Educational researchers, as well as researchers in other disciplines, often work with ordinal data, such as Likert item responses and test item scores. Critical questions arise when researchers attempt to implement statistical models to analyse ordinal data, given that many statistical techniques assume the data analysed to be continuous. Could ordinal data be treated as continuous data, that is, assuming the ordinal data to be continuous and then applying statistical techniques as if analysing continuous data? Why and why not? Focusing on structural equation models (SEMs), particularly confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), this article discusses an ongoing debate on the treatment of ordinal data and reports a short review on the practices of conducting and reporting SEMs, in the context of mathematics education research. The author reviewed 70 publications in mathematics education research that reported a study involving SEMs to analyse ordinal data, but less than half discussed how data were treated or guided readers through the analysis; it is therefore harder to repeat such an analysis and evaluate the results. This article invites methodological discussions on SEMs with ordinal variables in the practices of educational research. Subsequently, a standard for reporting SEMs with ordinal data is proposed, followed by an example. This standard contributes to educational research by enabling researchers (self and others) to evaluate SEMs reported. The example demonstrates, using real-life research data, how two different approaches for analysing ordinal data (as continuous or as a product of discretisation from some continuous distributions) can lead to results that disagree.

Within the context of investigating belief systems, this work exemplifies a mixed-method approach. Two approaches are utilized to explore the philosophical, ontological, and epistemological assumptions that university students foster regarding the relationships between knowledge and reality. In the first step, written materials that elaborated on the matter at hand were subjected to content analysis with the assistance of Leximancer, a software that recognizes themes and concepts and turns textual data into concept maps that express networks of meaning. The second step involved conducting a cluster analysis on the data obtained from the questionnaire to identify distinct groups of participants who shared consistent epistemological viewpoints. The results obtained from the two approaches are in agreement and shed light on the prevalent epistemic inclination that favors a constructivist viewpoint. Discussion on the ramifications of the findings, as well as the methodological issues that are pertinent to the present illustration, is provided.

These days, many schools are reviewing their curricula, and Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) education is one area where these changes are being applied. Because STEAM education integrates five subjects, it requires an approach in which teachers from these subjects work collaboratively. However, applying traditional assessment methods in STEAM education is challenging, as it requires teachers to jointly decide on appropriate assessment strategies. At present, no clear framework exists to support this process. This study examined the potential of the ordinal priority approach (OPA), a recently introduced method for multi-criteria decision-making, to facilitate teachers’ collaborative selection of assessment methods for STEAM education. It further explored the extent to which subject differences affect collaboration by comparing the decision-making of two groups: a homogeneous group (teachers of the same subject) and a heterogeneous group (teachers of different subjects). Pre- and post-questionnaires were administered to both groups to determine how the OPA can assist teachers in jointly developing a STEAM assessment method. Analyses of the responses identified differences in each group’s consensus-building process. The study revealed three key contributions of OPA to teacher collaboration in STEAM education: 1) it ensures that teachers from diverse subjects have their opinions considered; 2) its transparent decision-making process helps mitigate distrust during discussions; and 3) it promotes fair decision-making, unaffected by social power differences within the group. Based on these findings, OPA appears effective in converging diverse expert opinions through a clear decision-making process.