2016
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0007-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mixed Methods Research for Improved Scientific Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although students' collaboration and learning improved, the researchers found that the greatest improvement occurred in the initial support phase (when the instructor provided absolute guidance) compared to the other phases (reducing the level of instruction and delegating responsibility to the student) (Baran, 2016;Ritonga et al, 2021). In any case, scaffolding is a key factor for EFL teachers in building their vision with a hypothetical structure to provide better support to their students in the long term.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although students' collaboration and learning improved, the researchers found that the greatest improvement occurred in the initial support phase (when the instructor provided absolute guidance) compared to the other phases (reducing the level of instruction and delegating responsibility to the student) (Baran, 2016;Ritonga et al, 2021). In any case, scaffolding is a key factor for EFL teachers in building their vision with a hypothetical structure to provide better support to their students in the long term.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sampling refers to characteristics that are not completely constant across studies (Baran, 2016). Sampling saves time by reducing the amount of data and avoiding tedious work.…”
Section: Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this study, regarding the nature of the tool, the viewpoints of disaster risk management experts were benefiited in order to weigh the items. 34 Ten experts scored the items based on the importance and effect of the item on decision-making for EHE in a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not important to very important. Then, the researcher calculated the mean scores for each item as "not important = 1, slightly important = 2, moderately important = 3, important = 4, and very important = 5".…”
Section: Item Weightingmentioning
confidence: 99%