程表明，在顺序设计的混合方法研究中，开发一个全面的理论模型来充分构建数据收集和分析并不是一次性事件。在后续阶段开始之前，可能需要根据第一阶段的发现重塑初始理论模型，以确保用作指导后续阶段的镜头的模型提供全面的理解。定量测试理论模型结果之后的差异和无法解释的差异引发了更深入的反思和对文献的进一步回顾，从而对信念如何塑造行动有了更广泛的解释。虽然这并不理想，但它有利于增强研究解释。我用来开发和修改理论模型的方法对于顺序混合方法设计并不陌生;然而，本文说明了所涉及的动态过程。

References 引用

• Admiraal W., Louws M., Lockhorst D., Paas T., Buynsters M., Cviko A., Janssen C., de Jonge M., Nouwens S., Post L., van der Ven F., Kester L., (2017). Teachers in school-based technology innovations: A typology of their beliefs on teaching and technology. Computers & Education, 114, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.013IF: 8.9 Q1 B1
  Admiraal W.， Louws M.， Lockhorst D.， Paas T.， Buynsters M.， Cviko A.， Janssen C.， de Jonge M.， Nouwens S.， Post L.， van der Ven F.， Kester L.， （2017）.基于学校的技术创新教师：他们对教学和技术的信念类型学。计算机与教育， 114， 57–68.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.013IF： 8.9 第一季度
• Ahmed K. A., (2013). Teacher-centered versus learner-centered teaching style. The Journal of Global Business Management, 9(1), 22–34.
  艾哈迈德 KA，（2013 年）。以教师为中心与以学习者为中心的教学风格。全球商业管理杂志，9（1），22-34。
• Angers J., Machtmes K., (2005). An ethnographic case study of beliefs, context factors and practices of teachers integrating technology. The Qualitative Report, 10(4).
  Angers J.， Machtmes K.， （2005 年）。关于教师整合技术的信念、背景因素和实践的民族学案例研究。定性报告，10（4）。
• Argyris C., Schön D., (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
  Argyris C.， Schön D.， （1974 年）。理论实践：提高专业效率。乔西-巴斯。
• Bate F., (2010). A bridge too far? Explaining beginning teachers’’ use of ICT in Australian schools. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1033IF: 3.3 Q1 B3.
  Bate F.，（2010 年）。一座桥太远了？解释初级教师在澳大利亚学校对 ICT 的使用。澳大利亚教育技术杂志，26（7）。 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1033 IF： 3.3 Q1 B3.
• Becker J., Riel M., (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist-compatible computer use [on-line]. Centre for Research on Information Technology and Organisations, University of California.
  贝克尔 J.，瑞尔 M.，（2000 年）。教师专业参与和建构主义兼容的计算机使用 [在线]。加利福尼亚大学信息技术与组织研究中心。
• Crawford L., (2020). Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks in Research. In Burkholder C., Crawford H., (Eds), Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar practitioner. SAGE.
  克劳福德 L.，（2020 年）。研究中的概念和理论框架。在 Burkholder C.、Crawford H.（编辑）中，研究设计和方法：学者从业者的应用指南。圣人。
• Creswell J., (2014a). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.
  克雷斯韦尔 J.，（2014a）。混合方法研究的简要介绍。圣人。
• Creswell J., (2014b). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (Fourth edition). SAGE.
  克雷斯韦尔 J.，（2014b）。研究设计：定性、定量和混合方法（第四版）。圣人。
• Creswell J., (2016). 30 Essential skills for the qualitative researcher. SAGE.
  克雷斯韦尔 J.，（2016 年）。30 定性研究人员的基本技能。圣人。
• Creswell J., Plano Clark V. L, Gutmann M., Hanson W., (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage, (pp. 161–196)
  Creswell J.、Plano Clark VL、Gutmann M.、Hanson W.，（2003 年）。高级混合方法研究设计。在 Tashakkori A.， Teddlie C.， （编辑）.社会和行为研究混合方法手册。Sage，（第 161-196 页）
• Creswell J. W., Plano Clark V. L., (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed). SAGE.
