Running head: QUALITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Qualitative Article Critique

Alma Young
Georgia Southern University

QUALITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Beshorner, B. & Hutchison, A. (2013). iPads as a literacy teaching tool in early childhood.
International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. 1(1), 16-24.

Beschorner & Hutchinson article describe how the use of technology, iPads in particular,
can be used in a pre-school classroom to facilitate childrens understanding of literacy as well as
teacher instruction. In the study, the researchers explain that (1) children develop literacy
knowledge through their experience with the environment and (2) the influence that technology
has on the attainment of literary knowledge. While the researchers mention that there has been
some inquiry done regarding tablet computers and childrens ability to write, there is a lack of
research that goes beyond written ability to address the influence of technology in childrens
ability to read, speak, and listen. The theoretical framework is clearly labeled and in it,
Beschorner & Hutchinson want to investigate how iPad use in a pre-school setting assists with
the development the Goodman roots of literacy (1986) which are the process of making
meaning through reading, writing, and communicating. The researchers failed to clearly state a
purpose and phenomenon of their study. At the end, the researchers were able to show promising
results, even though at times their findings felt too pragmatic to have any educational value. In
addition, the researchers were highly dependent of literature and allowed it to shape their study.
Beschorner & Hutchinson conducted the study at Independence Preschool (IPS). IPS is a
non-profit, private preschool, which is known to provide outstanding education. The researchers
do not mention how or why that particular school was selected. Nevertheless, IPS has two
kindergarten classrooms which the researchers used to conduct the study, one classroom served
18 and the other 17 children. The children participating in the study were automatically chosen
as participants since they were enrolled in one of the two pre-kindergarten classrooms. The ages
of the students ranged from four to five years old and were raised in a middle-class background.

QUALITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

The classes took place over a period of seven weeks, for two and a half hours per day. Due to
parents having a choice of the amount of days the children take part on one of the classes, one of
the classes had a smaller number of students on Fridays. The study included specific details
about the classroom layout which were irrelevant to the overall study. Additionally, there is a
lack of information regarding the setting and participants, which may have affected the validity
of the study. Also, the authors recognized the limitation of working with a homogeneous group
of middle-class children therefore, recommended that additional study with a diverse group of
children.
Each class had two teachers working with the students. Mrs. Miller and Mrs. Timmons
were lead teachers, while Mrs. Schultz assisted both teachers. Both lead teachers had very
similar teaching qualifications as they both had six years of teaching experience and neither had
experience in using an iPad in a classroom setting. Though it is not explained by the researchers,
the similarity in the teachers experience may be intentional in order to maintain consistency in
instruction between both classrooms. In order to assess the use of technology by the children, six
iPads were given to each classroom. Since the classes took place at different times of the day,
each classroom was able to utilize all six iPads for instruction. However, since the teachers were
not familiar with instruction with iPad, the researchers loaded the iPad in advance with preselected the applications (apps) for the teachers to use. Throughout the findings, teachers
strategies of instruction with the iPad may have been intentionally omitted from the study to
establish student independence. However, reference to these strategies may have help solidify the
study as it would have demonstrated the particular instances where the children became
independent.

QUALITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Through the data collection process, Beschorner & Hutchinsons were strictly nonparticipant observers. The researchers noted several forms of collected data which included:
observation twice a week for seven weeks, childrens digital work samples, semi-structured
interviews of the teachers, parent emails, and an informal survey to the parents. While multiple
sources of data usually support the reliability and trustworthiness of qualitative research, in this
case, Beschorner & Hutchinson fail to include some of the data collected which suggest bias in
the study. Additionally, there is no mention as to what protocols were used in the observations in
the classroom and interviews with the parents and teachers. Beschorner & Hutchinson data
analysis was highly descriptive and reflexive. They used an inductive approach to analyzing data
in which they used code to create categories. In order to validate the reliability of the data, the
researchers validated their findings by utilizing external researchers to perform independent
coding so that they could establish consistency throughout their analysis. However, due to the
fact that the background of the researchers is missing from the study, it is difficult to establish if
their interpretations of the study are valid.
Beschorner & Hutchinsons findings suggested that six themes that emerged from their
data. The themes were: Digital environmental print; emergent writing using digital technology;
connecting reading, writing, listening, and speaking; and social learning. These themes shadow
Goodmans roots of literacy, as it was the intention of the researchers. Along with the narrative,
the researchers included samples of the data which included children pictures and drawings.
While the roots of literacy do not include children socialization, the researchers frequently stated
that iPad assisted with socialization as the children would talk while using the tool. However,
the researchers also mentioned that children would be social even when somebody else was
using the iPad, therefore, there is a level of skepticism involving iPad and socialization. Most

QUALITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

parents would argue that anything new, regardless of being an iPad, dollhouse, bicycle, or any
other toy, when introduced to a group of children, is going to get their attention and encourage
them to talk to one another about the cool new thing.
Right from the start, the study displays blatant bias to coincide with the purpose of the
research. The researchers suggest that similar studies can be conducted with more diverse
groups, yet, they fail to mention parents and household as one of those research possibilities.
Since it is stated that children develop their knowledge and functions through their families and
their communities, wouldnt this kind of study be more beneficial if it took place in the childrens
actual environment, such as home with their parents? The overall study lacks substance,
particularly when the researchers stated their findings. In the end, Beschorner & Hutchinsons
study demonstrates its purpose even though at times felt purposeless.