5.4.1 Socialisation and perceived learning
While previous conversation between the interviewer and the participants, focused around forms of engagement and levels of learning, one of the pressing questions arose in what type of learning environment the participants believe they worked best in? During the scheduled reading classes, did the participants perceive themselves learning more when they worked as individuals on a task, or as part of a pair or small group (3-5 people), and why did they think this way? The above questions were worded in order to gather data from the participants by inviting them to critically reflect on their metacognitive processes, while conveying their thoughts about what learning environment they felt they learnt best in, regardless of the current environment they had been employed into amid the length of the study.
5.4.2 Participant Responses
The responses yielded data which showed mixed preferences between the interviewed participants. Three of the participants, Master D, Master E and
119 | P a g e
Master J, all form the control group indicted that they learnt more when they worked by themselves. Master J explicitly stated “For me, it would be by myself
because I hate it whenever I’m in a group and there’s always one guy that has to go ahead and say ‘No, this is the correct answer…’”. Master J’s body language
was mostly unambiguous throughout the interview process yet, when answering the question about learning environment preferences, appeared to exhibit unspoken irritation. His abrupt answer appeared to be a direct result from reminiscing about a past group learning experience that he had found less than pleasant. Master D explained that his preference of working individually stemmed from his desire to just ‘get on with his work’ and to not have to be accountable to another peer, especially when there was a conflict of ideas or answers.
Four of the eleven participants interviewed, observed themselves as learning more when they worked as part of a pair, three of whom were treatment group participants. The general consensus from participants was that they were of the belief that they learnt more when working as part of a pair, as it allowed them to assess with their peer, if they were on the right track with their answers, and helped them to gauge their understanding of what the learning activities required from them. The participants also valued the discussion that could develop from working alongside a peer, without the possible distraction that they had at times, experienced when required to work and/or discuss items as part of a group. Miss C expressed her belief that she learns more when she is able to work as part of a pair as she is a ‘people person’ who doesn’t like to be alone. However, it is unclear to the researcher what Miss C was implying when she expressed her reluctance to ‘being alone’ and due to time restraints, the interviewer did not ask Miss C to elaborate on this for clarification.
Interestingly, the three participants who were of the understanding that they learnt more when part of a small group, were all treatment group participants. Two participants, Miss A and Master K were both enthusiastic and absolute commenting that for them it was more ‘fun’ to work within a small group
120 | P a g e
environment, either because they had the opportunity to learn from others or because they were able to collaborate together to get more work done. It appeared that unlike Master J, the three treatment participants were able to reminisce about positive small group learning experiences and held value to these during the time of being interviewed.
5.4.3 Teacher Influence
As discussed earlier on in the chapter, the reading unit was designed by both the researcher and the teachers implementing the programme within the scope of the study. Time restraints on the researcher did not allow for her to interview the teachers involved within the study, however general discussion provided a casual understanding of the underlying pedagogy both teachers had towards teaching reading, which in turn, effected the way in which they taught and facilitated the implementation of the reading unit within the study. Teacher A, who facilitated and implemented the reading programme to the control group participants tended to instruct and encourage his students to read and work independently throughout the duration of the unit. Students were allowed to work alongside each-other, however individual copies of work were required in each of their workbooks.
Teacher B who facilitated and implemented the reading programme to the treatment group had a vastly different philosophical approach to the programme. Throughout the reading unit, while students were required like those of the control participants, to complete and have evidence of their own work, the learning activities were often undertaken in pairs or small group environments, allowing the students to share their ideas and thoughts throughout the completion of the learning activities. Often the use of iPads also allowed for the students from the treatment group to present their completed work to the class via Apple TV which Teacher B noticed for most part the students relished in exhibiting and celebrating their work amongst their fellow students and the rich classroom discussions that would ensue from these collaborations and presentations.
121 | P a g e
Though not proven, it is possible that the environment and the teacher approach in which the participants were required to complete the reading unit in, affected the perceptions from the participants of the environment in which they see themselves learning best in.
5.5
Summary
The interviews conducted as part of the qualitative phase of the mixed methods research project indeed provided a richer and in-depth understanding of the perception held by the participants in regards to their levels of engagement and learning in reading. These findings have revealed the extent to which engagement is understood and defined by the middle school participants interviewed, as well as their perceptions around how they learn best from executing the prescribed activities, to their social learning environment. The next chapter analyses the research findings with reference to previously presented academic literature and in the closing chapter, presents recommendations that may guide educators who are currently, or looking to implement iPads into their reading programme.
122 | P a g e
Chapter Six: Discussion
6.1 Introduction
The purpose of this small-scale experimental/exploratory, mixed methods research project was to investigate the influence iPads had on reading achievement in middle school students, as well as explores the perceived learning and engagement levels of the students, in order to ascertain if the current use of iPad technology within a reading programme diversified such levels. The previous two chapters highlighted through quantitative data the disparity between the influence of iPads on reading achievement, compared with that of traditional text and written work, as well as the qualitative data exposing the diverse perceptions amongst students as to how they believe they learn best and their rudimentary knowledge of engagement in learning. This chapter validates the empirical data with academic rationale, and is discussed and presented within the four themes that were apparent during the analysis of the data: Reasoning and rationale for the influence iPads had on reading achievement, implications of incorporating technology into reading programmes for educators, the importance of engagement for learning and collaborating verses cooperating for student learner benefits. Recommendations, limitations and strategies for educators are offered in the next chapter.