This chapter provides an overview of the methodology used in this study. This is a qualitative study using a collective case methodology (with the use of supporting descriptive data). The data collection techniques used were surveys, individual interviews, and documents. Information regarding the design rationale, methodology, data collection, participants, data analysis technique, credibility and ethical
considerations are outlined in this chapter.
Overview
To date, there is little known about how SNTs impact students’ reading as outlined in Chapter Two. While research has been conducted to study how students with reading disabilities use assistive technology in the classroom, there is a gap in the literature in understanding how students with reading difficulties use SNTs. Questions arise as to whether students with reading difficulties use SNTs more or less than their peers. Do they feel they are able to use this form of literacy as well as their peers? Do they feel socially accepted by their peers when they use these technologies? How does the ability to navigate or not navigate SNTs affect their self-esteem? The primary purpose of the study was to explore the experiences of students with reading difficulties as they related to using SNTs. The secondary purpose was to explore students’ perceptions of reading and their perception of their self while using these technologies. Therefore, the overarching purpose of this study was to examine if the use of SNTs can help promote a student’s positive perception of self.
Methodology
The overall design used in this qualitative research was a collective case study (Thomas, 2011). Within this case study, a mixed method design, with a survey,
interviews, and documents were used. The central perspective of qualitative research is that it should consider the participants’ view, describe it within a setting or context, and explore the meaning people personally hold for the research issue (Creswell, 2002).
“Qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is both inductive and deductive and establishes patterns or themes” (Creswell, 1998).
A qualitative study was chosen in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the
perceptions of the participants involved. Individual perceptions were highlighted through the individual cases with main themes and categories highlighted through the case stories.
These themes were then compared across the case to examine the commonalities and differences between the participants. This research examined students’ own perceptions of self, readers, and as users of technology, and how they believed others perceived them.
It served as an attempt to draw common themes from their experiences of literacy and technology and how this may be linked to self-esteem. The goals of this research were consistent with the goals of a qualitative study, as qualitative methods are most
appropriate when conducting interpretive inquiry because they are geared toward understanding, observing, and experiencing natural events (Creswell, 2002).
A collective case study refers to a study in which multiple cases are described and compared to provide insight into an issue (Stake, 1995). Case studies provide one of the best bridges “to rich, qualitative evidence to mainstream research” (Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007, p. 25). Yin (1994) stated that collective case designs have advantages, such as providing more compelling and robust findings, and suggested that the analytic conclusions arising from the two or more cases would be more powerful. This collective case study model allowed the researcher to analyze individual cases and then assess points of convergence and divergence, to help bring light to commonalities between participants’ perceptions of self and possible links to self-esteem and literacy.
Data Collection
The data collection process included a survey, individual interviews, and documents. The use of multiple methods reflected an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomena in question (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). This type of data collection is otherwise referred to as methodological triangulation:
using more than one data collection approach permits the evaluator to combine strengths and correct some of the deficiencies of any one source of data. Building checks and balances into a design through multiple data collection strategies is called triangulation. The triangle is the strongest of all geometric shapes, and triangulated evaluation designs are aimed at increasing the strength and rigor of an evaluation. (Patton, 1987, p .60)
The techniques of data collection used in this study were participant surveys, individual interviews, and documents. As outlined in the case study approach (Yin, 1994), it is important to incorporate different sources of evidence in order to gather a comprehensive overview of the phenomena of interest. Seven data collection methods were used to gather information from the participants over a 3-week period. The participants and their mothers were interviewed first, with the participants then
completing a written questionnaire and self-esteem test. Finally, weekly documentation was kept by the participants to record weekly usage of SNTs. These documents or technology logs were reviewed the following week by the researcher in their meeting. In the third and final week, the participants were administered an exit interview after reviewing their technology log.
Survey
Child participants were asked to complete the James Battle’s (2002) Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventories (CFSEI-3) questionnaire . This inventory is designed to measure self-esteem in children. Brubaker (2000), in the Encyclopedia of Special Education, uses the terms self-esteem and self-concept interchangeably. Battle also uses these terms interchangeably and defined self-esteem, “as the attitude that an individual has toward himself or herself” (p. 1). The CFSEI-3 is a, “norm-referenced, self-report instrument designed to elicit perceptions of personal traits and characteristics in students” (Battle, 2002, p. 3).The CFSEI-3 manual discusses two kinds of reliability measures: internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Battle, 2002). The internal consistency analysis suggests that the instrument is consistent (with the data demonstrating reliabilities in the .80s). For the test-retest reliability, a sample of 77 people tested twice in a 2-week period using the CFSEI-3 (Battle, 2002), found scores fell in the .70s and .90s (Community-University Partnership for the Study of Children, Youth, and Families, 2011). According to Aiken, 2000, Nunnally & Berstein (1994), and Salvia & Ysseldyke (1998; as cited in Battle, 2002) for an inventory to be considered minimally reliable, “it’s reliability coefficients must approximate or exceed .80 in magnitude” (p. 24).
The Intermediate Form (ages 9-12) was used for 2 of the participants, and the Adolescent Form (ages 13-18) for another. For all participants, the subscale standard scores (academic, general, parental/home, personal) were combined to create the Global Self Esteem Quotient (GSEQ). The GSEQ then, “reflects the basic theoretical model underlying the inventory, and is highly reliable...important decisions about diagnosis should rest only on the interpretation of the GSEQ scores” (Battle, 2002, p. 15).
According to the content sampling, the average coefficients for the GSEQ exceed or round up to .80, “a level that is indicative of good reliability” (Battle, 2002, p. 24).
The self-esteem test was hand-scored, using Battle’s (2002) profile and scoring form, which includes four subscales. The purpose of this test was to better understand, using a valid testing and scoring system, how accurately each child participant felt about himself or herself. Research has shown that students with reading difficulties (RDs) tend to have lower self-esteem and perceptions of self than their peers (Harter & Pike, 1984;
Shaywitz, 2003).
Individual Interviews
Interviews are important for several reasons. For example, they can be used to supplement survey responses. As well, they offer a verbal explanation to written results, that otherwise could be open for misinterpretation. For example, the researcher used the weekly interview time to clarify participants’ responses on their technology logs. The interviews conducted for this study followed a semistructured interview guide (Appendix A) which is important to allow for focused questions on the topic but also allows for participants to speak freely about topics and issues of importance to them within the area of study (Patton, 1987). Individual interviews were conducted with the student
participants as well as with their mothers. Interviewing the parent was useful to gain richer information about the child. The parents’ information supplements the participants’
information about their technology usage. Information was also gathered about parents’
usage, their child’s self-esteem and reading ability, as well as views about reading. This information added depth and breadth to each case.
Documents
The documents helped to provide more detail and accuracy to the information collected for this study. For example, the participants were asked to keep a technology log to record their daily usage. These results were reported back once a week. It was hoped that having participants use these documents would enhance the accuracy of their record keeping.