  克雷斯韦尔 JW，普莱诺克拉克 VL，（2018 年）。设计和进行混合方法研究（第 3 版）。圣人。
• Davis F. D., (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008IF: 7.0 Q1 B2
  戴维斯 FD，（1989 年）。感知的有用性、感知的易用性以及用户对信息技术的接受度。MIS 季刊，13（3），319-340。https://doi.org/10.2307/249008IF： 7.0 第一季度
• Eraut M, (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158001IF: 3.1 Q1 B2
  Eraut M，（2000 年）。专业工作中的非正式学习和隐性知识。英国教育心理学杂志，70（1），113-136。https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158001IF： 3.1 第一季度
• Ertmer P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich A., (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, beliefs and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3). 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551IF: 4.5 Q1 B2
  Ertmer P.，Ottenbreit-Leftwich A.，（2010 年）。教师技术变革：知识、信仰和文化如何交叉。教育技术研究杂志，42（3）。255–284.https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551IF： 4.5 第一季度
• Ertmer P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich A., Sadik O., Sendurur E., Sendurur P., (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59(2). 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001IF: 8.9 Q1 B1
  Ertmer P.， Ottenbreit-Leftwich A.， Sadik O.， Sendurur E.， Sendurur P.， （2012）.教师信念和技术整合实践：关键关系。计算机与教育， 59（2）。423–435.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001IF： 8.9 Q1
• Evans B. C., Coon D. W., Ume E., (2011). Use of theoretical frameworks as a pragmatic guide for mixed methods studies: A methodological necessity? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811412972IF: 3.8 Q1 B1
  埃文斯 BC，浣熊 DW，Ume E.，（2011 年）。使用理论框架作为混合方法研究的实用指南：方法论的必要性？混合方法研究杂志，5（4），276-292。https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811412972IF： 3.8 第一季度
• Fetters M., (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. SAGE Publications.
  Fetters M.，（2020 年）。混合方法研究工作簿：设计、实施和发布项目的活动。SAGE 出版物。
• Gates S., (2008). Mixing it up: The role of theory in mixed-methods research. Qualitative Methods.
  盖茨 S.，（2008 年）。混合起来：理论在混合方法研究中的作用。定性方法。
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255IF: 2.4 Q1 B1
  格林 JC、卡拉切利 VJ、格雷厄姆 WF，（1989 年）。迈向混合方法评估设计的概念框架。教育评估和政策分析，11（3），255-274。https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255IF： 2.4 第一季度
• Guba, & Lincoln (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin E.Y.N., Lincoln Y., (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications.
  Guba， & Lincoln （1994）.定性研究中的竞争范式。Denzin E.Y.N.， Lincoln Y.， （Eds）， 定性研究手册。SAGE 出版物。
• Hair J., Franklin G., Hult M., Ringle C., Sarstedt M., (2014). A premier on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.
  Hair J.、Franklin G.、Hult M.、Ringle C.、Sarstedt M.，（2014 年）。偏最小二乘结构方程建模 （PLS-SEM） 的首映。SAGE 出版物。
• Hanson W. E., Creswell J. W., Clark P. V., Petska K. S., Creswell J. D., (2005). Mixed methods research designs in Counselling Psychology. Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology. Paper 373.
  Hanson WE、Creswell JW、Clark PV、Petska KS、Creswell JD，（2005 年）。咨询心理学中的混合方法研究设计。心理学系教师出版物。论文 373。
• Haynes-Brown T., Fetters M. D., (2021). Using joint display as an analytic process: An illustration using bar graphs joint displays from a mixed methods study of how beliefs shape secondary school teachers' use of technology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993286IF: 3.9 Q1 B2
  Haynes-Brown T.，Fetters MD，（2021 年）。使用联合显示作为分析过程：使用条形图联合显示的插图，来自信念如何影响中学教师对技术的使用的混合方法研究。国际定性方法杂志。https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993286IF： 3.9 第一季度
• Haynes-Brown T., Shannon-Baker P., (2021). Integrating video evidence in mixed methods research: Innovations, benefits, and challenges for research exploring how beliefs shape actions. Methods in Psychology, 5, 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100068IF: NA NA NA.
