This study examines the status of mixed-methods research (MMR) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL). A total of 204 studies employing MMR were analyzed. Manual coding was carried out to reveal MMR purposes, designs, features, and rhetorical justifications. Findings indicate CALL authors mostly adopt MMR for triangulation and complementarity purposes. Core designs are more favored in CALL MMR research articles, compared to complex designs. Moderate size random sampling prevails in the data, where data sources are sequentially collected and analyzed using parametric tests. Symptomatic argumentative schemes are found to be the most common justification of MMR. Based on the findings, it is evident that most CALL researchers employ conventional MMR designs. The study concludes with implications for CALL stakeholders and authors.
