This paper will highlight the benefits and need for a mixed methods approach, particularly in the research fields of cognition and educational technology.  It will highlight the benefits of a mixed methods approach in the development of an instructional design framework to facilitate deep learning and critical thinking within a technology-rich learning environment.  Purposeful integration of learning technologies, implications for learner use, implementation strategies, and evaluation of their effectiveness in learning environments cannot be overlooked.  This mixed methods study specifically examined the impact that technology-enhanced learning environments have on different learners’ critical thinking in relation to eductive ability, technological self-efficacy, and approaches to learning and motivation in collaborative groups.  In order to achieve this, a robust framework had to be developed.  An extensive literature review on learning and instructional design led to the development of a theoretical framework CoLe(CTTE (collaborative-learning and critical think in technology-enhanced environments).  The paper will exemplify the research method approach used in the development of CoLeCTTE.  The field of investigation was restricted to three key questions: 1) Do learner skill bases (learning approach and eductive ability) influence critical thinking within the proposed CoLeCTTE framework?  If so, how?; 2) Do learning technologies influence the facilitation of deep learning and critical thinking within the proposed CoLeCTTE framework?  If so, how?; and 3) How might learning be designed to facilitate the acquisition of deep learning and critical thinking within a technology-enabled collaborative environment?  The investigation was conducted within a higher education context and its relevance to the European context will be highlighted.

The rationale, assumptions and method of research for using a mixed method and naturalistic case study approach as used in an Australian study are discussed and why it can be used within a European context.

Through three Australian cases, the relational effects and influences of eductive ability, technological self-efficacy, approaches to learning and motivation; and learning technologies on learning and critical thinking behaviour were investigated.  The rationale for using the mixed methods research design applied at the case level and whole-of-study level will be discussed as well as detailed descriptions of the data sources and the basis for using these.  The paper will argue the need for holistic research approaches to develop educational frameworks that can inform policy-development, classroom implementation and a more focused approach to teaching and learning within a European context.  Future research proposals will also be presented.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). The study process questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Caracelli, V., & Greene, J. (1997). Crafting mixed-method designs. In J. Greene, & V. Caracelli (Eds.), New directions for evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., Plano, C. V., Guttmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2010). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In F. Henri, & A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Miltiadou, M., & Yu, C. H. (1999). Validation of the online technologies self-efficacy scale (OTSES). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445672. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Newman, D., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3 (2), 56-77. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1995/n2/newman.txt Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 114–139. Perkins, C., & Murphy, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring individual engagement in critical thinking in online discussions: An exploratory case study. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 298-307. Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1–48. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0735 Shavelson, R., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. References 344 Steenhuis, H.-J., & de Bruijn, E. J. (2006). Building theories from case study research: the progressive case study. (pp. 1-13). POMS. Turner, P. (2004). The SPQ in monitoring learning. 15th Annual AAEE Conference - 27-29th Sept 2004. Toowoomba, Australia: Australasian Association or Engineering Education. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yin, R. K. (2008). Applications of case study research (4th ed., Vol. 34). Sage.