SCRDs are gaining ground in the counseling literature. Their flexibility, applicability to practice settings, and ease of interpretation make them an ideal design. Pairing SCRDs with qualitative case study offers the opportunity for a more complete understanding of the phenomenon of interest. This presentation will introduce attendees to this mixed method design. Design elements, as well as benefits and challenges experienced in the conduct of this research design will be explored.

Published Article / The paper reports on a Learn 2.0 technology that was used to support the continuing professional development of mathematics teachers at a secondary school. Design Based Research methods were used within a Multiphase Mixed Methods research framework to create professional development opportunities that were subsequently monitored by Social Network Analysis techniques. We demonstrate that Learn 2.0 technologies can indeed support the continuing professional development of teachers and improve their performance, and also that Social Network Analysis is an effective method to describe, comprehend, clarify and transparently monitor teacher engagement during online professional development activities. We identify 'participation' as a key pre-determinant to success.

Background: Mixed-methods research (MMR) offers much to healthcare professions on clinical and research levels. Speech-language therapists and audiologists work in both educational and health settings where they deal with real-world problems. Through the nature of their work, they are confronted with multifaceted questions arising from their efforts to provide evidence-based services to individuals of all ages with communication disorders. MMR methods research is eminently suited to addressing such questions. Objective: The aim of this tutorial is to increase awareness of the value of MMR, especially for readers less familiar with this research approach. Method: A literature review was conducted to provide an overview of the key issues in MMR. The tutorial discusses the various issues to be considered in the critical appraisal of MMR, followed by an explanation of the process of conducting MMR. A critical review describes the strengths and challenges in MMR. Results: MMR is less commonly used or published in the fields of speech-language therapy and audiology. Conclusion: Researchers working in teams can draw on the strengths of different disciples and their research approaches. Such collaborative enterprises will contribute to capacity building. Researchers, SLTs and audiologists are encouraged to make use of MMR to address the complex research issues in the multicultural, multifaceted South African context. MMR makes an important contribution to the understanding of individuals with communication disorders, and in turn, researchers in the two disciplinary fields of speech-language therapy and audiology can contribute to the development of this research approach. MMR is well suited to the complexity of South African contexts and its populations, as it can provide multiple perspectives of a topic.

Two modalities of research design's workshops -long and short- were developed to qualify 658 Hispanamerican research workers, whom were divided into 30 groups, and were applyied along ten years. The terminal efficiency of the workshops was measured with a pre-post-test design and the differences were assessed with a t-test -for dependent samples-. The results showed that the values of the post-test were higher -p ≤ 0.001- than the pretest averages. Contrasting the two workshop versions, the average of the long workshop was significantly higher -p ≤ 0.001- than the short one, by means of a multiple pre-post-test design and the t-test for independent samples. Using Solomon four-group design it was feasible to establish that the significant increase of knowledge about research designs was not influenced by the interaction of the pretest and treatment factors and there was not observed any significant difference between both versions. / Se aplicaron dos modalidades de talleres de investigación -corta y larga- para habilitar por espacio de diez años a 658 investigadores hispanoamericanos, divididos en 30 grupos. La eficiencia terminal de los talleres fue medida con un diseño de pre y post-test y las diferencias con una prueba t-Student -para muestras dependientes-. Los resultados mostraron que los valores del post-test eran más elevados -p ≤ 0.001- que los del pretest. Contrastando las dos versiones del taller, el promedio del largo fue significantemente mayor -p ≤ 0.001- que el del corto; esto, bajo la tutela de un diseño múltiple de pre y post-test y la prueba t-Student, pero para muestras independientes. Con el diseño de cuatro grupos de Solomon se estableció que el incremento significativo en el conocimiento sobre diseños de investigación no fue intervenido por los factores tratamiento y pretest -interacción- y no se observaron diferencias significativas entre ambas versiones.