Running head: QUANTITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Quantitative Article Critique

Alma Young
Georgia Southern University

QUANTITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Cubelic, C. C. & Larwin, K. H. (2014). The use of iPad technology in the kindergarten
classroom: A quasi-experimental investigation of the impact on early literacy skills.
Comprehensive Journal of Educational Research, 2(4), 47-59.

Technology in the classroom has been widely accepted as having a positive effect in
instruction. Nevertheless, Cubelic & Larwins study expand on earlier findings to specifically
examine the relationship between classroom instruction that implemented the use of iPad
technology and its impact on kindergarten students literacy skills as measured by the Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). The literature in the study addressed the use
of technology as an educational tool and how its use could not only benefit literacy instruction
but also motivation and engagement in the classroom. While the researchers provided current
and relevant literature in their study, it was very minimal, to the point where the researchers
opinions often peek through. Although the hypothesis of the study is not formally stated,
Cubelic & Larwin follow a non-directional hypothesis approach and foresee that their study will
follow the previous studies and provide positive signs regarding iPad integration in kindergarten
classrooms. Final results of their study suggest that the integration of the iPad in classroom
curriculum shows promising results. However, since Cubelic & Larwin at times display bias
throughout their study, this was to be expected.
The research question was not included at the end of the introduction but instead was
found in the methodology of the study. The research question addressed the impact of the
relationship of iPad use and literacy skills in the classroom as measured by the DIBELS battery.
In addition, the researchers also explored how different characteristics could influence the
DIBELS battery scores. These characteristics were: socioeconomic status, gender, race, and
teacher experience. While it is not noted as a variable, the researchers could have benefited from
including the age of the teacher as a potential moderator. This is due to the possibility that the

QUANTITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

least experienced teachers may have been younger in age, therefore, more up to date with the
technological trends. Similarly, age may have also affected the willingness to learn and
enthusiasm to work with new technology, as opposed to a veteran teacher. These two possibilities
could explain the reason of why teachers with the least experience had the biggest levels of
student gains.
Cubelic & Larwin used convenience sampling to select the participants for the study, in
this case, kindergarten students. The researchers reached out to 27 school districts through a
survey, then, selected eight districts since they met parameters necessary for the study, and three
of which, served racially and economically diverse populations. Lastly, the researchers, with the
help of the school districts, selected one school in each district that had at least two kindergarten
classrooms. Due to the quasi-experimental group design of the study, each classroom was given
an assignment of either treatment or control group. According to the researchers, both the control
and the intervention classrooms had a relative balance of boys and girls, as well as a comparable
racial and social diversity between. Overall, researchers seemed have follow standard procedures
and ethical practices when identifying the participants of the study, even though they did not
mention any information regarding the IRB process. While at first sight, the sample seems to be
diverse and balanced, this convenient sample may not be relative to the population, therefore, it
may be inaccurate to make generalizations of the findings identified in the study.
The iPad was the biggest component in this study, therefore, the researchers had to ensure
that teachers knew how to properly use as well as instruct with iPad technology. The
researchers attempted to establish appropriate measures by requiring the teachers in the
intervention classrooms to receive special and extensive training which included iPad operation
and application selection. Each district received 5 iPads to assist with the conduction of the

QUANTITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

study. Only students in the intervention classroom received instruction with iPad applications,
while the control group only received literacy instruction without the use of an iPad. Thus, in
order to track the progress and growth of the students literacy skills, three DIBELS assessments
were administered to both the intervention and the control classrooms during the school year;
one at the beginning, one mid-year, and at the end of the school year. Students in both
intervention and control groups received 60 minutes per week learning center time with the
iPad. Since the iPad instruction and DIBELS testing took place at each respective school,
researchers seemed respectful of the site and it did not appear to have any ethical issues
regarding data collection.
In quantitative research, variables are an extremely important part of the data analysis
outcomes. Therefore, it was surprising that Cubelic & Larwin, failed to formally mention the
variables in the study by name. Nevertheless, it can be concluded, by knowledge of quantitative
research, that the dependent variables of the study are the subtests measured by the DIBELS
battery which are: Letter Naming Fluency, First Sound Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency,
and Nonsense Word Fluency. While the independent variables of the study are: race,
socioeconomic status (free/reduced lunch), and teacher experience. Lastly, while the researchers
did not mention any confounding variables, the type of application used in the instruction, the
amount of iPads per classroom, the amount of time the students spent on the iPad, and teacher
implementation approach should have been worth mentioning as these could affect the
relationship between the teacher experience variable and the literacy skills measured by the
DIBELS battery.
All in all, the study seemed to lack structure and validity. The supporting literature, while
there, was minimal and did not fully address the need of this particular study. Also, the

QUANTITATIVE ARTICLE CRITIQUE

researchers failed to properly reference important characteristics of the study. The lack of
important information in the study, indicates that methods, measurements, and data analysis in
the study need to be re-evaluated. Data comparison from the first, second, and final assessments
showed conflicting, yet at times, promising results, and so, Cubelic & Larwin felt confident that
they showed a positive relationship between iPad and literacy skills. Still, it would have been
interesting to see individual school data analysis as it may have been able to paint a bigger or
even different picture.