  Haynes-Brown T.，Shannon-Baker P.，（2021 年）。在混合方法研究中整合视频证据：探索信念如何塑造行动的研究的创新、好处和挑战。心理学方法，5,2-9。 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100068 IF： NA NA NA。
• Ivankova N. V., Creswell J. W., Stick S. L., (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. SAGE Publications. (18, pp. 3–20). https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05282260IF: 1.1 Q2 B3
  Ivankova NV，Creswell JW，Stick SL，（2006 年）。使用混合方法顺序解释设计：从理论到实践。SAGE 出版物。（18，第 3-20 页）。https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05282260IF： 1.1 第二季度
• Jamalzadeh M., Shahsavar Z., (2015). The effects of contextual factors on teacher’s beliefs and practices. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. (192, pp. 166–171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.024IF: NA NA NA
• Jarvis C. B., MacKenzie S. B., Podsakoff P. M., (2003). A critical review of constructindicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.
• Johnson B., Christensen L., (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th edition). SAGE Publications.
• Judson E., (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 581–597.
• Kerr P., (2009). Espoused theories and theories in use of information literacy: A model for reflection and evaluation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information and Science and Technology, 46(1). 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2009.1450460377IF: NA NA NA
• Kidder L. H., Fine M., (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1987, 57–75.
• Marshall C., Rossman G., (2016) Designing Qualitative Research. 6th Edition, SAGE, Thousand Oaks
• Maxwell J. A., (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Miles M., Huberman M., Saldana J., (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methodssourcebook (4th Edition). SAGE Publications.
• NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences (2018). Best practices for mixed methods, research in the health sciences (2nd Edition). National Institute of Health.
• Nilsen P, (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0IF: 8.8 Q1 B1
• Onwuegbuzie A., Frels R., (2015). Using Q methodology in the literature review process: A mixed research approach. Journal of Educational Issues, 1(2). 20https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v1i2.8396IF: NA NA NA
• Osterman K. F., Kottkamp R. B., (1993). Reflective practice for educators’ professional development to improve student learning. Corwin Press.
• Pajares M. F., (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research. Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307IF: 8.3 Q1 B1
• Porot N., Mandelbaum E., (2019). The science of belief: A progress report. WIREs Cogn Sci, 12(12), e1539. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1539IF: 3.2 Q1 B2.
• Ragin C., (2004). Between complexity and parsimony: Limited diversity, counterfactual cases, and comparative AnalysisTheory and research in comparative social analysis. Researh Gate
• Ravitch M., Riggan M., (2017). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide, research (2nd Edition). SAGE Publications.
• Ravitz J., Becker H., Wong Y., (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. teachers. Teaching, Learning, and Computing. National Survey Report. Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
• Roberts S., Mehler B., Orszulak J., Reimer B., Coughlin J., Glass J., (2011). An evaluation of age, gender and technology experience in user performance and impressions of a multimodal human-machine interface. In Doolen T., Van Aken E., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2011 Industrial Engineering Research Conference.
• Rogers M. E., (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th Ed.). Free Press.
• Savaya R., Gardner F., (2012). Critical reflection to identity gaps between espoused theory and theory in use. Social Work, 57(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1093/SW/SWS037IF: 2.3 Q1 B2
• Stewart H., (2015). Theories-in-use and espoused theories: An examination of team decision making in the initial special education eligibility meeting. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tennessee.
• Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: Calling for an integrative framework. In Bergman M., (Ed), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications. SAGE Publications. (pp. 101–119).
• Teddlie C., Tashakkori A., (2012). Common “core” characteristics of mixed methods, research: A review of critical issues and call for greater convergence. SAGE Publications. (56, pp. 774–788). https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433795IF: 2.3 Q1 B2
• UNESCO and Microsoft (2011). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers. Retrieved from site. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002134/213475e.pdf
• Venkatesh V., Thong J., Xu X., (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information, technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412IF: 7.0 Q1 B2
• Windschitl M., Sahl K., (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039001165IF: 3.5 Q1 B1
• Wisdom J., Creswell J., (2013). Mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. AHRQ publication No. 13 0028-EF. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
• Yin R., (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.