Advancing knowledge in educational technology requires a diverse array of research designs, methodologies, and data sources. Mixed methods research, particularly valuable for studying intricate issues, remains scarce in educational technology. The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of mixed methods research studies published in the top 10 educational technology journals between 2018 and 2022. By examining n = 2380 articles from top educational technology journals, this study aims to enhance awareness of mixed methodologies among educational technology researchers, highlighting common approaches and identifying gaps. Adhering to best practices for prevalence studies and utilizing methods from evidence synthesis, three authors screened and coded articles for quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, or non-empirical studies through three stages of data analysis. Results indicate that mixed methods research is underrepresented, constituting only 12% of all published articles, the smallest proportion compared to other types. Furthermore, 64% of these mixed methods studies did not self-identify as such despite employing mixed methods approaches, revealing a gap in methodological understanding. Among those that did self-identify, 68% failed to specify the type of core mixed methods approach used, indicating further gaps. The prevalence of mixed methods research published in the top 10 educational technology journals in a 5-year period ranged between 5% and 15% and is low compared to other types of published studies in the field. Addressing the underrepresentation and improving the specificity of methodological reporting can enhance the overall quality of research in educational technology.

中文翻译：

---

绘制教育技术期刊中混合方法研究的普遍性


推进教育技术知识需要多样化的研究设计、方法和数据源。混合方法研究对于研究复杂的问题特别有价值，但在教育技术中仍然稀缺。本研究的目的是检查 2018 年至 2022 年间发表在前 10 名教育技术期刊上的混合方法研究的流行率。通过检查来自顶级教育技术期刊的 n = 2380 篇文章，本研究旨在提高教育技术研究人员对混合方法的认识，突出常见方法并找出差距。三位作者遵循患病率研究的最佳实践并利用证据综合方法，通过数据分析的三个阶段，为定量、定性、混合方法或非实证研究筛选和编码文章。结果表明，混合方法研究代表性不足，仅占所有已发表文章的 12%，与其他类型的研究相比，比例最小。此外，尽管采用了混合方法方法，但这些混合方法研究中有 64% 并没有自我认同，这表明了方法学理解的差距。在那些确实自我识别的受访者中，68% 的受访者未能具体说明所使用的核心混合方法的类型，这表明存在进一步的差距。在 5 年期间，发表在前 10 种教育技术期刊上的混合方法研究的流行率在 5% 到 15% 之间，与该领域已发表的其他类型的研究相比，该研究的流行率较低。解决代表性不足的问题并提高方法报告的特殊性可以提高教育技术研究的整体质量。