Many team-based educational researchers use multiple data collection strategies to enhance their understanding of the complex interplay between individual and environment dimensions that promote learning. Multiple data collection strategies contribute to the validity of the findings and, some maintain, offset the weaknesses of any single research method (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). The challenge of using a multiple data collection strategies always is to integrate divergent findings. Integration is the critical feature that allows a piece the research to appropriately label itself a mixed method research study.Mixed methods are just new emerging as a legitimate research methodology. The first journal devoted to the topic only recently became available in January 2007. Consistent with the newness of the field, there is considerable debate about terminology and definitions. Abbas Taskhakkori and John Creswell, co-editors of the new Journal of Mixed Methods Research offer the following broad definition of mixed methods "as research in which the investigator collects and analyzes, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or program of inquiry" (2007, p. 4). Integrating of findings from both qualitative and quantitative data is a key element of the definition that offers a way to distinguish it from students where an interdisciplinary team of scholars may each pursue the same research question from the angle of a single discipline, but never sit down in person or in a text to weigh the "value added" of the different approaches. The philosophical underpinning of mixed methods research lies in the concept of triangulation. Triangulation typically is associated with using multiple sources of data to confirm findings from qualitative research. Triangulation also occurs when differences between methods, investigators, or theoretical perspectives are engaged (Denzin, 1978). A more encompassing dialectical stance can serve as a framework for the entire research project. . Greene and Caracelli (2003) described what they call "dialectic mixed methods" where the intent to seek out differences is built into the entire framework of the study. A dialectical stance, Greene and Caracelli noted, is "to invite the juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas, to interact with the tensions invoked by these contesting arguments, or to engage in the play of ideas" (p. 96). This "mixed method way of thinking" optimally is used when the intent from the onset is to integrate findings from qualitative and quantitative research strategies.Purpose and Objectives of the Workshop This hour-long workshop seeks to introduce participant to mixed method research design in educational research. It addresses the following objectives:1. To provide an overview of key elements of mixed methods research designs.2. To demonstrate the types of research questions that are best answered through mixed methods research. 3. To describe major approaches to the research design of mixed method studies. 4. To provide examples of how mixed methods can lead to critical new insight by the pursuit of differences between qualitative and quantitative findings.Audience participation will be engaged by a preliminary review of audience member's experience with team research that involved both quantitative and qualitative data collection and by re-visiting some these examples at the end of the session to assess what kind of integration, if any, occurred.Relationship to Conference Themes This workshop is related to the conference theme of quality in educational research because it offers an expanded conception of triangulation that is achieved by integrating findings from qualitative and quantitative data on the same research question Denzin, N. K. (1978). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: Mc Graw Hill. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (91-109). Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), pp. 0-7. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE.