Chapter six details the research design of Phase Two of the study. The chapter begins with an overview: outlining the three main goals, detailing elements of the research design, and describing the shared reading intervention that is central to this phase. The chapter continues with an explanation of data collection procedures and concludes with an account of the data analysis procedures employed for Phase Two.
Phase Two Overview
The goals of Phase Two were to:
(a) implement a pilot digital shared reading intervention,
(b) evaluate the effects of the intervention and
(c) gather baseline data to inform the third and final phase of the study.
The ABC research design (pre-test – intervention – post-test) enabled an examination of the effects of the shared reading intervention utilising 24 participants, of whom 15 were female, with an age range that extended from 61-92 months (Mean = 76 months, Standard Deviation = 9 months). Families were selected from the original Phase One sample (See Tables 6.1 and 6.2 for demographic details). The participants were divided into two groups, with 12 in a comparison group and the other 12 in an experimental group. Families, from the school implementing iPads, formed the experimental group and read digital texts and the same number of families, from the school not implementing iPads, formed the comparison group and read traditional (print) texts.
Table 6.1
Age of the Cohort Groups Phase Two
Participants n Range Youngest Oldest M SD
Experimental 12 27 61 88 78.17 7.98
Comparison 12 26 61 87 73.5 8.86
Table 6.2.
Participants’ Gender and Grade
A wide range of measures was administered to determine the effects of the intervention on the children’s literacy development and families’ reading practices. The pre-test-post-test treatment and comparison group design involved the administration of pre-tests, shared reading treatments, and post-tests to both groups. Both groups were given the same literacy pre-tests and post-tests, and they were both tested during July and August, the second school term of the year. The families participated in a six-week shared reading experience with either digital (treatment group) or traditional print (comparison group) children’s picture books. Interviews and observations were administered post-test for both groups. The experimental group received the experimental treatment, digital books on iPads, and the comparison group received an alternative treatment, traditional print books.
The selection of books for the interventions was particularly important. The primary focus was not to entertain or distract children and their families from the original essence of the story, rather the focus was on the integration of digital books into an ecology of sharing and learning. The aforementioned findings of Takeuchi and Stevens (2011) and Scholastic (2012) informed the book selection process (see Chapter Two for details). The books selected for the intervention fulfilled the requirements of the study in that they promoted the development of children’s early literacy skills, such as: rhyme awareness; print knowledge; fluency; sight words; phonological awareness; alphabet knowledge; and vocabulary (Farstrup & Samuels, 2002; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Song et al., 2015). The books represented a variety of genres and interactive features that were chosen to appeal to a wide range of
children. The books included fiction, alphabet, rhyme, and information books. The interactive features varied between the books, with the least interactive book containing only one
interactive element and the most interactive book containing eleven. None of the books
Experimental Comparison
Grade Male Female Male Female
K 0 1 2 1
P 1 4 2 3
1 3 3 2 2
contained videos or interactive games. The decision to include the Dr Seuss’ ABC alphabet book was influenced by the findings of the Murray, Stahl, and Ivey (1996) study that revealed greater gains in phonemic awareness when children read alphabet books with example words to demonstrate letter sounds compared with children who read alphabet books without example words.
The shared book reading intervention involved families sharing the books with their children, in their own home, and recording the details of each shared reading experience on a reading questionnaire. Each family received a book pack (see Figure 6.1 for an example) consisting of four books, (traditional print books for the comparison group and the same titled books in digital format for the experimental group), reading questionnaires (Appendix J), pens to complete the questionnaire, and a visual reminder (Appendix G) in the form of an A4 calendar fridge magnet complete with pictures of the four books, and dates of the pre-tests,
reading intervention and post-tests. The books selected for this phase were Each Peach Pear
Plum (Ahlberg & Ahlberg, 2011), Dr Seuss’ ABC (Seuss, 2010), Elmer’s Special Day
(McKee, 2011), and Hip Hop the Frog (Kitzelman & Kitzelman, 2010).
Figure 6.1. Comparison group shared reading intervention book pack.
Families were free to read the four books as often as they wished. There were no
requirements regarding the minimum or maximum number of readings during the six-week intervention. Families were asked to ensure that they recorded how (independent or shared
reading) and how often their child read each book on the reading questionnaire. Parents did not receive any training or support during this intervention in phase two.
Phase Two Data Collection
During the second phase of the study four types of data were collected: tests of early reading skills, semi-structured interviews with parents and teachers, videos of parents sharing books with their children and a self-reported reading behaviours survey (see Table 6.3 for timeline details). The tests of early reading skills provided quantitative data about children’s pre- and post- intervention vocabulary development, concepts about print knowledge and phonological abilities. Pre-test and post-test measures for phase two included PPVT-4A and 4B, HPNT, MPVT, CAP and PAT. The semi-structured interviews provided information about parents’ beliefs regarding iPads in education and digital texts, families’ reading behaviours prior to as well as during the intervention, and demographic information. The shared reading videos provided qualitative data about families’ shared reading behaviours. Outcome measures were divided into two categories: language and early literacy skills. To help eliminate tester bias, a second tester was recruited to collect pre- and post-intervention data during phase two. As previously mentioned, the second tester, a Doctor of Philosophy candidate from the
University of Tasmania, is a qualified early childhood teacher with a Bachelor of Education (Honours). She received training in the use of the assessment instruments during her
undergraduate degree and later in preparation for the data collection of this study. The second tester did not receive any payment for her services.
Table 6.3
Tests and When Administered
Pre-Test T1 (Time 1) Monitoring Post-Test T2 (Time 2) PPVT-4A ✔ PPVT-4B ✔ HPNT ✔ ✔ CAP ✔ ✔ MPVT-1 ✔ ✔ PAT ✔ ✔ Semi-structured Interview ✔
Reading Behaviour Survey ✔
Dialogic and E-book Reading Inventory
✔
Phase Two Data Analysis
The first step in analysing the data from this pre-test-post-test comparison group experiment was to compute descriptive statistics. Analyses were performed using IBM’s Statistical Product and Service Solutions predictive analytical software (SPSS) and descriptive statistics were computed for age (Table 6.2), gender and grade (See Tables 6.1 and 6.2 above). Mean scores were computed for the pre-test and post-test literacy measures for both groups. T-Tests were conducted to examine the pre- (Time 1) and post- (Time 2) test early-reading
assessment scores and to test for statistical significance (Gall et al., 2007). To overcome issues with the small sample size and to create additional robustness, Cohen’s d was also conducted to determine the intervention effect sizes.
Ten parents from the experimental group were individually interviewed. Nine of the adults interviewed were mothers, although one father was present. Interview data were analysed using QSR International’s NVivo10 software.
Conclusion
This chapter has detailed the methods employed to examine the effects of digital
(experimental) and traditional (comparison) shared reading interventions on children’s early literacy development. The inclusion of the comparison group allowed for comparisons to be made between the effects of families reading print books in the traditional format and the
effects of families experiencing new ways of reading with digital books on iPads. The
following chapter, Chapter Seven, will detail the results of phase two analyses. Given that the analyses focuses both on single participants and also multiple participants, the chapter will provide information about repeated measures outcomes both in terms of individual
participants and also in terms of multiple participants (participants treated as group/sample). However, the summary neglects single participant outcomes in favour of multiple-participant outcomes. Single participant analyses were presented with the participants split into
comparison and experimental groups (effect for treatment group) and with outcomes
measured at Time 1 and Time 2 (effect for occasion). The hypothesis being tested here is the effectiveness of digital e-books.