In order to answer the question ‘Do iPads when used as an e-reader and application, in a middle school reading programme, influence student’s reading achievement?’ data was analysed from not only the control and treatment groups reading comprehension, accuracy and rate alongside each other, but also
89 | P a g e
independent of each other i.e. the correlation the pre-test and post test results had for both groups.
The mean scores in the pre and post-test for comprehension, accuracy and rate for both groups was calculated and used in the subsequent correlation analysis. The correlation between the following parameters was calculated using Spearman's correlation coefficient to measure the strength of the association of pre and post test scores within each group independently. This was completed using iNZight statistical analysis software.
Figure 3. Scatterplots displaying the correlation between pre and post-tests in comprehension,
accuracy and rate, for Treatment and Control Group.
According to figure 3.1, there is a strong monotonic relationship (r = 0.63) between the average pre-test comprehension score and the average post-test comprehension score from the Treatment Group participants. This shows that as the pre-test results increased, so too did the post-test results. Yet, such correlation produced from the two variables are little use for individual prediction, due to the correlation yielding only a few more correct predictions than could be accomplished via estimating or by using same chance selection
Figure 3.1. Treatment Group- average comprehension score results from Pre and Post test
Rank correlation: 0.63
Figure 3.2. Control Group- average comprehension score results from Pre and Post test
90 | P a g e
procedure (Borg, 1963). According to figure 3.2, there is a stronger magnitude/correlation between the pre-test and post-test score variables from that of the Control Group participants (r = 0.71). This ranking suggests that due to the strong rank correlation between the pre-test and post-test comprehension scores for the Control Group participants, group predictions can be made that are accurate enough for most purposes. In the case of this research such data can be interpreted as a prediction that for the students who do not use iPads as an e-reader and application, as their pre-test scores increased so will their post- test scores for comprehension. It is important to note however, that the correlation does not imply a cause-and-effect between the pre and the post-test scores. Figure 3.1. and 3.2. does not indicate that the pre-test scores relate to the post-test scores through cause and effect, rather, the general positive trend indicates that for both groups of participants the higher their pre-test score, the higher their post-test score and in terms of comprehension, there is a stronger correlation between these tests from the Control group participants.
In terms of accuracy, according to figure 3.3 & 3.4, while again both the Treatment and Control Group participants produced pre and post-test results which exhibited a positive monotonic relationship between the two tests, it was the Treatment participant results which yielded a stronger correlation
Figure 3.3. Treatment Group- average accuracy score results from Pre and Post test
Rank correlation: 0.79
Figure 3.4. Control Group- average accuracy score results from Pre and Post test
91 | P a g e
coefficient. Yet again, based on Borg’s (1963) analysis and interpreting of correlation coefficients, while the rank correlation for reading accuracy exhibited a stronger relationship between the pre and post-test for the Treatment participants, both groups’ rank correlations (treatment; r =0.79 and control; r =0.61) fall within Borg’s range of 0.65-0.85. According to Borg (1963) correlations which fall within this range can be considered when making possible group predictions that are accurate for most purposes, but not close enough to indicate a close relationship between the pre and post-test variables for accuracy.
Figures 3.5. and 3.6. shows the relationship between the pre and post-test scores
for reading rate from the two groups of participants. Figure 3.6. shows that the Control group scores for reading rate had a slightly higher rank correlation (r = 0.75) than that of the Treatment group (r = 0.73). Yet, while such correlations do depict a strong, positive, monotonic relationship between the pre and post-test results for reading rate from both groups, due to the range in which the correlations fell into (<0.65>0.85) again, it is possible to make accurate predictions for most purposes, but it does not indicate a close relationship between the two variables.
Figure 3.5. Treatment Group- average rate score results from Pre and Post test
Rank correlation: 0.73
Figure 3.6. Control Group- average rate score results from Pre and Post test
92 | P a g e
4.2.1 Summary
An evaluation of the monotonic relationship between the pre-tests and subsequent post-test variables for both groups indicate from the figures above, that there was a significant positive correlation between the means of the pre and also post test scores for both groups. The highest positive correlation was noted between the mean pre and post-test scores from the Treatment group for
accuracy. As all the Spearman rank correlations fell closer to 1 than 0, this
indicates that when the pre-test variable scores increased, so too did the post- test variable scores though not by a consistent amount. However, as none of the correlations equated to higher than 0.85, the relationship between the two variables of pre and post-test results for comprehension, accuracy and rate do not indicate a close enough relationship in order for a strong prediction to be made for either group or individual prediction.